Re: [cdn-nucl-l] RE: Nuclear Renaissance (Dan Meneley)

[Rod Adams <atomicrod@aol.com>]

Jaro:

My use of the term "not needed" was from an engineering perspective, not a regulatory one. Just like other kinds of people, regulators are often "sold" on an idea by a creative salesperson or marketing program that convinces them to "buy" into a new concept or idea.

Reactor designers selling products to regulated utility companies make more money if they sell more expensive products. One way to increase the price of a product without too much complaining from a regulated customer is to encourage the government to pass rules making the "improvements" mandatory. 

That strategy backfires when trying to sell the same product to someone who is not governed by the same rules and has no ability to simply pass the extra costs to consumers because they are a monopoly selling a necessary product.

I believe that is one of the reasons that South Korea was a successful dark horse in the UAE competition. They were able to offer a lower priced system not because they are willing to take a loss on a $20 billion sale, but because they are selling a system that has fewer "bells and whistles" that do nothing to improve safety and reliability. From what I can tell, Ms. Lauvergeon is quite angry about the fact that the customer did not buy into the extras. 

The situation is analogous to buying an automobile. One manufacturer may have invested huge sums of money adding anti-lock brakes, half a dozen air bags, rear mounted cameras, and other bells and whistles. They might have even worked hard to make those items seem terribly important or even succeeded in making some of them mandatory in some countries or states. What they did not figure out was that the customers make choices based on many factors, including costs, so they might not sell as many of their high priced product as they think they should.

BTW - I did not mean to imply that the core catcher was the only "feature" of the EPR that is unnecessary and adds to the cost/price of the units without adding any real value or ability to improve revenue. Double walled containment, four separate safety trains, core catcher, and probably dozens of other layers of added systems all add up to a very expensive product that might work in certain regulated areas or in areas where there is not much competition. 

Rod Adams

On Jan 20, 2010, at 9:56 PM, Jaro Franta wrote:

> Just a quick comment.....
> 
> Rod Adams wrote on January-17-10 7:23 PM
> 
> <snip>How can you improve on the proven record of Gen II reactors? Sure, the
> models "prove" a higher level of safety, but even TMI, which actually melted
> a large portion of the core, would never have needed a "core catcher". The
> fact that systems without that expensive addition would not be licensed in
> France is typical protectionism, not safety.<end>
> 
> Thanks Rod,
> 
> I'm not sure that this particular addition is what makes Areva's EPR so
> expensive, or that it is "not needed".
> 
> On the first aspect, "core catchers" appear to be gaining *regulatory*
> favour in places other than France as well:  GE's ESBWR is supposed to have
> one (the BiMAC, or "Basemat Internal Melt Arrest and Coolability device"),
> and recent models of Russian VVERs (ie. model V-320) have them too --
> notably the two units recently completed in Tianwan, and I believe the
> Indian VVERs currently under construction as well.... (its a basket made of
> Al2O3-Fe2O3-steel mixture and filled with a special material compound).
> See for example the papers & presentations from the OECD NEA CSNI Workshop
> on Severe Accident Management (Paul Scherrer Institute, September 2001).
> 
> Westinghouse's AP600 was provided with features that assure in-vessel
> retention (IVR) and coolability, and the AP1000 has followed the same
> approach -- ie. not core catchers, but very different from TMI-type Gen-II
> plants nevertheless.
> 
> IVR is easier to implement in smaller reactors -- hence the trend to core
> catchers in the large Gen-III+ designs, like the 1600MWe EPR. 
> The Westinghouse design is pretty much stuck at a maximum 1000MWe capacity,
> precisely because of their Severe Accident Management design....
> Conversely, an LWR with capacity comparable to the EPR but no core catcher,
> is basically an LWR without Severe Accident Management.
> The clear implication of Areva's comments about the Korean APR-1400 is that
> it lacks Severe Accident Management.
> 
> Anyhow, large double containment domes are more likely to be the bigger cost
> culprits.
> But these too are becoming the norm for LWRs.
> And while this novelty originates from concerns about RB impacts rather than
> LOCAs, it is the large internal volume required to deal with PHT fluid
> having a large amount of stored energy, that drives the expensive new RB
> designs....
> This is unlikely to change as long as that PHT fluid is water, or if there
> is potential for energy release in sodium-water or even sodium-air
> combustion, as in LMFRs.
> 
> By contrast, reactors with low-stored-energy PHT systems fit easily into
> small RBs -- hence making their reinforcing a relatively low cost
> proposition....  and even making underground siting feasible if desired and
> if viable in local geologic conditions....
> 
> Hopes this clears things up a bit.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Jaro
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cdn-nucl-l mailing list
> cdn-nucl-l@mailman.McMaster.CA
> http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/cdn-nucl-l