From IEEE Spectrum (h/t to GWPF)
Safer reactors designed in the U.S. and Europe make their power grid debuts in China

Call it the world’s slowest photo finish. After several decades of engineering, construction flaws and delays, and cost overruns—a troubled birth that cost their developers dearly—the most advanced commercial reactor designs from Europe and the United States just delivered their first megawatt-hours of electricity within one day of each other. But their benefits—including safety advances such as the AP1000’s passive cooling and the EPR’s airplane crash-proof shell—may offer too little, too late to secure future projects.
Both of the design debuts happened in China late last month. On Thursday, 29 June, a 1,400-MW EPR designed in France and Germany synced up to the grid at the Taishan nuclear power plant. The next day the U.S.-designed 1,117-MW AP1000 delivered first power at China’s Sanmen plant.
Both projects are coming online years behind schedule, and they are still at least several months away from full commercial operation. But the real problem for the AP1000 and the EPR are the designs’ unfinished Western debuts.
Delays are commonplace in the nuclear industry. For instance, the Korean-built nuclear reactors originally due to begin starting up last year in the United Arab Emirates were recently pushed back to late 2019 or early 2020. But the AP1000 and EPR troubles are in a different league.
The AP1000 is designed to passively cool itself during an accidental shutdown, theoretically avoiding accidents like the one at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi. But AP1000 developer Westinghouse declared bankruptcy last year due to construction troubles, particularly at dual-reactor plants for utilities in Georgia and South Carolina. The latter abandoned their pair of partially built AP1000s after investing US $9 billion. The Georgia plant, initiated in 2012, is projected to be completed five years late in 2022 and at a cost of $25 billion—$11 billion more than budgeted.
Delays for the EPR, whose dual-layered concrete shield protects against airplane strikes, contributed to the breakup of Paris-based nuclear giant Areva in 2015. And the first EPR projects in France and Finland remain troubled under French utility Electricité de France (EDF), which absorbed Areva’s reactor business, Fromatome. The Finnish plant, started in 2005 and expected to take four years, is currently slated for startup next year, and deadlines continue to come and go. In June, Finnish utility Teollisuuden Voima Oyj announced that startup had slid another four months to September 2019.
The troubled EPR and AP1000 projects show that U.S. and European firms have lost competence in nuclear construction and management. ”It’s no coincidence that two of the four AP1000s in the U.S. were abandoned, and that the EPRs that started much earlier than Taishan’s in Finland and France are still under construction,” says nuclear energy consultant Mycle Schneider, principal author of the annual World Nuclear Industry Status Report. “The Chinese have a very large workforce that they move from one project to another, so their skills are actually getting better, whereas European and North American companies haven’t completed reactors in decades,” says Schneider.
Good for them…!! Where are ours?? Here in the good old USA??
Ours, meaning our new modern nuclear power plants?
Ours, meaning our new modern nuclear power plants?
I kept trying to delete the first reply above, but the “edit” never gave me that option – I tried everything…tried to leave it blank, that’s what I did, but it still appeared. How do you delete a post using edit, or something else??
What I’ve done is replace it with a short non-committal message. Something on the order of “never mind”.
Interesting. The miasma of the “climate concerned” mind has not yet infected China.
A member of my family works in the U.S. nuclear industry. The original manufacturers have – either bankrupt or having sided with wind for profit – provided as minimal support as possible. And it’s hard to get good help when every engineering student has been pushed away.
But they started a project with a budget of $14B? Really? There are reactors built for $4B that require subsidies to operate in the subsidized wind dominated (not by volume, but by price) markets . And yes, the delays and regulation is where the expenses go to magnify. Not. Economically. Close. To. Feasible. We’re looking for a better bullet because the gun is broken.
“And it’s hard to get good help when every engineering student has been pushed away.”
No kidding. Engineers of any stripe do not graduate as competent people. They actually NEED experience and mentoring after graduation, none of which is available to them if you stop operating facilities . This doesn’t just apply to the nuclear field, but any manufacturing or technical arena. ( ie. electronics).
The people who argue against nuclear, are falling prey to the ‘American disease’ which is to be inward looking to the USA only. So go ahead and ban all nukes.
The nuclear industry will not be folding up shop everywhere else on the planet.
Look at this page from World Nuclear Association website to see the current nuclear power construction projects by country. Nuclear isnt going away at all, except in ‘green’ western countries.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx
Perhaps …….when the Chinese have FINISHED buying Australia
they will build “us” some Nuclear Reactors and just use “their coal”
for smelting ?
@mod
Can you fix that fromatome thing? (fromage-atome?)
My last job before retiring was at the Tiashan Nuclear plant.
Some fundamentals. Just down the road was a 5000 MWe coal plant fueled with imported coal. China is dependent on the US Navy to keep the sea lanes open. China is build nuke plants to reduce coal imports.
Second, nuke plants benefit from economy of scale. This reactor is 1600+ MWe for each unit. Visualize two- 100 car coal trains per day not needed.
The EPR is designed to last practically forever. It has a large equipment hatch. Even the reactor vessel can be replaced. It is a standard design. Assuming the first two units operated as expected, the Chinese will add 6 more at the site.