Skip to main content

2009 Was a Strong Year for Reactor Construction Worldwide

One of NEI’s knowledgeable writers, Chris Charles, tallied up some promising world nuclear numbers in NEI’s weekly member newsletter. Below is his text that you may find useful.

Jan. 7, 2010—The year 2009 ended with two new nuclear reactors beginning operation worldwide and a total of 55 new units under construction, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. In 2009, 11 units began construction, portending a healthy outlook for additions to the world nuclear fleet in coming years.

Of the 11 units that began construction last year, nine were in China and one each in South Korea and Russia. The two new reactors starting up in 2009 were Japan’s 866-megawatt Tomari 3 and
India’s 202-megawatt Rajasthan 5. They both came online in December.

Given an average construction lead time of five years, by 2014 about one new large reactor per month should begin to come on line. In addition, construction was being reactivated on two twin-reactor plants, one in Slovakia and the other a floating nuclear station in Russia.

Picture of the construction of Westinghouse’s Haiyang nuclear plant in China. Westinghouse has quite the deck of pictures to peruse but make sure to check with them for permission if you would like to use them.

Comments

Anonymous said…
And under Obamolech ZERO new nukes in the US.

ZERO!
Anonymous said…
Uh...there were none under Bush-Cheney either. Or Clinton. Or Bush I ...

NRC is actively reviewing 15 COL applications. They will likely approve all of them. Will you give Obama credit for that? Or just assign blame as you see fit?
Anonymous said…
Heck, I bet Obama and pals are hoping for negative, not merely zero.
D. Kosloff said…
It would be irrational to assign credit to President Obama for the applications now under review. In fact, the NRC is now delaying reviews because the NRC does not have enough employees. With an executive order, President Obama could reduce unemployment by ordering the NRC to hire enough reviewers to put the application process on a 24-hour a day schedule. Instead, President Obama appointed an anti-nuke as chairman of the NRC.
Anonymous said…
I think what D. Kosloff said concerning Jackzo really needs to be understood by alot of the pro-nuclear people. The current NRC chairman was planted there by Obama to STOP nuclear development. I was just reading his case for voting in favor of two "environmentalist" groups in order to have the Bellefonte construction permits pulled. As soon as one of the two current Republican commissioners terms is up there will be no way to get anything through the NRC. Obama and pals are trying to kill nuclear the same way they did back in the day by changing regulation constantly such that the utilities can never keep up. Take the AP100 for example, they had already certified the design and then revoked certification later. One can be sure that even if a plant is successfully built that the NRC will just change the ITAACs to make it impossible for the new plant to get its license.
Brian Mays said…
The NRC did not "revoke" the certification of the AP1000. Westinghouse amended the design.
Anonymous said…
Obama's election is going to put more carbon into the atmosphere than any other single event in human history, because of his stealth (and so far 100% successful) assassination of the nuclear renaissance.
gman said…
Brian Mays said, "Westinghouse amended the design."

Is that really the case? My (uninformed) understanding was that the regulator had (has?) questions relating to the seismic qualification of the modular shield building. Has the actual issue been published yet publicly? Anyone have a link to the NRC reviewer's question?

Thanks
Brian Mays said…
It's all on the NRC web site.

The certified design is based on Revision 15 of Westinghouse's design control document (DCD). That version was certified in 2006 and is still certified.

Westinghouse is now up to Revision 17 of the DCD, which the NRC is still reviewing. The questions that have been raised by the NRC are concerned with the amended design -- i.e., the changes that have been made since Revision 15.
Anonymous said…
Can any of you make your case against Obama without making stuff up?

"Obama's election is going to put more carbon into the atmosphere than any other single event in human history"

Including the discovery of petroleum as a fuel, or the invention of the internal combustion engine?

If your case is weak, shore it up with hyperbole!

"Obama could reduce unemployment by ordering the NRC to hire enough reviewers to put the application process on a 24-hour a day schedule."

Bush could have done the same thing. Did he?
Anonymous said…
"It would be irrational to assign credit to President Obama for the applications now under review."

So it's his fault if COL reviews are delayed, but not to his credit when they're approved? Kind of a double standard...

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…