Display:
At least that's what they hope. But I hear the second EPR in France got similar issues, while those at the Finnish one aren't completely solved.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Jan 14th, 2010 at 06:40:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I add that part of the cost overruns in Finland are for extra required systems added later, those costs will be added to that of new EPRs, too.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Jan 14th, 2010 at 06:42:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A lot of the Finland issues are linked to the difficulty of the regulatory process: this was a first for the Finnish regulatory authority, and they were probably more punctilious than Areva expected. Don't forget also that Areva bid low to wind this crucial contract (the first in the Western world in a long time).

I hear that EDF is hoping to complete its EPR before the Finnish one...

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Thu Jan 14th, 2010 at 07:40:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The site under construction (Dec 2007)

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Thu Jan 14th, 2010 at 08:10:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
they were probably more punctilious than Areva expected

Like, having to re-do some shoddily poured concrete and misplaced piping?... If I want to be fair, the inexperience factor is more because the current workers had no opportunity to having turned experienced workers on earlier nuclewr constructions.

BTW, an article linked earlier on ET was this one.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Jan 14th, 2010 at 09:35:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
BTW, it's nnot just Finnish authorities.

FT.com / Companies / Utilities - Countries question Areva's reactor design

Nuclear safety authorities in three countries have raised questions over the design of control and command systems in Areva's new generation EPR reactor, the latest in a series of blows to hit the flagship of France's international nuclear ambitions.

Authorities in France, Finland and the UK have asked for changes to ensure greater independence of the reactor's safety systems from control operations. "The EPR design, as originally proposed by the licensees and the manufacturer, Areva, doesn't comply with the independence principle, as there is a very high degree of complex interconnectivity between the control and safety systems," they said in a statement.



*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Jan 14th, 2010 at 10:05:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
that was a failry minor comment that was blown out of proportion, simply because it is made public, like all French nuclear incidents, on the French nuclear watchdog website.

The watchdog itself intervened to say that the interpretation made in the media of this announcement was widely off the mark.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Thu Jan 14th, 2010 at 12:08:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't doubt the nuclear watchdog felt the need to (or was forced to) play down the issue, but explain why it is a "fairly minor comment". The failure to follow the independence principle means that a small incident can break down safety and control systems meant to prevent a bigger incident (which, I note, was a point raised by EPR critics in the early 2000s already, in addition to the criticism of the core catcher concept) -- that is not a minor issue whichever way I look at it.

The Finnish authority also sought to play down the issue when an identical note was leaked. The also similar British criticism however IIRC was not a leak.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Jan 14th, 2010 at 03:47:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series