IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: Flamanville EPR reactor pressure vessel delivered to site
Topic Summary: With the Flamanville 3 build schedule compared with that at Olkiluoto 3
Created On: 07 October 2013 05:49 PM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 07 October 2013 05:49 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1042
Joined: 05 September 2004

"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."

http://www.world-nuclear-news....elivered-0710134.html

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"

http://www.nce.co.uk/features/...curve/8652984.article

Or see the presentation made to the IAEA in September...

http://www.iaea.org/NuclearPow...-09-19-npe/france.pdf

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?

James Arathoon

-------------------------
James Arathoon
Statistics

See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.