To: rlmorel
Don’t place too much stock in pebble bed reactors yet.
There’ll be more Westinghouse AP1000s and General Electric ABWRs built sooner because we already know how to build and run them.
7 posted on
07/24/2008 3:58:25 AM PDT by
wolfpat
(If you don't like the Patriot Act, you're really gonna hate Sharia Law.)
To: wolfpat
That’s true. Two of the current proposals here in Texas is to expand two of the current Nuclear Plants. It is cheaper since you don’t have to build the other support/admin facilities that already exist. I would assume the technology of those reactors would be the same or similar as the other two existing.
10 posted on
07/24/2008 4:43:51 AM PDT by
neb52
To: wolfpat; rlmorel
The NRC does not have the staff or the regulations needed by the staff to evaluate a proposal to site/build a pebble-bed style reactor. It is the same reason that Dominion switched to the GE design for their new reactor once it became clear that the first try with the Canadian design could not be licensed by the NRC in a reasonable time. The AREVA design, e.g., for Calvert Cliffs, is an evolution of the Westinghouse design and is thus more straightforward for the NRC staff to evaluate.
23 posted on
07/26/2008 6:09:29 PM PDT by
sefarkas
(Why vote Democrat Lite?)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson