LAT: Westinghouse Reactor Design Wins U.S. OK

[rumpel]

IN BRIEF / ENERGY
Westinghouse Reactor Design Wins U.S. OK
From Bloomberg News

The Westinghouse Electric Co. unit of British Nuclear Fuels won final approval from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a nuclear power plant design that's been chosen for two possible projects in the U.S.

Approval of the AP1000 design clears the way for nuclear plant developers to submit license applications for reactors of that design. The commission hasn't approved construction of a nuclear power plant in the U.S. since 1978.

This is the entire text

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-briefs31.1dec31,1,3288223.story?coll=la-headlines-business

[NNadir]

1. Duke power will probably build at least two of these at one of the 14

sites they are evaluating for new nuclear plants. Nustart will build one at Bellafonte, MS.

Most of the existing license applications, now up to 9, last I looked, are for ESBWR reactors.

I think the AP 1000 is a good reactor. I would like to see some CANDU reactors ordered, though. They have the most flexibility for the thorium fuel cycle, where they can act as breeders.

[Dead_Parrot]

2. Blurb from Westinghouse

Here. Looks like a nice design, all things being equal. One thing that caught my eye:

The AP1000 has a site construction schedule of 36 months from first concrete to fuel loading.

Come again? 3 years?!

[Massacure]

3. Isn't three years a bit short in comparison to older nuclear power plants?

[Dead_Parrot]

4. Just a bit

IIRC, 7-10 years has been the norm historically. 3 years is a Good Thing - You loose several years while the anti-nukers and nimbys rant and dribble, so it's still going to be 5+ years before any come on-line: With a 3 yearr build time some might actually get built before we hit 400ppm CO2 and the oil runs out...

[Massacure]

5. Nimby is usually before first concrete though.

Just nitpicking. :P

[Dead_Parrot]

6. Yeah...

Once you announce the plan, you'll have a year of nimbyism before anything happens, followed by 3 months of ground preperation. Then some yahoo at Greenpeace gets an injuction slapped down halting work: Another 9 months of bullshit and lawyers ensue, then 3 years of actual construction...

I wonder if it's too late to retrain as a lawyer. There should be some rich pickings over the next 10 years. :evilgrin:

[NNadir]

7. The ABWR's in Japan, two of them, were built in the late 1990's

with a little over three years from the first concrete poured until the reactors went on line.

Both reactors are operating extremely well.

http://www.toshiba.co.jp/product/abwr/english/products/reactor/abwr02.htm

There is nothing technically difficult about meeting this time line. The main drawback to the use of nuclear energy is public ignorance, which can delay construction.

These are large reactors, over 1300 MWe per unit.