Thomas wrote:Aren't General Electric and Westinghouse both selling reactors of well-engineered, standardized designs to China, Brazil, and other emerging markets? I think I read an article in the Wall Street Journal that said so, but I'm not entirely sure. But if I remember correctly, the private sector does supply standardized civilian designs. It's just that now that they're offered, the US and much of Europe aren't demanding any new nuclear reactors, standardized or not.
You are correct with respect to the design of the reactor vessel and the fuel element layout. There was also a degree of standardization in the design and manufacture of the fuel assembliess. However, there was a great deal of variabilitry in plant layout; the design and manufacture of critical auxiliary components such as pressurizers, Ion Exchangers, and the steam gererators which housed the interface between the primary reactor coolant and the steam circuit; the structural standards applied to piping supports; and of major aspects of operating and training practices as they related (or should have related) to certain features of plant design. It wasn't until 1980 that industry wide standards were adopted for these matters and a couple of decades passed before all the legacy issues were worked out. I started my business career running a consulting firm that made a great deal of money working out just the structural and risk assessment issues in this mess. There were other equally complex issues involving instrumentation (too much of it in the wrong areas) and plant chemistry control. It wasn't until 1998 that we began to standardize the storage casks for spent fuel assemblys.
The flip side of this is that GE and Westinghouse designed some very good reactor plants and, together with the goverrnment regulating agencies, avoided the very risky plant designs the Russians put forward and even the flawed boiling water reactor designs produced in Europe. The Navy under Adm. Rickover operated two captive design laboratories run respectively by GE and Westinghouse for the design of Naval reactors and their masjor components. Perhaps the necessity of cramming the whole plant into the hull of a submarine forced them to take a more holistic view of things from the start. In any event the Navy's initial learning curve lasted only 12 years while that in the power industry took almost 40. (the plants in the latest aircraft carriers are designed to last the 50 year life of the ship, without refuelling - amazing things..)
I don't have an up close knowledge of the French system, but I have worked extensively with their several corporations (Framatom, etc.)that have attempted to penetrate the U.S. market. I have the impression that, just as they have in their aircraft industry, made early decisions to focus on a small set of basic design options and pursued them with steady discipline. In these areas this is a very good way to quickly and economically deliver a quality product - provided the basic design choices were correct. One may pay a price in innovation and adaptability, however if one has limited resources, marching off smartly in all directions is often a worse choice.
