Another good job technically. But once again you guys simply won't acknowledge teh crippling impact of an auto-genocidally misguided autocratic regulatory system, The UK could have had two ABWR's at Wylfa. Here's what happened around 2017.
Yet another episode that needs a couple of follow-ups. Really like the ABWR but looking at the PRIS data for the Japanese ABWRs it does not have that impressive of capacity factor before they were shut down. Would be curious to know the operational challenges.
Hitachi GE tried to sell two of the HI-ABWR in Wales but gave up due to regulatory and financing issues. Really like the Toshiba and Hitachi designs but it looks like they added a lot of redundancy to please the British regulators. It looks like they took the passive safety features of the ESBWR and eliminated the natural circulation with with RIPs. The ESBWR reactor vessel is 6 meters taller than the ABWR RV. Based on what James was talking about how height affects seismic and construction costs I would be curious to know if having RIPs saves money as compared to natural circulation with at least a 18 feet higher structure.
Make sense 👍. The one addition I would make is that financing generally correlates with a belief in the first three of these. Financing is relatively inexpensive if you have trusted institutions, are on time, and can deliver consistent results.
Yes. The main issue for me has nothing to do with the reactor itself; but rather, how we are able to design & build large structures in an expedited manner with sufficient flexibility to make changes (and on budget).
As of today, there are new financial systems, new political hurdles & new regulatory environments that all work together to limit the speed at which reactors can be built. So the question is was the technology the one thing that failed before the institutional framework did?
From what the CEO of Copenhagen Atomics stated, they get lots of positive interest from investors, and they're ready to invest until they talk to the regulators who do their best to undermine any enthusiasm.
Simple truth, regulators are not there for public health & safety, they're there to protect the interests of the giant multi-nationals, large corporate donors and big financial institutions. And the last thing on Earth they want is any competition from SMEs.
If they really cared about public health and safety or radiation emissions, how on Earth would they be happily trying their damnedest to start a nuclear war with Russia, attacking NPPs in Ukraine and Russia. And now doing the same in Iran, blowing up nuclear sites, attacking NPPs and making it 100% clear to every small country, if you don't have a nuclear umbrella, you will be attacked. That sure does lots for nuclear health & safety. And that includes the IAEA.
Another good job technically. But once again you guys simply won't acknowledge teh crippling impact of an auto-genocidally misguided autocratic regulatory system, The UK could have had two ABWR's at Wylfa. Here's what happened around 2017.
https://jackdevanney.substack.com/p/alara-in-action-the-abwr-vents
We won't ahve anything close to should-nuclear until we replace that system.
Pass the Nucelar Reorganization Act.
Excellent phrase: “auto-genocidally misguided autocratic regulatory system”. Sums it up just about right.
Yet another episode that needs a couple of follow-ups. Really like the ABWR but looking at the PRIS data for the Japanese ABWRs it does not have that impressive of capacity factor before they were shut down. Would be curious to know the operational challenges.
Would an ABWR with added isolation condensers be possible?
Forced circulation in normal opperation, passive emergency decay heat removal...
Toshiba has the Innovative ABWR (iBR) and Hitachi has the Highly Innovative BWR (HI-ABWR).
Don’t forget about the expi-aladocious ABWR
Do those have the feature I asked about?
Edit: looks like. Why are we not spamming these out already?
Hitachi GE tried to sell two of the HI-ABWR in Wales but gave up due to regulatory and financing issues. Really like the Toshiba and Hitachi designs but it looks like they added a lot of redundancy to please the British regulators. It looks like they took the passive safety features of the ESBWR and eliminated the natural circulation with with RIPs. The ESBWR reactor vessel is 6 meters taller than the ABWR RV. Based on what James was talking about how height affects seismic and construction costs I would be curious to know if having RIPs saves money as compared to natural circulation with at least a 18 feet higher structure.
Also greatly reduced FOAK risk if they are much closer in design...
Make sense 👍. The one addition I would make is that financing generally correlates with a belief in the first three of these. Financing is relatively inexpensive if you have trusted institutions, are on time, and can deliver consistent results.
Yes. The main issue for me has nothing to do with the reactor itself; but rather, how we are able to design & build large structures in an expedited manner with sufficient flexibility to make changes (and on budget).
As of today, there are new financial systems, new political hurdles & new regulatory environments that all work together to limit the speed at which reactors can be built. So the question is was the technology the one thing that failed before the institutional framework did?
I would argue that financing > competent development orgs > reactor design > regulation is the order in which to prioritize a nuclear revival.
From what the CEO of Copenhagen Atomics stated, they get lots of positive interest from investors, and they're ready to invest until they talk to the regulators who do their best to undermine any enthusiasm.
Simple truth, regulators are not there for public health & safety, they're there to protect the interests of the giant multi-nationals, large corporate donors and big financial institutions. And the last thing on Earth they want is any competition from SMEs.
If they really cared about public health and safety or radiation emissions, how on Earth would they be happily trying their damnedest to start a nuclear war with Russia, attacking NPPs in Ukraine and Russia. And now doing the same in Iran, blowing up nuclear sites, attacking NPPs and making it 100% clear to every small country, if you don't have a nuclear umbrella, you will be attacked. That sure does lots for nuclear health & safety. And that includes the IAEA.