Att byggtiden är annorlunda i de länder du räkat upp är väl kända och det är lika väl känt att det ännu inte går att komma till samma byggtider i västvärden. Det är också väl känt varför...
allt är inte för att de är bra och har erfarenhet av att bygga reaktorer ...
Visst kan man bygga snabbt - lite pratdelar, förfalskade testprotokol och så skuter vi i regleringar för säkerhet... det är ju ändå inte så farligt, f'n förr badade ju folk i strålning för att det var hälsosamt :-/
www.spectator.co.uk/article/could-the-koreans-save-angleseys-nuclear-power-project/"Not only do the Koreans get better each time by learning from experience, the pipeline of projects allows for a large domestic skills base to build up. The uber-expensive Hinkley Point C, by contrast, was the first nuclear power station Britain has built in 29 years. In many ways, it was also a first of its kind as well, because the Office for Nuclear Regulation insisted on 7,000 changes from the original design.
South Korea?s Kepco don?t just build cheaply in their home market. Around a quarter of the United Arab Emirates? power comes from the South Korean built Barrakh nuclear power station. The Emirati nuclear power station had all the hallmarks of a white elephant mega-project: the country had no domestic nuclear skills base and a penchant for indulging in big-money vanity projects. And yet, it came in at a third of the cost of Hinkley Point C.
Still, there?s a key difference between South Korea, the UAE and the UK. It?s our approach to regulation. In South Korea, engineers are allowed to get on with projects with little oversight. There are clearly advantages to this set-up ? Britain?s high costs are driven in part by over-regulation ? but there are drawbacks. It was revealed that many of the components in one South Korean reactor were counterfeit and managers falsified results to cover up that a number of control cables actually failed initial safety testing. The head of one of Kepco's subsidiaries was forced to resign for bribing a presidential aide. Although the scandal cost Kepco close to $9 billion, the punishments from the national regulator were relatively soft and some fired officials were rehired.
Such a cosy relationship between regulator and supplier is inconceivable in Britain. Our regulators focus exclusively on safety and environmental protection even when it creates significant problems for the developer. And if they didn?t, legal challenges inevitably follow. There is surely a middle-ground that can be found. One where British regulators no longer force developers to spend millions of pounds to save a few fish, as happened with Hinkley Point C, but where a strong safety culture is maintained.
To build South Korea?s APR-1400 (or the newer version, the APR+) reactor in the UK, Kepco will need to pass the Office for Nuclear Regulation?s (ONR) Generic Design Assessment. When EDF went through the process, they ended up having to make 7,000 changes to meet the ONR?s standards. The Korean reactor design is attractive precisely because it is tried and tested and doesn?t carry the risk of a brand new design. If the ONR forces it to make thousands of changes though, many of those cost advantages would disappear.
"
vem vet..