100 GW of New Nuclear from AREVA by 2030?

Areva aims to build more than 100 gigawatts of new nuclear power capacity by 2030, one third of the 344 GW that the company expects to be developed around the world by that date, a spokeswoman said.

AREVA's Evolutionary Power Reactor is 1.6 GW therefore 100 GW would equate to 63 new EPRs. Is that doable? Well, if we look back over the past 50 years, the world built more than 120 GW of nuclear capacity in the '70s and more than 200 GW in the '80s. So yes, their goal is definitely doable. Hopefully they will build more than that.

Comments

Anonymous said…

So Japan Steel Works identified themselves as the bottleneck on new nuke construction. They claim to be the only ones with forging capacity. See earlier post here.

They claim about 12 GW per year by 2010. Between 2010 and 2030 is twenty years. That would suggest that Areva is targeting ~40% global market share barring another forging supplier entering the market.

Are my assumptions wrong? Is there no one in Europe to handling the necessary sizes and qualities we need?

Joe Somsel

February 27, 2008 at 5:24 PM

Anonymous said…

B&W is expanding their faciliies in Indiana and the Russians and Chinese are doing the same there.

February 27, 2008 at 10:14 PM

David Bradish said…

Joe, Your assumptions are correct. Right now JSW is the only large-scale forging supplier in the world. If we build the number of nuclear plants we say we want to build, then more facilities will be needed. Building nuke plants in the US would help revitalize its manufacturing base instead of having to rely on overseas suppliers. It's supply and demand - if you build the plants, manufacturers will come.

February 28, 2008 at 6:34 AM

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog