1. 2014 will be year for new nuclear. One AP1000 and one EPR will come online in China late this year. Acceptable schedule slips and budget overruns considering there were the very first builds.

    At this point, we know it’s a done deal. Nothing major ahead except market acceptance and new deals.

    Expect China to sign 4 to 5 more AP1000 and a few EPR early this year.

    They have to get the sunshine thru in Beijing, and fast. This means a colossal task of getting 8 or 9 reactors started soon.

    1. One can notice that they already have been getting a reactor started every month for last three month :

      I have a excel file with a list of their reactors, Fuqing 1 is under hot testing, Fangjiashan-1 was under pressure testing recently, Hongyanhe-3 started cold testing at end of year, as well as Yangjiang-2, Haiyang-1 was planned to start in mai, Ningde-3 should also start this year, as well as Changjiang-1 toward end of year. Plus as you said the first EPR in Taishan and first AP1000 in Sanmen.

      Including Ningde-2 that already started at beginning of January this should hopefully be 10 new reactors this year.

    2. The great thing is that anybody using todays nuclear technology is economically doomed. There will be massively cheaper nuclear reactor designs within 5 years. The latecomer is the winner.

      1. Of course, you have no citation for this assertion (and none for your claim about instabilities in fast-spectrum reactors either).

        You’re no better than EL.

        1. You’re no better than EL.


          Please … do you want to sound petty and juvenile, or is this just a case of unintended consequences?

          You are free to challenge me on substantive grounds anytime you wish. In fact, I welcome it (and if you can keep to respectful and professional conduct I’m sure our debate will go fine)!

        2. In EL’s defense; at least he, most of the time, backs up his beliefs with overly vague, outdated and sketchy fringe “studies” and advocacy pieces.

    3. Note that two sodium fast reactors Russia and India are coming on line this year. Big Oil paid off Bill Clinton to shut down US efforts in 1993 and finally the world is catching up.

      For those of you who don’t think the Obama administration is a wholly owned subsidiary of Big Oil to the point of treason, keep in mind that the US spends only $250M per annum on advanced nuclear all that on the 2030 project service date of our HGTR – the same one that China has going into service in 2017. Obama is also assisting the Chinese in building Molten Salt reactors no doubt so China will have more efficient power plants for its submarines, military ships, space vehicles, aircraft and of course civilian power.

      By contrast, Obama spends in the order of $40B on renewable R&D and $8B o the wacky zero science carbon capture scam. Given that 98% of all scientists and engineers in the power field believe that the IFR, and Molten Salt Reactor and derivatives represent by far the quickest and most feasible route to zero carbon energy with experts like David LeBlanc and Kurt Sorensen telling us that with a quarter the funds spent on carbon capture, MSR’s could be rolling of the production lines in 5 years, Obama’s antinuclear Denialism paid for by Big Oil lobbyists can only be viewed as rank treason.

      1. Seth,I’m not sure if you’re serious or just being sarcastic – a function of Poe’s Law. Proceeding on the assumption you’re serious, first, just an advisory: treason does not consist of “doing things I don’t particularly like”. Second, your assertion that ” 98% of all scientists and engineers in the power field believe that the IFR, and Molten Salt Reactor and derivatives represent by far the quickest and most feasible route to zero carbon energy” appears to me to be perhaps an exaggeration, especially regarding the MSR, of which only one has ever been built, but still very substantial for the IFR, the specific design of which has never been demonstrated (and, incidentally, debugged).

        I’m not sure if your post is meant to be sarcastic or not

        1. Actually assisting a potential enemy in the development of weapons system would be considered treason in any definition. Sorry your are having so much trouble with English.

          Actually Golbal Warming hasn’t particularly happened yet despite the 98% +of scientists that believe it will. Nobody has developed a derivative of H5N1 that will kill 75% of those infected but 98%+ of scientists believe its possible. There is no real science none which disputes the probability that MSR, HTGR and IFR tech will work when expanded from successful smaller test projects and the Chinese are betting Big time on two of them. By contrast there have been no successful fusion reactor experiments of any size and yet far more money is spent on fusion than advanced nuclear outside of China.

          Given that 60K Americans are murdered every year by air pollution, and hundreds of millions more if some kind of a warming extinction event occurred, an administration that refuses to even look at a technology that nearly 100% of science says is a very likely near term solution because it is well paid to look the other way, is beyond all doubt guilty of treason.

          1. Congratulations, I award you the starvinglion Award for random nuttery and the Ioannes Award for unsolicited partisan instigation of conflicts.

  2. Some okay news from Washington State:

    A bipartisan recommendation to explore whether the state should consider more nuclear power is going to the full Washington Senate.

    On Tuesday, four Republicans and three Democrats on the Senate Energy Committee unanimously approved a bill that would create a task force to study whether the state should host more nuclear power. “It’l be an exciting task force to be on,”said the committee’s chairman Sen.Doug Ericksen, R-Ferndale, and the bill’s sponsor.

    1. As an “outsider” from both U.S. AP1000 projects, I would guess SCANA has benefitted by being under the “radar” in comparison to Vogtle. Less of a target for anti’s.

  3. I would like to request help debunking the following accident scenario regarding Sodium Cooled Fast Reactors like the Terrapower TWR or the GE S-PRISM.

    One way a Sodium Cooled Fast Reactor could fail –
    If a Sodium Cooled Fast Reactor loses sodium coolant, for any reason, the reactivity of the reactor increases (heat generation and the temperature of the reactor goes up). If a sodium fire starts in the SFR, perhaps from momentary loss of Argon cover gas over the sodium pool, and sodium is lost due to being burned up in the fire, the reactivity and operating temperature of the Sodium Cooled Reactor goes up. As sodium coolant is burned up and lost, the Sodium Cooled Fast Reactor will tend to thermally run away and the reactor core will melt down. As a Sodium Cooled Fast Reactor burns while releasing all of the 10s of tons of hot reactive sodium onto the cement floor of the reactor building, it produces fire and a large volume of hydrogen gas. This hydrogen gas, which collects at the top of the containment building, eventually ignites. The ignition of hydrogen gas blows off the top of the containment building while ejecting fuel, fission products, and large pieces of the reactor violently out into the environment with *GREAT FORCE*.

    Dr. John Sackett who for decades led Sodium Cooled Fast Reactor development at Argonne/INL is intelligent and disarmingly nice. Sodium Cooled Fast Reactors are not safe enough to build (huge radiological inventory or fuel and fission products combined with enormous conventional explosive potential from 10s of tons of hot reactive sodium which can produce fire and a hydrogen explosion when sodium comes in contact with cement, water, or air).

    The world will not tolerate another large nuclear accident. If another INES Level 7 nuclear accident larger than Chernobyl occurs, all nuclear technology, including very safe ones like Thorium LFTRs, will thenceforth be forbidden to be built.

    In order of priority –
    1) Build the safest reactors you can think of designing.
    2) Build the reactors that produce the best value overall for the dollar (pound sterling) invested

    [1] – Sodium safety by G Manzini and F Parozzi – https://www.thefpa.co.uk/mainwebsite/resources/document/sodium%20safety.pdf

    1. Robert:
      I recently discovered:


      They discuss the PRISM and SFBR technology in detail. Reading several of the articles has made me more confident as to whether or not the technology is ready for demonstration. Still many questions remain, but I’m more comfortable with the technology at the “informed layman” level.

  4. Does anyone have any insight into why the V. C. Summer project at about $10.3 billion is so much cheaper than the Vogtle project at about $15 billion, given that they are almost carbon copies–two AP1000s apiece built at existing plants in the same region at the same time? I know Vogtle has had FOAK overruns, but even discounting these V. C. Summer’s initial budget was still a lot lower than Vogtle’s.

    1. The question I was about to ask! Vogtle’s overrun is about $1 billion, so that isn’t it.

    2. Cooling tower design? Vogtle will have the huge, hyperbolic cooling towers. Summer will have the smaller, lower-profile forced-draft coolers. I would think the Vogtle construction cost will be higher, but the Summer plants operating cost (including maintenance) for the cooling towers might be higher.

      The two Chinese AP1000s at Sanmen are said to cost a TOTAL of $6.5 billion (40 billion yuan) for BOTH plants.

    3. Large transmission build included.? Note loan guarantee max was $8..5B designed to cover a max of 80% cost.

      Also FYI the anti’s on VC Summer.

      Google “fierceenergy vc-summer-nuclear-debacle”

  5. I cant believe they move that bottom containment into place as one piece. Thats a incredible feat.

    They really contribute to their community.

    I don’t know why the cost thing is such a issue. The two new lignite units at Neurath cost about US $3.6 billion then will have huge fuel and transport costs. Then decades of huge amounts of waste and pollution.

    1. Yes, please. Opponent never talk about how costly modern coal is, and how frequently it has massive construction over-costs.

  6. “The great thing is that anybody using todays nuclear technology is economically doomed. There will be massively cheaper nuclear reactor designs within 5 years. The latecomer is the winner.”

    There may be designs now. If you were a CEO, would you invest billions of dollars to be number 1 or just go with the AP1000? It’s gutsy enough for one of these guys to be farsighted enough to go nuke, I wouldn’t count on them to push their luck.

    “Opponent never talk about how costly modern coal is”

    There are solid reasons for the costs:.

    Modern coal plants are getting very complicated. They may have ammonia injection for NOX, carbon injection for Mercury, Dry scrubbers or Trona injection and there are detailed rules for ash handling. The emissions rules are beginning to approach the Tech Specs in nuke plants. This is in addition to a normal process that is more complex than a nuclear plant. Coal plants have to transport the coal great distances, grind it up, burn it with the proper mixture of air. Huge fans are used to supply combustion air, blow the coal into the boiler and suck it out through ductwork up the stack. The thermodynamics require air heaters, economizers, feedwater heaters, soot blowers, etc.

    Think about it and compare this to fuel sitting in the pot. Coal plants may be considered more complicated than nuclear when you consider material handling.

    You can’t build any more coal plants. Gas will be exported raising the price. Those Southern plants are ahead of their time.

    Nukes will be back. I just hope they are smart enough to do it with less mindless paperwork this time.

Comments are closed.

Recent Comments from our Readers

  1. Avatar
  2. Avatar
  3. Avatar
  4. Avatar
  5. Avatar

Similar Posts