However, and perhaps this is a big however, there is only one foundry in the world which can produce this containment vessel, in Japan. If, IF, they increase their production capacity, they can make four vessels a year.
Wind herstellers can make a few more turbines/year than that, worldwide, in many markets. "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
Many of today's nuclear advocates tout new designs that are safer.
Huh no. I'm touting a proven design which is delivering nearly 80% of France electricity: The good old PWR which hasn't killed anyone on all of its existence. Not even dangerous when poorly designed and operated with the most egregious incompetence as proven by TMI.
I certainly hope to see new designs come in existence in the next decades : very high temperature reactors for industrial applications and fast reactors for breeding and incineration of minor actinides. But those designs are not required to grow nuclear power now.
Nope. No ominous IF. They already do 4 vessels a year. Answered here to this thread
Of course, my opposition does not come from the technology itself, but from the society which must guard against the radioactivity for thousands of years. (Despite waste technology pointed out by Starvid.) Show me something about any of today's empires or societies which give confidence at such level. Is it valuable that Areva hasn't had an accident in forty years, when the latest prospects show so-called intelligent earthlings fighting over water and food within the next half century?
Perhaps French technocracy is in a totally other league than the rest of the world, but after every other nuclear program is found to continue lying to this day, and against the backdrop that this planet's "civilizations" have not yet found a way to understand man's relationship to the cosmos, much less the planet they live on, i think the debate is moot.
Because we already have all the technology we need, and it doesn't need high-tech top down societies to guard against the crumpled steel and splayed fiberglass of a classic windpower meltdown.
Please let's not start another nuclear debate this morning. This childish civilization still shits in its own beds and poisons its waters, sells arms and leveraged derivitives until its mansions are gilded while the natives hack each other up, political problems are still solved by explosions, and you want to discuss whether we can make four or fourteen containment vessels a year?
I think i should leave this discussion, and try to get back on a healthy daily pace of windpower development. i didn't know my view of humanity was so jaundiced. "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
I've read your comments and pointers, and i fail to see where it's stated that anyone else, including Areva, can make the new containment vessels. That there would be other competitors in the case of a global nuclear push is a given, but it would be some time before there were more than a few built a year.
Read the original article pointed by ceebs here
Areva, the world's biggest reactor builder, is considering modifying its newest design to be able to make the central reactor-vessel part from a 350-ton ingot instead of more than 500 tons as required today, said Pascal Van Dorsselaer, manager of an Areva plant in France's Burgundy wine region. `Definitely a Bottleneck' Areva would be able to produce the ingot itself with an investment of about 100 million euros ($155 million), he said as workers coated the inside of a Japan Steel reactor shell part with stainless steel to prevent rust. ``There is definitely a bottleneck,'' Van Dorsselaer said. ``It's a real issue for us.''
`Definitely a Bottleneck'
Areva would be able to produce the ingot itself with an investment of about 100 million euros ($155 million), he said as workers coated the inside of a Japan Steel reactor shell part with stainless steel to prevent rust.
``There is definitely a bottleneck,'' Van Dorsselaer said. ``It's a real issue for us.''
Areva already do large forging for the steam generators, not as large as the primary vessel but in a very close league. The point is that it is a matter of bitting the bullet for (rather modest) investments, not an overarching existential issue for the nuclear industry.
But I agree, let's not start another nuclear debate here.
