The Potential cost reduction in new nuclear deployments based on recent AP1000 experience report details the challenges and issues of the AP1000 reactors that have been built and are being built, both in the US and in China. Based on this report, we address the question of whether the second of a pair of nuclear plants is demonstrably cheaper and quicker to build than the first.
The short answer from the report is, not really. While some sources point to a 30% savings in costs and time of the second AP1000 built (Vogtle 4) related to the first of the pair (Vogtle 3), a glance at Figure 2 shows this is not a sound base for planning. Put another way, how can the second pair of the plants really be cheaper than the first when there are so many things that are common to both?
Vogtle 4 and Vogtle 3 both had a design that were not completed before construction started. They both suffered from numerous delays and reworking (with 187 design amendments required) during construction, a complex supply chain, and the Westinghouse bankruptcy.
Both EPR nuclear reactors currently being built at Hinkley Point C in the UK also share these problems and costs. While some progress and savings have been made with the second plant built there, real savings and real learning will only be possible once both Hinkley Point C reactors have been completed and the project as a whole is analysed before the next pair of EPR reactors are built in the UK.
What does this mean?
Just suppose the Summer AP1000 project had gone ahead: but only a few years after Vogtle had been completed and its key FOAK and FILT problems were identified, then huge savings would have been possible. Thus, completing the Summer AP1000 project now will… [Please fill in the form to continue reading.]
