Why do you think the Barakans did APR-1400 instead APR+ ? Was it simply timing? Will KEPCO be given a shot at Barakah 5&6 and if so should those be APR+? Are there any teeth in the talk about IP lawsuits against KEPCO?
My guess is timing and conservatism. I don't think the APR+ design was that far along in 2010 when the UAE started talking to the Koreans. My dealings with Middle East Arabs is that they tend to be very risk averse. They have the money to wait and let others show the way. And nobody including the Koreans has built an APR+ even now.
It's not the anti's; it's the regualtory system. The only thing worse than one NRC is multiple NRC's. When EDF took the already horribly over-built, over-designed EPR to England for Hinkley Pt 3, The UK Office for Nuclear Regulation reportedly required 7000 design changes and added 30% to the total amount of concrete and steel. If they hadn't done this, why have an ONR?
Jack, thanks as always for fighting the good fight. Slava Devanney!
Not to pick an argument, or start a squabble, but in Jessica Loverling's latest substack she pooh-poohs the idea that regulations are the cause of spiraling prices:
There will be no meeting of the minds. The BTI crowd is determined to defend the NRC to the death. In this post, her argument seems to be sure regulation increased the costs of nuclear drastically in the 1970 but
a) we can't be sure the costs would not have risen just as fast without NRC style regualtion,
b) whatever happened inthe 70's does not apply to today.
I'm not sure its worth even debating such weak arguments. We have plenty of examples
of what happens when a young technology is regualted by market forces. Over the long run the real cost just keeps going down. Coal plants are probably closest example.
And just think what would happen if the NRC disappeared tomorrow. First, the Koreans wouldcome running in with a $4000/kW APR+. ThorCon would not be far behind. Then the oil companies, and silicon valley would jump into the fray. It would be a bloodbath, and in the end we would have should-cost nuclear.
I've talked to Jessica. She seems a nice lady. I've used her data almost daily. But some people have been fed the Two Lies for so long and so persuasively, a friendly chat is not going to change their core beliefs.
Thanks for the perspective, Jack. Tim and I reach the same conclusion in our upcoming book Roadmap to Nowhere, in which we estimate that a dedicated national nuclear buildout should cost $4,000 /kW with Gen-III / III+ LWRs, and $3,000 /kW with Gen-IVs.
Actually, it's not as simple as I claimed. Nuclear faces the unique, and for practically purposes prohibitive hurdle of an all powerful regulator who knows it will be judged on its ability to prevent releases. If we got rid of the NRC, we'd still face another nearly as expensive hurdle: the American tort system. The combination of the Intolerable Harm Lie and the ambulance chasers means any sizable release will generate scores of billions of dollars in claims, and for a Fukushima which produced no detectable radiation harm to the public we be could easily see a trillion dollars in claims.
Until we address that issue as well as the NRC, even the Koreans won't be able to save our sorry rears.
Under the American tort system, juries decide what's harm and how much its worth. In the Deepwater Horizon blowout, juries detected harm to bars that were 700 miles away fromthe spill, and to a little town inSouth Florida that is not even onthe water. The only solution is to take that decisionaway fromthem whichis what the UCert compensation plan does. Check out the Make Nuclear Cheap book.
I saw some talk about the APR+ so I thought I’d chime in with a question. The more I look into it, the more I love the APR+ design. I learned about it a couple of years back and always keep an eye out for news related to the reactor. It has very minor tweaks to the APR-1400, but enough that I think it could be very popular. Notably:
> 1500 MWe net capacity rating (making it the most powerful two loop PWR developed).
> Addition of a core catcher/cavity and passive safety.
> Fully reinforced to meet AIA
> Switch to modular construction techniques (reducing build time from 52 to 36 months).
I also talked with some people who have experience in licensing and heard it would take far less time to get through the NRC’s Part 52 assessment given all the work already done with the APR-1400.
The fact there is so much construction experience behind System 80 makes its upgrades a game changer in my opinion. When do you think we see construction of the first units using this design?
Don't know. Also a little surprised the Koreans have not built an APR+ domestically already. But then I don't understand the APR1000. One issue is the new Korean administration is not as gung ho nuclear as the last. May take a while to see how that develops.
Thanks for your insight. Also I’ll take bets they haven’t got to work constructing any yet because of the exact reason you pointed out - political. I know they had plans to build four of them, but they were cancelled because of the last anti-nuclear government. Then again maybe they will resurrect the projects in the future. The Koreans are also pretty conservative about moving to a new (or changing an existing) design unless they have to. So that may also be a factor.
I am pretty surprised though they haven’t been marketing it more for export markets. From the Korean perspective the biggest advantage of the APR+ is that has locked down all the IP and it is not reliant on other countries or companies outside for approval to export. Also It’s so similar to the APR-1400 (with the previous mentioned improvements) that I think they could justify building the first units outside Korea given the success of Barakah.
One thing I did wish to recommend is that you look into the EU-APR (European version of the APR-1400). That is rated at about 1450 MWe and was designed for the EU requirements. I think figuring out why the Czech didn’t pick that design might tell us why the APR-1000 was chosen. My theory is that the 1000 was chosen for two reasons:
1. Even though they downrated it to 1000 MWe, it technically is their most advanced APR yet because it takes the notable features from all their previous designs (APR-1400, APR+ and EU-APR).
2. The Czechs may have thought that 1400-1500 MWe from was too large for individual units based on their grid demands. So they went with something smaller thinking it would save cost.
Why do you think the Barakans did APR-1400 instead APR+ ? Was it simply timing? Will KEPCO be given a shot at Barakah 5&6 and if so should those be APR+? Are there any teeth in the talk about IP lawsuits against KEPCO?
Rob,
My guess is timing and conservatism. I don't think the APR+ design was that far along in 2010 when the UAE started talking to the Koreans. My dealings with Middle East Arabs is that they tend to be very risk averse. They have the money to wait and let others show the way. And nobody including the Koreans has built an APR+ even now.
Maybe we can finally claim "it's a proven design" and not have NIMBY/BANANA Types be allowed to sue as much?
Brett,
It's not the anti's; it's the regualtory system. The only thing worse than one NRC is multiple NRC's. When EDF took the already horribly over-built, over-designed EPR to England for Hinkley Pt 3, The UK Office for Nuclear Regulation reportedly required 7000 design changes and added 30% to the total amount of concrete and steel. If they hadn't done this, why have an ONR?
Good summary of how capital-sedtroying bureaucratic meddling can be.
Jack, thanks as always for fighting the good fight. Slava Devanney!
Not to pick an argument, or start a squabble, but in Jessica Loverling's latest substack she pooh-poohs the idea that regulations are the cause of spiraling prices:
https://jlovering.substack.com/p/trumps-nuclear-executive-orders-in
I'd sure like to get this sorted out with a meeting of the minds. Have you reached out to her about prices?
Mike,
There will be no meeting of the minds. The BTI crowd is determined to defend the NRC to the death. In this post, her argument seems to be sure regulation increased the costs of nuclear drastically in the 1970 but
a) we can't be sure the costs would not have risen just as fast without NRC style regualtion,
b) whatever happened inthe 70's does not apply to today.
I'm not sure its worth even debating such weak arguments. We have plenty of examples
of what happens when a young technology is regualted by market forces. Over the long run the real cost just keeps going down. Coal plants are probably closest example.
And just think what would happen if the NRC disappeared tomorrow. First, the Koreans wouldcome running in with a $4000/kW APR+. ThorCon would not be far behind. Then the oil companies, and silicon valley would jump into the fray. It would be a bloodbath, and in the end we would have should-cost nuclear.
I've talked to Jessica. She seems a nice lady. I've used her data almost daily. But some people have been fed the Two Lies for so long and so persuasively, a friendly chat is not going to change their core beliefs.
Thanks for the perspective, Jack. Tim and I reach the same conclusion in our upcoming book Roadmap to Nowhere, in which we estimate that a dedicated national nuclear buildout should cost $4,000 /kW with Gen-III / III+ LWRs, and $3,000 /kW with Gen-IVs.
Actually, it's not as simple as I claimed. Nuclear faces the unique, and for practically purposes prohibitive hurdle of an all powerful regulator who knows it will be judged on its ability to prevent releases. If we got rid of the NRC, we'd still face another nearly as expensive hurdle: the American tort system. The combination of the Intolerable Harm Lie and the ambulance chasers means any sizable release will generate scores of billions of dollars in claims, and for a Fukushima which produced no detectable radiation harm to the public we be could easily see a trillion dollars in claims.
Until we address that issue as well as the NRC, even the Koreans won't be able to save our sorry rears.
Exactly. And that's why we call it a should-cost :)
Would a case or two kicked out of the courts with "harm that cannot be detected" help for the future? Setting the precedence.
msxc,
Under the American tort system, juries decide what's harm and how much its worth. In the Deepwater Horizon blowout, juries detected harm to bars that were 700 miles away fromthe spill, and to a little town inSouth Florida that is not even onthe water. The only solution is to take that decisionaway fromthem whichis what the UCert compensation plan does. Check out the Make Nuclear Cheap book.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0F32KLXRJ
Hi Jack!
I saw some talk about the APR+ so I thought I’d chime in with a question. The more I look into it, the more I love the APR+ design. I learned about it a couple of years back and always keep an eye out for news related to the reactor. It has very minor tweaks to the APR-1400, but enough that I think it could be very popular. Notably:
> 1500 MWe net capacity rating (making it the most powerful two loop PWR developed).
> Addition of a core catcher/cavity and passive safety.
> Fully reinforced to meet AIA
> Switch to modular construction techniques (reducing build time from 52 to 36 months).
I also talked with some people who have experience in licensing and heard it would take far less time to get through the NRC’s Part 52 assessment given all the work already done with the APR-1400.
The fact there is so much construction experience behind System 80 makes its upgrades a game changer in my opinion. When do you think we see construction of the first units using this design?
Don't know. Also a little surprised the Koreans have not built an APR+ domestically already. But then I don't understand the APR1000. One issue is the new Korean administration is not as gung ho nuclear as the last. May take a while to see how that develops.
Thanks for your insight. Also I’ll take bets they haven’t got to work constructing any yet because of the exact reason you pointed out - political. I know they had plans to build four of them, but they were cancelled because of the last anti-nuclear government. Then again maybe they will resurrect the projects in the future. The Koreans are also pretty conservative about moving to a new (or changing an existing) design unless they have to. So that may also be a factor.
I am pretty surprised though they haven’t been marketing it more for export markets. From the Korean perspective the biggest advantage of the APR+ is that has locked down all the IP and it is not reliant on other countries or companies outside for approval to export. Also It’s so similar to the APR-1400 (with the previous mentioned improvements) that I think they could justify building the first units outside Korea given the success of Barakah.
One thing I did wish to recommend is that you look into the EU-APR (European version of the APR-1400). That is rated at about 1450 MWe and was designed for the EU requirements. I think figuring out why the Czech didn’t pick that design might tell us why the APR-1000 was chosen. My theory is that the 1000 was chosen for two reasons:
1. Even though they downrated it to 1000 MWe, it technically is their most advanced APR yet because it takes the notable features from all their previous designs (APR-1400, APR+ and EU-APR).
2. The Czechs may have thought that 1400-1500 MWe from was too large for individual units based on their grid demands. So they went with something smaller thinking it would save cost.
Just a theory though. Thanks again!