"The reactor vessel for Flamanville 3, France's first EPR, has been delivered to the construction site. The unit is scheduled to operate from 2016."
It is now near the end of 2013, therefore Flamanville is still scheduled to start within 3 years time in 2016 sometime. The dome was installed in July 2013.
Compare this timetable with what has happened at the Olkiluoto 3 site
September 2009: EPRtm dome installed.
June 2010: Installation of the reactor pressure vessel in the reactor building.
Olkiluoto 3's pressure vessel was installed in June 2010. Three years on the reactor is not finished, and the project has at least another 3 years to run.
The Flamanville team want to complete their reactor within 3 years on installing the reactor pressure vessel. Half the time the Olkiluoto 3 Project Team will take.
The learning curve looks huge. It is a 6 year timeframe from installing the reactor pressure vessel to scheduled completion at Olkiluoto 3. Flamanville 3 will complete the later stages of the build within half the time (3 years).
Either the Flamanville team are being extremely optimistic in the project timescales they give or the mistakes made at Olkiluoto 3 were very serious.
EDF is selling this as their Nuclear Learning Curve paying dividends
"Flamanville: Nuclear learning curve"
Or see the presentation made to the IAEA in September...
However none of what they describe in terms of lessons learned really can explain how they will double the speed up of the latter stages of the build at Flamanville, relative to Olkiluoto.
Some of the difference will arises from regulatory differences between France and Finland. However this won't account for a difference of a full 3 years of on-site work.
Anyone know the reasons for the big disparity? Are things be built in a different order? Are they concentrating the available effort on Flamanville 3?