Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Dec 18, 2017 3:41 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 40 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sep 17, 2014 2:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5056
Yeeey! Good news. The NRC has finally certified the ESBWR:

http://www.nei.org/News-Media/News/News ... BWR-Design

Quote:
NRC Certifies GE Hitachi ESBWR Design

ESBWR has passively safe natural circulation cooling features
Combined license applicants can directly reference certified design
DTE Energy, Dominion seeking licenses for potential ESBWR projects

Sept. 16, 2014—The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved its final rule certifying GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy’s Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor design, confirming the reactor’s ability to operate safely.

The ESBWR is the fifth reactor to achieve NRC design certification. This means that applicants for a nuclear power plant license can reference the design without needing to submit safety information on the design.

“The NRC’s safety certification of the ESBWR design is a tremendous milestone and a testimony to GE Hitachi’s technological excellence,” Nuclear Energy Institute Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Anthony Pietrangelo said. “Approval of this innovative, advanced-design reactor will help make it possible for America to continue to rely on nuclear energy as a carbon-free source of affordable, around-the-clock electricity. Our nation’s electricity diversity and energy security will be the stronger for it.”

The NRC is reviewing license applications from two U.S. utilities that are considering the design. In 2008, DTE Energy selected the ESBWR for a proposed nuclear power plant at its Fermi site in Michigan. Last year, Dominion selected the design for a potential third reactor at its North Anna nuclear plant site in Virginia.

“We are pleased that GE Hitachi has achieved this milestone in obtaining NRC certification for its ESBWR reactor design. This is yet another step in the process that is required for us to obtain a combined operating license for North Anna Unit 3,” Dominion Generation CEO David Christian said. He added that although the company has not yet decided to build the new reactor, Dominion will consider its next steps after the NRC issues a license for the proposed facility, currently projected by 2016.

DTE’s Ron May, executive vice president of major enterprise projects, also hailed the milestone.

“We congratulate GE Hitachi on the attainment of design approval for its ESBWR,” May said. “This is an important milestone for both GE Hitachi and us as we near the final stages of obtaining a combined license from the NRC for a potential ESBWR unit at our Fermi site.”

The ESBWR is a 1,594-megawatt-electric boiling water reactor with passive safety systems that include natural circulation cooling without the need for operator intervention or AC power. GE Hitachi submitted its application for certification of the design in 2005. While NRC certification is directly applicable only to reactors licensed in the United States, NRC approval carries weight with international customers. The Nuclear Power Corp. of India Ltd. has selected a site in the southeastern state of Andhra Pradesh for the potential construction of several ESBWRs.

“Design certification will not only benefit our U.S. customers, it marks a crucial step forward for the ESBWR’s commercial advancement globally,” said Carolina Reda, president and CEO of GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy. “Achieving design certification means the ESBWR, the world’s safety reactor, can now become a reality.”

The ESBWR final design certification rule will go into effect 30 days after its publication in the Federal Register.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sep 17, 2014 5:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1495
Hurrah!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sep 17, 2014 10:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5056
Now also on WNN:

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-De ... 01401.html

By far the most exciting news in weeks.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 25, 2014 3:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5056
NRC Issues Final Safety Report for Fermi Unit 3


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 26, 2014 5:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5056
The NRC website has the documents for the Fermi 3 license application.

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactor ... ments.html

It appears to be several THOUSAND pages in all. Have we completely lost our minds?

The project cost is quoted as $10 billion. For a single ESBWR unit, the simplest reactor offering on the market today.

What's going wrong here?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 26, 2014 5:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Jan 29, 2014 4:05 am
Posts: 269
Location: Vitoria-ES-Brazil
Cyril R wrote:
The NRC website has the documents for the Fermi 3 license application.

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactor ... ments.html

It appears to be several THOUSAND pages in all. Have we completely lost our minds?

The project cost is quoted as $10 billion. For a single ESBWR unit, the simplest reactor offering on the market today.

What's going wrong here?

I wonder how much just in NRC hourly fees (at US$ 300/hr) alone was spent on this...

_________________
Looking for companies working to change the world.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 26, 2014 6:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5056
macpacheco wrote:
Cyril R wrote:
The NRC website has the documents for the Fermi 3 license application.

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactor ... ments.html

It appears to be several THOUSAND pages in all. Have we completely lost our minds?

The project cost is quoted as $10 billion. For a single ESBWR unit, the simplest reactor offering on the market today.

What's going wrong here?

I wonder how much just in NRC hourly fees (at US$ 300/hr) alone was spent on this...


It seems relatively small to me, on this scale.

Suppose the NRC has declared a million hours at $300/h. That's crazy. Still "only" 0.3 billion out of 10.

In a rational world and healthy market I think this kind of reactor project would cost less than 1 billion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 28, 2014 12:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Oct 28, 2013 12:24 am
Posts: 256
The first ESBWR will cost 10 billions $, did i understood well ? Did I missed something ? This is 6500 $/kWe, I was joking on an other thread about imagining the ESBWR being 2 times more costly than the N4, in fact it is more than 3 times more costly for a reactor much more simple than the N4 ... physically this is really absurd, we are in the thirteenth dimension. Does anyone have an explanation about this price ? Is that due to the financing conditions ? Can we being competitive with state financing and by considering a 80 years lifetime from the beginning ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 28, 2014 7:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2241
6500$/kWh. The Indian PWHR is quoted@ 1700, it may go upto 2500 with inflation. Why should they buy it or the French EPR when they can build 2 of the PHWR for less than half the price?
I expect the U.S. or the British to go for the China made stuff too"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 28, 2014 7:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Oct 28, 2013 12:24 am
Posts: 256
Quote:
6500$/kWh. The Indian PWHR is quoted@ 1700, it may go upto 2500 with inflation. Why should they buy it or the French EPR when they can build 2 of the PHWR for less than half the price?
I expect the U.S. or the British to go for the China made stuff too"


The design is not responsible for this cost. If you try to build the Indian PHWR in US or UK it will surely cost even more than this ESBWR. 10 billions $ is not the real price of this reactor. Let us hope that with more experience in construction the costs will decrease. The ESBWR built in series can surely go around 2500 $/kWe.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 26, 2015 5:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5056
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail. ... 356d689895

Quote:
On February 4, 2015, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) conducted an evidentiary hearing at NRC headquarters in Rockville, Maryland, on uncontested issues involving the combined license (COL) application for the proposed Fermi Unit 3 near Monroe, Michigan. The Fermi 3 COL application references the design certification for the Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR). The NRC Staff issued the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Fermi 3 in January 2013, and the Final Safety Evaluation Report in November 2014. The so-called “mandatory” hearing represents one of the final steps in the NRC’s comprehensive evaluation of the proposed new unit. During the hearing, the applicant indicated that it has spent more than 250,000 man-hours pursuing the COL, while the NRC Staff noted that its review totaled approximately 52,000 hours on safety issues and another 17,000 hours on the environmental review, and involved more than 1,000 technical specialists.


The idea behind a standard design certification is that it takes little effort to license sites. Clearly that's not the case here. 250,000 man hours on the applicant side alone! 52,000 hours of review time for the NRC. On a standardized boiler.

Is this a nuclear power project or a government employment program?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 27, 2015 3:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Sep 02, 2009 10:24 am
Posts: 508
Looking through UK stuff:

http://www.onr.org.uk/new-reactors/repo ... dec-14.pdf

Page 5:
Quote:
SUMMARY OF REGULATOR CHARGES
[AWAITING INFORMATION]
UK ABWR
Office for Nuclear Regulation:
Charges for the quarter October - December 2014: £1,638,505
Cumulative charges: £7,276,569
Environment Agency:
Charges for the quarter October - December 2014: £347,076
Cumulative charges: £1,832,043
AP1000
Office for Nuclear Regulation:
Charges for the quarter October – December 2014 : £456,093
Cumulative charges: £23,944,879
Environment Agency:
Charges for the quarter October - December 2014: £24,708
Cumulative charges: £2,389,358


It looks like AP1000 ran into issues, whereas UK ABWR is going more sensibly. The big question is whether a MSR would be cheaper - as it's simpler and inherently safer, or more expensive, as it's novel.

Contracts let for UK ABWR in last quarter:

Quote:

Topic Area Contractor / Organisation /Value
Reactor Chemistry and Internal Hazards – technical support on iodine behaviour for the UK ABWR.
National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL) £52,753
Probabilistic Safety Analysis - technical support on PSA of the UK ABWR.
ERIN Engineering £732,253
Reactor chemistry - technical support on materials selection and degradation for the UK ABWR.
AMEC £58,360
Reactor chemistry – technical support on chemistry modelling for the UK ABWR
National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL) £146,373
Reactor chemistry – technical support on radioactive source terms for the UK ABWR
Studsvik UK Ltd £90,000
Mechanical Engineering – technical support to the review of UK ABWR Step 3 & 4
AMEC £710,367
Probabilistic Safety Analysis Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Risk and Reliability Users Group Membership in order to
have access to CAFTA 6.0 specialist software for PSA.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) £21,600
Independent Dose Assessment for public and non-human species (contract value dependent on future developments).
Quintessa £58,464


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 27, 2015 7:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5056
Thanks Alex. These figures defy belief. It is getting more and more clear what the size of the bureaucracy is. The cost itself don't bother me so much, a few tens of millions for a GWe power station is ok, but the bureaucracy behind it and the enormous delays before the first shovel ever even hits the ground...

as for a million dollars for a PSA. Clearly I have to increase my rates. I have been doing these for under $10k. Though I can't imagine why they need "technical support" on a paper analysis. Its a paper analysis.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 27, 2015 2:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sep 02, 2009 10:24 am
Posts: 508
Looking back through the web site:
http://www.onr.org.uk/new-reactors/repo ... 2-0813.pdf

Quote:
6 Our assessment of the UK EPRTM took tens of thousands of staff hours and EDF and
AREVA submitted thousands of documents for our examination.


That seems as bad as the NRC's 52,000 hours. The way they highlight it suggests they measure success by how many days have been spent and how many pages of reports have been done. (I recall the "Thud factor" for public sector bids). If UK-ABWR costs £9 million to date (ONR and EA costs), that's about 10,000-15,000 man days!

From the Q3 2012 report:
Quote:
WESTINGHOUSE PAUSE
21
Westinghouse will not address any of the GDA Issues until it secures a UK customer. Accordingly, we have undertaken no work on the AP1000® reactor during 2012.


The 4 stage EPR reports are here:
http://www.onr.org.uk/new-reactors/uk-epr/reports.htm

A description of the process here:
http://www.onr.org.uk/new-reactors/ngn03.pdf

Quote:
Step 1: Preparation of the Design, Safety Case and Security Submissions...............................8
Step 2: Fundamental Design, Safety Case and Security Claims Overview................................9
Step 3: Overall Design, Safety Case and Security Arguments Review....................................11
Step 4: Detailed Design, Safety Case and Security Evidence Assessment ..............................14


A start-up might aim to do steps 1 and 2, then look for sites and funding.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 28, 2015 2:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 12, 2011 2:24 pm
Posts: 87
Location: Taunusstein, Germany
Cyril R wrote:
The NRC website has the documents for the Fermi 3 license application.

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactor ... ments.html

It appears to be several THOUSAND pages in all. Have we completely lost our minds?

The project cost is quoted as $10 billion. For a single ESBWR unit, the simplest reactor offering on the market today.

What's going wrong here?


May I ask where you found this number? I only found this document (page 7):
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1011/ML101110278.pdf

Quote:
Overnight Construction Cost
Power Block (Nuclear Island and Turbine Island) $2,500 to 3,000/kWe
Owners’ Cost (Balance of Plant, Circulating
Water Cooling System, Site Preparation,
Transmission, and Contingency)
$1,000 to 1,500/kWe
Nuclear fuel inventory cost for first core $306 million
Total estimated cost $3,500 to 4,500/kWe


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 40 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group