Bulgaria to decide on contractor for new nuclear plants.

[NNadir]

Two companies have submitted bids for the design and construction of Bulgaria's second nuclear power plant (NPP) at the town of Belene on the Danube River, about 250km northeast of Sofia. The winning bidder for the project, estimated to cost about 2 billion euros, should be announced by 1 August...

...As the offers were officially opened Wednesday, Yulian Zhelyazkov of Bulgaria's National Electricity Company (NEK), who heads the Belene NPP tender commission, said the evaluation procedures would likely be completed in no less than six months' time. After that the commission will present its assessment to NEK's board of directors, which will announce the winning bidder. In the meantime, each of the companies will be allowed to change the parameters of their offers.

The tender commission will be assisted by consultants from Deloitte and Parsons...

...Canada's Atomic Energy Canada Ltd had proposed to supply two 700-megawatt CANDU heavy water reactors, but withdrew from the tender after Bulgaria decided against that technology.

Seeking to offset an expected drop in the country's electricity output following the planned shutdown of two 440-megawatt Soviet-era reactors at the Kozloduy NPP in December 2006, and to help sustain its leading position on the regional power market, Bulgaria gave the green light for the Belene plant last April...

...The first of the two reactors is expected to become operational by 2011 and the second by 2013. The Sofia daily Trud quoted representatives of both companies as insisting Wednesday that, if they are selected, the price of electricity will be "sufficiently low"

http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/features/2006/02/02/feature-01

The decision on the ultimate winning bidder has now been delayed until September.

I think it's too bad that Bulgaria rejected the CANDU technology. Europe could use this kind of capacity.

[nealmhughes]

1. From the article, it seems that Skoda is very experienced in PWRs as is

Franatom, that is probably why they decided against a CANDU. But for capacity, alone, and simplicity, I wonder why they didn't decide on a pebble bed like the one going on line in ZA very shortly or a BWR from GE? Was it a European Union-based decision over South Africa or the US??
It appears that Russia will have control of 51% of the electricity, not Bulgaria or the EU. Very interesting on their choice...and wonder what the wherefores were.

[NNadir]

2. I'm not much of a pebble bed supporter.

From where I sit, the pressurized water reactor is a better choice, since reprocessing the spent fuel is much easier.

One might argue that a pebble bed is more flexible in the sense that one could use it for high temperature operations other than electrical generation, but even among high temperature reactors being used for process heat, there are better options than pebble beds. The once through fuel cycle is wasteful and will be supportable only in the short term.

Yesterday in another thread, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=64760&mesg_id=65501 I posted a link for an alternate high temperature helium cooled reactor, an updated HTGCR, that is specifically designed to run on a full plutonium core.

http://www.iaea.org/inis/aws/htgr/fulltext/htr2002_205.pdf#search=%22corail%20plutonium%22

Note the mass efficiency of these reactors. From plutonium cores they are anticipating burn-ups (with continuous recycling) of 575 GW-day/MT. For comparison the once through cycle gives mass efficiencies of 40 GW-day/MT. (See table 1) More importantly check out the equilibrium isotopic mix of the continuously recycled plutonium: Pu-238, 10%; Pu-239, 8%; Pu-240, 23%; Pu-241, 24%; Pu-242, 35%. This stuff is essentially useless for making compact nuclear weapons; in fact it's effectively useless for making huge nuclear weapons. The availability of plutonium with this isotopic mix would go a long way toward further diminishing the already low risk of weapons diversion from commercial reactors. It would seem that the peace implications of this type of reactor - and not only the efficient use of nuclear resources - make this type of helium reactor far superior to the pebble bed. The reason for recycling is not primarily for the reduction in the volume and radiotoxicity of spent fuel, but also for the enhancement of the prospects for peace.

Basically the pebble bed design in my view accomplishes only two things: 1) It assuages 20th century concerns that were experimentally proved nonsensical in the first place and 2) It makes for easy to build, cheap reactors. In the latter sense, pebble beds - though I'm sure they will work well enough - are rather the equivalent of paper plates when compared to ceramic dishes: They function, but they are wasteful and not particularly elegant.

But leaving aside the argument about what the best high temperature reactor choice is, let's return to the question of PWR's and CANDUs.

CANDUs are only widely used thermal reactors that can have a breeding ration greater than one - employing the thorium fuel cycle. While uranium remains extraordinarily cheap, there no real cause to worry about breeding. But sixty years from now, when presumably the reactor will still be operating, the situation may be - probably will be - very different. The reason to build CANDUs is not really for the interest of our myopic and self absorbed generation, but for future generations.

It doesn't necessarily have to be Bulgaria, but I think that Europe needs some more CANDU's. Some countries somewhere in Europe should build them. (Romania has a couple of them.) Hell, we can use some here in the United States. Ultimately I think the argument for plutonium consumption will become too strong to ignore, and the CANDU is an excellent tool for this purpose.

[nealmhughes]

3. CANDU definitely has all the advantages of which you speak, but I imagine

that the Bulgarians are in love with the idea of being a part of the EU and so opted for the Czechs and French over the US and Canadians. I also imagine that Skoda's PWR experience has a lot to do with it, operationally.
Personally, good old Hyman Rickover S5W can't be beat for operator ease and lack of refueling need, and I loved the Gen. 6 BWR I helped startup at Shoreham. Working at an old PWR was the pits compared to a BWR and a naval reactor, operationally speaking. I see advantages with both BWR and PWR, but I do prefer the simplified BWR design from an operators viewpoint, but that good old battle hardened S5W can't be beat for a rapid recovery from a group scram and reliability...

[NNadir]

4. Actually I think either Skoda and Atomstroiexport (Russian) will use

Framatome as a subcontractor.

One of the Belene reactors is partially built but was stopped owing to financial difficulties and an international environment that indicated that all Russian nuclear reactors were potential Chernobyls, since most people know diddly squat about the differences in reactor types.

I find your comments on the ease of use of reactors interesting. You go back a long time it would seem. I can't say I've considered that part of the equation.

The Bulgarians are increasingly frustrated by the need to use coal when they remove some old Soviet reactors from service.

The first Belene reactor will be finished with upgrades to its safety systems before completion and the second reactor will be built from the ground up by either Skoda or Atomstroiexport.

Some BWR's are still being built. The Japanese have built and put several on line over the last few years, and they've been pretty successful. The most recent reactor came on line a few months ago. This design, the ABWR, is going to become the work-horse reactor. Two more are under construction and 11 more are on order. Of that 11, 3 will be under construction by the end of 2007.

I must tell you that I was on the wrong side of the Shoreham debacle; my participation in the opposition is one of my deepest regrets. That reactor should be running now and I bear some personal responsibility for the course of events that lead to the abandonment of the reactor.

You may enjoy this link which describes Jimmy Carter, during his presidency, visiting with his old boss from the nuclear Navy, Admiral Rickhover at the Shippingport reactor. This was when, near the end of its life, the Shippingport reactor was being fueled with thorium as part of a (successful) breeder reactor experiment. Rickover and Carter had a good natured exchange, and Carter was given nominal command of the reactor for the ceremony:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=6972