09V/09VI (095/096) Nuclear Submarine Thread
- Thread starter Hendrik_2000
- Start date
Why do you think the Western design of naval reactors is better? The continuous problems with the AP1000 have even led to the bankruptcy of Westinghouse Electric. I think you can learn about the achievements of OKBM Afrikantov.
Well, the US naval nuclear reactor program has been way more successful than the civilian one. The US started with naval PWRs before anyone else, and if you look at it, they are building more naval reactors than anyone else right now.
I would have to say that in terms of civilian nuclear reactor industry, at this point in time, Russia is probably first, and China is second. China has absorbed pretty much all civilian nuclear reactor technology available and in service, both from the West and Russia, and China can reliably produce any of the reactor types used for power generation, unlike the Western civilian nuclear reactor industry which degraded after close to four decades of neglect.
So I would think that modern Chinese naval reactors are likely as close to leading edge as possible. Just look at the 125 MW Linlong One:
It is compact with integral design. And designed for serial production.
Last edited:
Since you mentioned the Linglong One (ACP100), you should know that NPIC claims that its technology comes from a naval reactor.
The main feature of ACP100 is its integrated structure and OTSG. There is no such structure in Western civilian reactors, and only France uses an integrated structure in Western naval reactors, but its steam generators use UTSG. Currently, only the fourth generation naval reactor developed by the Soviet Union/Russia for 855 uses an integrated structure and OTSG. Moreover, only Russia has used integrated structures in civilian reactors.
Even if you don't recognize that the technology comes from Russia, you should not consider it as Western design.
Last edited:
sooo has 095 and 096 begin constructions or no?
I agree the "Western civilian nuclear reactor industry" is basically almost dead. However it will not completely die off. Instead it will continue to exist in a Zombie state with very diminished capacity on Financial Life support, probably with state support.
In the USA there is one Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear reactor under construction.
In Europe there is two EPR reactors under construction: one in England and one in France
China has 25 nuclear reactors under construction with more planned.
The contributions that "The West" has made to the history of nuclear power technology development is undeniable. However it is also equally undeniable, with construction numbers like these, the future does not belong to The West.
If the "global warming" and "zero fossil fuel" slogans will not change the attitude towards nuclear plants again.
I would not say it is almost dead. Nuclear phaseout in Europe is by choice. Many of their plants are in good condition but poltics decided their fate.
Nearly all of the plants in the US have their license extended to 60 years and more than a dozen have extended to 80 years and so as things stand, the nuclear industry in the US will stretch to 2050+ without problem. The US DOE is spending quite a bit of money to revitablize the industry in improvign fuel design and new reactor concepts. Nuclear is one of the cheapest energy source and the lack of new construction is due to high startup cost and lack of electricity demand increase. We will see if anything happens with small modular reactors if electricity demand picks up. There are two AP1000 reactors being built at the Vogtle site (one is already operating).
A key driving force for China to build nuclear may be environmental to reduce pollution and global warming potential. More than 60% of electricity generated in China comes from coal, relative to ~20% in the US.
Germany closed down several VVER-440 nuclear reactors in East Germany at Greifswald. Some were brand new and hadn't even started operations yet. This was done after reunification. The claim was they were "unsafe". Yet similar reactors still operate in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Finland, Russia, Slovakia, and Ukraine with no problems whatsoever.
The oldest such reactor that the Russians operate, a VVER-440/320 at Kola peninsula right next to the border with Finland, has been operating since 1973 i.e. for 50 years and is supposed to close down in 2033. The Germans shut down a similar Greifswald VVER-440/320 reactor that was built in 1974 in 1990. So that reactor could have been operating for over 40 more years. This would have been basically free energy since most of the cost in nuclear is building the power plants.
They also shut down the nuclear power plants they had in West Germany. And like you said, a typical nuclear power plant can have its reactor lifetime extended to 60 years easily, in some cases 80 years or more with thermal annealing. This is a process where the reactor is heated up. That basically plugs the micro-cracks that are created during the reactor lifetime from neutron irradiation. Each time this process is used the reactor lifetime goes up by another 10 or 20 years and it can be done multiple times.
The oldest such reactor that the Russians operate, a VVER-440/320 at Kola peninsula right next to the border with Finland, has been operating since 1973 i.e. for 50 years and is supposed to close down in 2033. The Germans shut down a similar Greifswald VVER-440/320 reactor that was built in 1974 in 1990. So that reactor could have been operating for over 40 more years. This would have been basically free energy since most of the cost in nuclear is building the power plants.
They also shut down the nuclear power plants they had in West Germany. And like you said, a typical nuclear power plant can have its reactor lifetime extended to 60 years easily, in some cases 80 years or more with thermal annealing. This is a process where the reactor is heated up. That basically plugs the micro-cracks that are created during the reactor lifetime from neutron irradiation. Each time this process is used the reactor lifetime goes up by another 10 or 20 years and it can be done multiple times.
Last edited:
Just to set the record straight, Westinghouse problems were not due to AP1000 design. It was the construction company that missmanaged and buried a lot of debt, on the order 1-2 billion dallors, that Westinghouse was not aware of when they purchased the company (how they missed this much money is a questions I have not answer). The overspending caused cancellation of the AP1000 at the VC Summer site in South Carolina. There were some issues during the build in China due to detailed design not completed that caused some delays, but the people I interact with at the 海阳核电站 are very happy with the plant after several cycles of operation.