From: nasadowsk@usermale.com   
      
   In article ,   
    Stephen Sprunk  wrote:   
      
   > Interesting or "interesting"?   
      
   It's an ice condenser type.  One of the few built.   
      
      
   > Passive designs, especially in safety systems, are a great advance; I   
   > don't know the various current designs well enough to understand why   
   > AP1000 is doing better than ESBWR commercially, but at a conceptual   
   > level I much prefer PWR over BWR.   
      
   My thoughts on it are:   
      
   1) GE doesn't have their heart in the market, and utilities know it.   
   THey've been dragging ass significantly on getting the ESBWR approved by   
   the NRC.  The AP1000 is approved, and based on a  prior approved design   
   (AP600).   
      
   2) Utilities are spooked over natural circulation in a BWR, especially   
   because it's normally a thing that's avoided.  GE says it'll work.  The   
   last natural circulation BWR built was in the early 60's, and only a few   
   megawatts.   
      
   3) GE's containment design and philosophy got blown to bits with   
   Fukushima.  What should have been even less of an incident turned into a   
   mess because the Mark I design sucks that much.  What's to say they got   
   pressure suppression right _this_ time?  Even worse for GE - folks can   
   point to Three Mile Island as 'proof' that the large dry design is   
   better equipped to handle an accident.   
      
   4) BWRs have always been a tough sell. This can be attributed to various   
   reasons, but the fact remains they've always been a tough sell.   
      
   5) The AP1000 somehow has better economics, at least on paper.  The only   
   new builds to move ahead so far have been AP1000 units.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)