From: nasadowsk@usermale.com

In article ,
 Stephen Sprunk  wrote:

> Interesting or "interesting"?

It's an ice condenser type.  One of the few built.


> Passive designs, especially in safety systems, are a great advance; I
> don't know the various current designs well enough to understand why
> AP1000 is doing better than ESBWR commercially, but at a conceptual
> level I much prefer PWR over BWR.

My thoughts on it are:

1) GE doesn't have their heart in the market, and utilities know it.
THey've been dragging ass significantly on getting the ESBWR approved by
the NRC.  The AP1000 is approved, and based on a  prior approved design
(AP600).

2) Utilities are spooked over natural circulation in a BWR, especially
because it's normally a thing that's avoided.  GE says it'll work.  The
last natural circulation BWR built was in the early 60's, and only a few
megawatts.

3) GE's containment design and philosophy got blown to bits with
Fukushima.  What should have been even less of an incident turned into a
mess because the Mark I design sucks that much.  What's to say they got
pressure suppression right _this_ time?  Even worse for GE - folks can
point to Three Mile Island as 'proof' that the large dry design is
better equipped to handle an accident.

4) BWRs have always been a tough sell. This can be attributed to various
reasons, but the fact remains they've always been a tough sell.

5) The AP1000 somehow has better economics, at least on paper.  The only
new builds to move ahead so far have been AP1000 units.

--- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
 * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)