3 ms·

The next good nuclear news from Finland will hopefully be about the new reactor entering production, currently expected in the next June. The EPR construction h

The next good nuclear news from Finland will hopefully be about the new reactor entering production, currently expected in the next June. The EPR construction has been impossibly overtime and over budget, but one would hope constructing more of the same type of unit should be faster. Right?

hannob 5y ago
Wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Unit_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan...
- Maakuth 5y ago
  I know OL3 is not the only EPR under construction. Flamanville construction was started too early though, to augment much of the lessons learned from the other plant's construction. In fact I think both plants have had quite similar problems. It is these things that I would expect to be better understood in the possible future EPR projects.
- liotier 5y ago
  Flamanville and Olkiluoto are the lead ships in that class. They pay for the loss of institutional knowledge since building the previous generation in France. Now with that experience the new EPR design (EPR 2) improves for the coming series.
Factorium 5y ago
The operating costs of Nuclear are minimal, the problem is planning, building, regulating, decommissioning them. On that basis, modular nuclear reactors seem to make the most sense. Rolls Royce in the UK looks to be onto a winner with their 470mw SMR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_small_modular_reactor_designs#Rolls-Royce_SMR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_small_modular_reactor_... 2 years site prep, 2 years building the unit. £1.8 billion per unit. They could be mass produced with the right investment. Operate them for 60 years each, take out the remaining fuel, and just leave the rest of the power plant in the ground forever. We should be mass producing these units right now and installing them across the EU, UK, USA, Australia. We could be building 100 a year with the right investment.

hannob 5y ago

Wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Unit_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan...

Maakuth 5y ago
I know OL3 is not the only EPR under construction. Flamanville construction was started too early though, to augment much of the lessons learned from the other plant's construction. In fact I think both plants have had quite similar problems. It is these things that I would expect to be better understood in the possible future EPR projects.
liotier 5y ago
Flamanville and Olkiluoto are the lead ships in that class. They pay for the loss of institutional knowledge since building the previous generation in France. Now with that experience the new EPR design (EPR 2) improves for the coming series.

Factorium 5y ago

The operating costs of Nuclear are minimal, the problem is planning, building, regulating, decommissioning them. On that basis, modular nuclear reactors seem to make the most sense. Rolls Royce in the UK looks to be onto a winner with their 470mw SMR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_small_modular_reactor_designs#Rolls-Royce_SMR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_small_modular_reactor_... 2 years site prep, 2 years building the unit. £1.8 billion per unit. They could be mass produced with the right investment. Operate them for 60 years each, take out the remaining fuel, and just leave the rest of the power plant in the ground forever. We should be mass producing these units right now and installing them across the EU, UK, USA, Australia. We could be building 100 a year with the right investment.