Skip to main content

GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Submits ESBWR for U.K. Regulatory Review

By Eric McErlain
Just off the wire:
GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH) today submitted its ESBWR reactor design to government regulators in London to initiate the generic design assessment (GDA) process as the United Kingdom considers whether to build a new fleet of reactors to help meet its energy and emissions-reduction requirements.

GEH is seeking “design acceptance confirmation” from U.K. nuclear energy regulators – the Health and Safety Executive, the Environment Agencies and the Office for Civil Nuclear Security – which is required before utilities can seek to build new plants based on the ESBWR in the United Kingdom. The business also has begun adding staff to its U.K. nuclear project development team.

Included in its application, GEH submitted letters of endorsement from credible nuclear power operators stating they considered the ESBWR to be a serious contender for the first projects in a U.K. initiative to replace the country’s existing fleet of nuclear power plants. GEH received letters of endorsement from Iberdrola of Spain (which recently acquired Scottish Power), RWE npower and British Energy. A fourth European-based utility has also endorsed the ESBWR.

Within two weeks, GEH expects to be notified by the U.K. regulators’ coordinating body, the Joint Programme Office, as well as the Department of Trade and Industry, on whether the ESBWR will be included in the first group of reactor designs to be assessed. If selected, the business will begin the initial step of the GDA process, which is expected to last until the start of 2008.

The entire GDA review is expected to take three-and-a-half years. This review is similar in purpose to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) design certification review of the ESBWR, which began in 2005.
Good luck to the folks at GE and Hitachi. I'm sure it's a high quality application.
Labels:

Comments

Stewart Peterson said…
I don't see how it's 'similar in purpose' if there's an industrial policy nanny deciding which designs utilities are allowed to be interested in.
June 22, 2007 at 12:45 PM
Anonymous said…
I read this the other way round. The reviewer needs an expression of interest from the utilities before it reviews the design to provide a generic approval. Same as the NRC process for setting review priorities.
June 22, 2007 at 1:36 PM
Anonymous said…
You talking about Areva and EdF?

Both are partly state-owned, so I don't see the problem.

By the way...

"EDF, the French, State-owned, union-riddled, technocrat-built, energy company, became this morning the largest company by market value in France, at EUR 145 billion (USD 195 billion) overtaking oil giant Total."

It seems like "Markets love the French Statist, technocratic model".

http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2007/6/21/73512/3197

Time to get back on my reregulation band wagon.

Uuh... After I sell my utility stocks.
June 22, 2007 at 3:54 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
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...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
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...
6 comments
Read more