Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Aug 18, 2018 1:28 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 72 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mar 27, 2015 4:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2237
Getting back to the UK and their power stations.
EPR is not only costly but also leading to criticism by European neighbors. They should think of other options.
PRISM fast reactor has been offered. It should be considered carefully.
Their AGRs can be continued with only a change of fuel. The next fuel could be a thorium-Pu fuel. Basic reactor design need not be changed. It could cost less than the EPR.
SMSR by Moltex is of UK origin and could be given a serious consideration.
PRISM fast reactor could be a logical solution to the owners of biggest RG plutonium stocks.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 27, 2015 4:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Sep 02, 2009 10:24 am
Posts: 511
Other Gen III options are being considered:

This is what's in the ONR pipeline: http://www.onr.org.uk/new-reactors/timeline.htm

Current plans for operation by 2030 are
Design - Location - Average power
EPR x 2 - Hinkley C - 3200MWe
EPR x 2 - Sizewell C - 3200MWe
ABWR x 2 - Wylfa Newydd - 2600MWe
EPR x 2 or AP1000 x 3 - Oldbury B - 2600MWe
AP1000 x 3 - Moorside - 3400MWe

In discussion:
C-AP1400 x 2 - Bradwell - 3000MWe

With Sizewell B that should be 19.2GW by around 2030.

- http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-kent-30898444 Dungeness B life extended from 2018 to 2028. In 2028 there should be a 2GW connection point free at Dungeness.
- PRISM seems to have dropped off the radar.
- How well developed is SMSR from Moltex? When can it start the GDA process?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 27, 2015 5:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1546
And so we end up with an overpriced reactor zoo.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 27, 2015 4:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 14, 2013 2:34 pm
Posts: 177
Location: Here and There
"And so we end up with an overpriced reactor zoo."

The things aren't built yet. The British Empire gave the world the industrial revolution. I'd like to think there's still the know-how to get some reactors built. This is particularly true when others have made the mistakes for them.

How long does it take to pay off a nuke plant? Even with a high up front capital cost when they are paid off down the road, the power will be clean and cheap. It ought to be an advantage over other manufacturing nations like say Germany.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 27, 2015 4:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1546
Except they won't be cheap.
Private capital will be used, and it has been guaranteed a sinecure for the next three decades.

And we will end up with three, possibly four types.
So there will be no kind of learning effect there.

Not to mention EPR and AP-1000 look to be in serious trouble.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 28, 2015 12:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 14, 2013 2:34 pm
Posts: 177
Location: Here and There
"Not to mention EPR and AP-1000 look to be in serious trouble."

Well - I read on another site that the AP-1000 has Reactor Coolant Pump (RCP) troubles. I think this is certainly solvable and should be out of the way before Britain has this as a concern. It is a joint Japanese - US company so technology issues should certainly be dealt with in an appropriate manner.

The EPR has been discussed on this site on another post. Even after skimming over it again, i don't understand their real problem. I thought the EPR was an evolutionary design and not a major change. I get the idea that the issue is more of one of bad management than anything else. If the people of Britain and France can build the Concord and the Chunnel, they ought to be able to work together to get a few power stations built.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 28, 2015 12:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1546
Both Concorde and the Chunnel came in at several times their original budget and years late.

These reactors, if they ever get finished, will just lock in enormous returns for the operators.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 28, 2015 6:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 14, 2013 2:34 pm
Posts: 177
Location: Here and There
"These reactors, if they ever get finished, will just lock in enormous returns for the operators."

Once they are running, pay them a fair share and nationalize them in the interests of national security.

They may not overrun. Seems like some of these nuke projects are due for some better runs.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 29, 2015 3:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Sep 02, 2009 10:24 am
Posts: 511
E Ireland wrote:
Both Concorde and the Chunnel came in at several times their original budget and years late.

These reactors, if they ever get finished, will just lock in enormous returns for the operators.


If the reactors come in as over budget as Concorde and the Chunnel, then they won't lock in any returns for the operators.

If however they are more in line with recent builds - like Cross Rail, the Olympic venues, Terminal 5, then they'll come in on budget and yes, enormous returns for the operators.

The cost estimates for the EPR are similar to the as-built costs from Olkiluoto, where everything that could go wrong did go (is going) wrong. I'd expect it to come in comfortably within (the inflated) budget.

The new builds will provide electricity at £70-90/MWh. That's expensive, but cheaper than wind power with added storage or gas back up. Maybe even cheaper than gas power if gas prices rise.

So they might look like a great investment. On the other hand, if we can build a MSR by 2030, delivering electricity at £40/MWh, these Gen III+ reactors will look like a silly idea.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 30, 2015 4:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2237
For cheaper reactors they have to go to the
Russians, the biggest builders and exporters, or
The Chinese, the biggest builders and emerging exporters.
Would they dare?
They could try out the PRISM, and then buy the company building them. There will not be any competition this early.
Their short-cut to Gen-IV!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 30, 2015 6:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1546
jagdish wrote:
For cheaper reactors they have to go to the
Russians, the biggest builders and exporters, or

Hail Putin! Tsar of all the Russias!

I doubt anyone will ever support building Russian reactors, for two reasons - 1> Russian reactors are tarred by association with the RBMK, 2> It would not give is freedom from the Russian boot at our throat.

jagdish wrote:
The Chinese, the biggest builders and emerging exporters.
Would they dare?

Considering the general opinion of Chinese design and engineering, I think people would trust ex-Soviet designs over Chinese knockoffs.
jagdish wrote:
They could try out the PRISM, and then buy the company building them. There will not be any competition this early.
Their short-cut to Gen-IV!

The problem with that is its an unproven design, its a disaster waiting to happen.
Whilst it might be good to build some Gen IV designs, if for no other reason than to start to produce more fissiles, the bulk of the programme is going to have to be LWRs if we want to start soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 30, 2015 8:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 14, 2013 2:34 pm
Posts: 177
Location: Here and There
Earlier reactors were built without enormous cost overruns.

What is different today?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 30, 2015 8:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1546
Eino wrote:
Earlier reactors were built without enormous cost overruns.

What is different today?

Well the AGR overran to an enormous extent, but that was largely due to being built in the 70s when inflation was running 15%. In real terms it didn't overrun that much.

Anyway - they were built by the state with low interest capital (so delays didn't blow the cost up to a huge extent), they were built as part of a serial programme, so experience was gained. And to a large extent they were built because the Government decreed they would be built, so they went out of there way to get them built rapidly and to budget. (Regulators were instructed to do their jobs as fast as possible and so on).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 31, 2015 11:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Sep 02, 2009 10:24 am
Posts: 511
jagdish wrote:
Quote:
For cheaper reactors they have to go to the
Russians, the biggest builders and exporters, or


Who is "they"? The UK Government isn't going to build any reactors.

As listed above, the Chinese are negotiating to build reactors in the UK:

C-AP1400 x 2 - Bradwell - 3000MWe

Chinese reactors will be a lot more acceptable than Russian reactors and if they pass GDA then they'll be considerd safe.

PRISM reactors are not yet in line for GDA - it would be risky as we don't know how the NRA will view Sodium mixing with air.

From a UK perspective, it would be nice to see some MSRs going through GDA in the 2017-2022 timeframe.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 31, 2015 12:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2237
The British developed the AGR, which are the current mainstay of nuclear power for them. Now they are buying the costliest reactors in the world.
A design at the prototype stage, the PRISM, could be a good investment.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 72 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  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