Sizewell B Goes to Russian Fuel
You can understand it, with the expense of keeping all that manufacturing equipment for one plant's fuel, but still--the Russians? Couldn't they get it from us?
One thing is certain: if the American nuclear industry doesn't immediately forget any illusions that it is special and start acting like an industry, they'll stagnate just like they have over the past 35 years.
The nuclear industry outside of Russia is the only industry in the world to respond to a great opportunity for growth by screaming "SLOW DOWN!" Well, guess what. You're never going to have everything you need to be perfect, and your suppliers that you so often complain about move at the normal speed for private industry--meaning a complete turnaround in two years is not unheard of--instead of yours. Don't worry about them. Get the orders, start innovating, and the workers will come as soon as there are jobs for them.
Remember: if not for Chernobyl--meaning, if they had banned the RBMK in 1950 like we did, and if the Soviet military hadn't tried to build power plants out of their bomb factories--the Russian nuclear industry would have a perfect safety record. They do have much better financial and management performance. There are lessons to be learned from the Russians; they're getting these orders for a reason.
And if you don't get going, the Russians are going to come over here, get the VVER-1000 certified by the NRC, and build a fleet. Do you really want that?
Link.
One thing is certain: if the American nuclear industry doesn't immediately forget any illusions that it is special and start acting like an industry, they'll stagnate just like they have over the past 35 years.
The nuclear industry outside of Russia is the only industry in the world to respond to a great opportunity for growth by screaming "SLOW DOWN!" Well, guess what. You're never going to have everything you need to be perfect, and your suppliers that you so often complain about move at the normal speed for private industry--meaning a complete turnaround in two years is not unheard of--instead of yours. Don't worry about them. Get the orders, start innovating, and the workers will come as soon as there are jobs for them.
Remember: if not for Chernobyl--meaning, if they had banned the RBMK in 1950 like we did, and if the Soviet military hadn't tried to build power plants out of their bomb factories--the Russian nuclear industry would have a perfect safety record. They do have much better financial and management performance. There are lessons to be learned from the Russians; they're getting these orders for a reason.
And if you don't get going, the Russians are going to come over here, get the VVER-1000 certified by the NRC, and build a fleet. Do you really want that?
Link.
Labels: Fuel Cycle, Industry Performance, International
posted by Stewart Peterson at
12:48 PM
2 Comments:
Stewart:
One area where the Russians are really moving is in floating nuclear power plants. They have adapted their KLT-40 reactors from the ice breaker fleet and are now actively marketing them throughout the developing world - at least that part where there are port facilities.
As a former US Navy Nuke and current atomic entrepreneur, it bothers me to see our industry and its government partners not only ignoring but actively discouraging a golden opportunity. The Russians have a great idea, and we have some terrific technology, people, and experience. We also have a stronger financial infrastructure.
Just imagine what could happen if the US Navy said that it would be happy if its contractors developed the commercial market for moderately sized, ship propulsion reactors using their well proven designs.
I would be willing to bet that the NRC would be happy to rapidly certify some of those designs for commercial use assuming that some of the same management and training could be put into place.
By
Rod Adams, at Sun Jul 08, 07:12:00 AM CDT
I've posted about the KLT-40 in places before--thanks for writing up the original article on it.
There have to be changes to the fee structure to really allow small reactors to be competitive, as you know. I don't see many other obstacles other than the generic institutional problems that affect small nuclear reactors--why would the Navy's opinion affect the economic case, instead of the usual factors (completeness of the application, NRC performance, industry management performance, and order status)?
KLT-40s kick diesel around the block in just about every department. I know you want to be a commercial competitor, but I wouldn't really have any problem with the NRC certifying the KLT-40 and ASE towing one into Lake Michigan--especially since the NRC would be learning how to evaluate these applications at the Russians' expense!
Maybe they could talk to the folks in Galena.
By
Stewart Peterson, at Sun Jul 08, 07:39:00 AM CDT
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home