Sizewell B Goes to Russian Fuel

You can understand it, with the expense of keeping all that manufacturing equipment for one plant’s fuel, but still–the Russians? Couldn’t they get it from us?

One thing is certain: if the American nuclear industry doesn’t immediately forget any illusions that it is special and start acting like an industry, they’ll stagnate just like they have over the past 35 years.
The nuclear industry outside of Russia is the only industry in the world to respond to a great opportunity for growth by screaming “SLOW DOWN!” Well, guess what. You’re never going to have everything you need to be perfect, and your suppliers that you so often complain about move at the normal speed for private industry–meaning a complete turnaround in two years is not unheard of–instead of yours. Don’t worry about them. Get the orders, start innovating, and the workers will come as soon as there are jobs for them.

Remember: if not for Chernobyl–meaning, if they had banned the RBMK in 1950 like we did, and if the Soviet military hadn’t tried to build power plants out of their bomb factories–the Russian nuclear industry would have a perfect safety record. They do have much better financial and management performance. There are lessons to be learned from the Russians; they’re getting these orders for a reason.
And if you don’t get going, the Russians are going to come over here, get the VVER-1000 certified by the NRC, and build a fleet. Do you really want that?

Link.

Filed under Fuel Cycle, Industry Performance, International

Posted on June 3, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 1 Comment »

Bookmark and Share

Ontario Update

They’ve hired some consultants to do a comparison of the major available reactor designs.

I disagree with the Society of Energy Professionals, however, and fully expect that McKinsey will rate AECL’s Canadian nuclear technology near the bottom. The current designs remove the CANDU’s traditional commercial advantages and are competitive only if there is a requirement to consume American-style reactors’ waste–which Canada doesn’t have. They could build a fleet down here, but in places without a lot of LWR waste, they might as well just build fast breeders.

Link.

Filed under Fuel Cycle, Industry Performance, International, New Build

Posted on June 3, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 1 Comment »

Bookmark and Share

American Centrifuge Plant Under Construction

As of May 31.

USEC has also committed to keeping Paducah open for another five years. The American Centrifuge Plant will not be fully operational until at least 2012; they say it will start enriching uranium in 2009.

Link.

Filed under Fuel Cycle, Industry Performance, New Build

Posted on June 3, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

Bookmark and Share

Vogtle PSC Hearing Coming Up

On June 12 at 10 AM in their hearing room at 244 Washington Street SW, Atlanta (via WAND).

As we saw with Shoreham, this is where a lot of decisions get made while we focus on NRC hearings. We really need a power structure analysis on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis if we are to organize effectively in support of new build.

Filed under Activism, New Build, Politics and Regulation

Posted on June 3, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

Bookmark and Share

Harris Deferred

Yep.

This is the first time that’s happened in the “nuclear renaissance,” and it won’t be the last time. Apparently a conservation program will be cheaper for the utility, since all the capital investments involved will be made by consumers.

They were originally going to submit a COL application later this year; this presumably pushes it back to 2009.

More from We Support Lee.

Filed under Alternatives, Economics, Industry Performance, New Build

Posted on May 31, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

Bookmark and Share

Olkiluoto Unit 4 Proposed

They’re planning to cut through the red tape by summer 2008, with construction starting around 2013 and operation in 2018. That leaves five years for the Finnish government to make a decision.

I again state my firm belief that there is nothing about a nuclear power plant that merits all this bureaucratic baloney. If the thing burned oil it’d be up and running in two years, but a nuclear power plant with less environmental impact by far must jump through hoops that include a full vote of the Finnish Parliament.

Link.

Filed under International, New Build, Nuclear Exceptionalism, Politics and Regulation

Posted on May 31, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

Bookmark and Share

Sites Under Consideration in South Africa

“-Thyspunt, near Cape St Francis.
-Bantamsklip, 10 km southeast of Pearly Beach.
-Duynefontein, next to Koeberg in the Western Cape.
-Brazil, in the Northern Cape.
-Skulpfontein, in the Northern Cape.”

-Link.

Designs were not mentioned, but presumably the AP1000, EPR, and ESBWR are under consideration (PWRs are the only type mentioned).
This doesn’t cover the pebble-bed reactors also proposed for South Africa.

Filed under International, New Build

Posted on May 31, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

Bookmark and Share

UK Government Finances and Decommissioning

The Department of Trade and Industry has sold its $4 billion share in British Energy and placed the profits in a fund to manage the dismantling of a fleet of reactors built to an ill-advised reactor design that has been compared to the Stanley Steamer. A similar design was built once in the United States (Colorado’s Fort St. Vrain), with even worse results.

Link.

Filed under Decommissioning, Economics, Financing, International

Posted on May 31, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

Bookmark and Share

"Two or Three More Reactors" for TVA

Presumably, Watts Bar 2 and Bellefonte 1-2. “Potentially.”

Let’s just hope they don’t divide their attention and pull a “Whoops.”

Link.

Filed under Good Signs, Industry Performance, New Build

Posted on May 31, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

Bookmark and Share

Yet Again, The Difference Between Safety and Performance

This Press of Atlantic City article starts with the predictable “A month after receiving a clean bill of health from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,” neglecting the fact that they, well, did, and that determination still applies.

The plant can shut down without there being a safety problem. If there is a technical problem that prevents them from being able to efficiently generate electricity, the utility will shut the plant down, replace the part in question, and bring it back up. There is nothing about such a problem that would cause a nuclear accident–I refer you to the overblown reaction to an even less-relevant electrical problem at the Indian Point plant in New York.

Chill out.

Filed under Industry Performance, Safety

Posted on May 31, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

Bookmark and Share
Nuclear Advocacy Webring
Ring Owner: Nuclear is Our Future Site: Nuclear is Our Future
Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet
Get Your Free Web Ring
by Bravenet.com
taking viagra woman; Order Viagra Cheap gerneric viagra cheap herbal herbal viagra viagra viagra 576.