The repeated delays led to bitter compensation disputes between the Finnish operator TVO and Areva, with the latter ultimately agreeing in March 2018 to pay TVO financial compensation of €450 million. The Finnish Economy Ministry and the country's nuclear regulator said the project was beset by a string of technical and safety setbacks due to poor project management and workmanship. The cost ballooned from an initial estimate of €3 billion (US$ 3.27 billion) to around €11 billion, according to the 2019 World Nuclear Industry Report. But the project was plagued by technological problems and cost overruns. Olkiluoto-3 was meant to be a showcase of French-German know-how, touted as offering higher power and better safety. Using the third-generation European Pressurized Reactor (EPR) model, which was designed to improve safety and reduce costs, it was the first nuclear power station to be procured in Europe after the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. The 1.6 Giga-watt (GW) reactor, built by the French-led Areva-Siemens consortium, had originally been due to open in 2009. They argue the green investment should not go to these industries. The inauguration has also triggered a debate as to the definition of green energy for the European Court of Justice and even the European Parliament and which environmental organizations are challenging because they classify nuclear power and gas as sustainable energy sources. Located on Finland's west coast, Olkiluoto-3 is the country's first new nuclear plant in over four decades and Europe's first in almost 15 years. President Jimmy Carter helped in the clean-upįull references for the original table are available in IEER’s report Nuclear Power Deception.The 1.6 Giga-watt (GW) reactor, built by the French-led Areva-Siemens consortium, had originally been due to open in 2009.įinland's long-delayed Olkiluoto-3 nuclear reactor connected to the power grid for the first time this month, the plant's operator said, 12 years after its planned launch. “There was some release of radioactivity” Inadvertent supercriticality and partial meltdown Heavy water moderated, light water cooled, experimental reactor Radioactivity apparently contained within building Army experimental reactor using HEU fuel 3 operators were killed Reactor was being tested for full power, but did not reach it four minutes from indication of negative reactivity to meltdownĪccidental supercriticality followed by explosion and destruction of the reactor Release confined to the secondary containment Secondary containment prevented release of millions of curies of I-131 accident developed over several hours Safety experiment went awry total release 50 to 80 million curies or more potential for continuing large releases exists Supercriticality, steam explosion and graphite fireħ million, perhaps far greater (see text) Turbine fire emergency core cooling system operated to prevent meltdown system Heavy water moderated and cooled, CANDU type Secondary sodium was not radioactive reactor was in test phase extensive sodium contamination in plant Nuclear Reactor Accidents Reactor typeĬooling system failure, hydrogen explosion The table below is an updated version of a similar table in IEER’s report, The Nuclear Power Deception (1996), which has more information on nuclear reactors and reactor accidents.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |