“AP1000”的意思、由来-开放百科全书

The AP1000 is a nuclear power plant designed and sold by Westinghouse Electric Company. The plant is a pressurized water reactor with improved use of passive nuclear safety. The first AP1000 began operations in China at Sanmen Nuclear Power Station, where Unit 1 became the first AP1000 to achieve criticality in June 2018.^[1]

History

Previous work

The AP1000 design traces its history to two previous designs, the AP600 and the System 80.

The System 80 design was created by Combustion Engineering and featured a unique two-loop cooling system that makes it simpler and less expensive than the traditional three-loop systems used in most designs. Built to the extent of three reactors in the US and another four in South Korea, it was among the most successful Generation II+ designs. ABB Group bought Combustion Engineering in 1990 and introduced the System 80+, with a number of design changes and safety improvements. As part of a series of mergers, purchases and divestitures by ABB, in 2000 the design was purchased by Westinghouse Electric Company, who had itself been purchased in 1999 by British Nuclear Fuels Ltd (BNFL).

Through the 1990s, Westinghouse had been working on a new design known as the AP600 with a design power of about 600 MWe. This was part of the Department of Energy's Advanced Light Water Reactor program that worked on a series of Generation III reactor designs. In contrast to Generation II designs, the AP600 was much simpler, with a huge reduction in the total number of parts, and especially pumps. It was also passively safe, a key feature of Gen III designs.^[2]

The AP600 was at the small-end of the reactor scale. Smaller plants are periodically introduced because they can be used in a wider variety of markets where a larger reactor is simply too powerful. The downside of such designs is that the construction time, and thus cost, does not differ significantly to larger designs, so these smaller designs often have less attractive economics. The AP600 addressed this through modular construction and aimed to go from first concrete to fuel load in 36 months. In spite of these attractive features, Westinghouse had no sales of the AP600.^[2]

With the purchase of the company by BNFL and its merger with ABB, a design combining the features of the System 80+ with the AP600 started as the AP1000. BNFL in turn sold Westinghouse Electric to Toshiba in 2005.

AP1000

In December 2005, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved the final design certification for the AP1000.^[4] This meant that prospective US builders could apply for a Combined Construction and Operating License before construction starts, the validity of which is conditional upon the plant being built as designed, and that each AP1000 should be identical. Its design is the first Generation III+ reactor to receive final design approval from the NRC.^[3] In 2008 China started building four units of the AP1000's 2005-design.

In December 2011, the NRC approved construction of the first US plant to use the design.^[4] On February 9, 2012 the NRC approved the construction of two new reactors.^[5]

In 2016 and 2017 cost overruns constructing AP1000 plants in the U.S. caused Westinghouse's owner Toshiba to write down its investment in Westinghouse by "several billion" dollars.^[6]

On 14 February 2017 Toshiba delayed filing financial results, and Toshiba chairman Shigenori Shiga, formerly chairman of Westinghouse, resigned.^[7]^[8]^[9] On March 24, 2017, Toshiba announced that Westinghouse Electric Company will file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy because of US$9 billion of losses from nuclear reactor construction projects, which may impact the future of the AP1000.^[10] Westinghouse emerged out of bankruptcy in August 2018.^[11]

Design specifications

The AP1000 is a pressurized water reactor^[4] with two cooling loops, planned to produce a net power output of 1,117 MW_e.^[15] It is an evolutionary improvement on the AP600,^[3] essentially a more powerful model with roughly the same footprint.^[12]

A design objective was to be less expensive to build than other Generation III reactor designs, by both using existing technology, and needing less equipment than competing designs that have three or four cooling loops. The design decreases the number of components, including pipes, wires, and valves. Standardization and type-licensing should also help reduce the time and cost of construction. Because of its simplified design compared to a Westinghouse generation II PWR, the AP1000 has:^[13]

The AP1000 design is considerably more compact in land usage than most existing PWRs, and uses under a fifth of the concrete and rebar reinforcing of older designs.^[13] Probabilistic risk assessment was used in the design of the plants. This enabled minimization of risks, and calculation of the overall safety of the plant. According to the NRC, the plants will be orders of magnitude safer than those in the last study, NUREG-1150. The AP1000 has a maximum core damage frequency of 5.09 × 10⁻⁷ per plant per year.^[14] Used fuel produced by the AP1000 can be stored indefinitely in water on the plant site.^[15] Aged used fuel may also be stored in above-ground dry cask storage, in the same manner as the currently operating fleet of US power reactors.^[13]

Power reactors of this general type continue to produce heat from radioactive decay products even after the main reaction is shut down, so it is necessary to remove this heat to avoid meltdown of the reactor core. In the AP1000, Westinghouse's Passive Core Cooling System uses a tank of water situated above the reactor. When the passive cooling system is activated, the water flows by gravity to the top of the reactor where it evaporates to remove heat. The system uses multiple explosively-operated and DC operated valves which must operate within the first 30 minutes. This is designed to happen even if the reactor operators take no action.^[16] The electrical system required for initiating the passive systems doesn't rely on external or diesel power and the valves don't rely on hydraulic or compressed air systems.^[12]^[17] The design is intended to passively remove heat for 72 hours, after which its gravity drain water tank must be topped up for as long as cooling is required.^[13]

Revision 15 of the AP1000 design has an unusual containment structure which has received approval by the NRC, after a Safety Evaluation Report,^[18] and a Design Certification Rule.^[19]

Design disputes

In April 2010, some environmental organizations called on the NRC to investigate possible limitations in the AP1000 reactor design. These groups appealed to three federal agencies to suspend the licensing process because they believed containment in the new design is weaker than existing reactors.^[21]

In April 2010, Arnold Gundersen, a nuclear engineer commissioned by several anti-nuclear groups, released a report which explored a hazard associated with the possible rusting through of the containment structure steel liner. In the AP1000 design, the liner and the concrete are separated, and if the steel rusts through, "there is no backup containment behind it" according to Gundersen.^[31] If the dome rusted through the design would expel radioactive contaminants and the plant "could deliver a dose of radiation to the public that is 10 times higher than the N.R.C. limit" according to Gundersen. Vaughn Gilbert, a spokesman for Westinghouse, has disputed Gundersen’s assessment, stating that the AP1000's steel containment vessel is three-and-a-half to five times thicker than the liners used in current designs, and that corrosion would be readily apparent during routine inspection.^[22]

John Ma, a senior structural engineer at the NRC was quoted on his stance about the AP1000 nuclear reactor.^[23]

In 2010, following Ma's initial concerns, the NRC questioned the durability of the AP1000 reactor's original shield building in the face of severe external events such as earthquakes, hurricanes, and airplane collisions. In response to these concerns Westinghouse prepared a modified design.^[24] This modified design satisfied the NRC, with the exception of Ma, hence the "non-concurrence". In contrast to the NRC's decision, Ma believed that computer codes used to analyze the modified design were not precise enough and some of the materials used were too brittle.^[25]

A US consultant engineer has also criticized the AP1000 containment design arguing that, in the case of a design-basis accident, it could release radiation; Westinghouse has denied the claim.^[26] The NRC completed the overall design certification review for the amended AP1000 in September 2011.^[27]

In May 2011, US government regulators found additional problems with the design of the shield building of the new reactors. The chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said that: computations submitted by Westinghouse about the building's design appeared to be wrong and "had led to more questions."; the company had not used a range of possible temperatures for calculating potential seismic stresses on the shield building in the event of, for example, an earthquake; and that the commission was asking Westinghouse not only to fix its calculations but also to explain why it submitted flawed information in the first place. Westinghouse said that the items the commission was asking for were not "safety significant".^[28]

In November 2011, Arnold Gundersen published a further report on behalf of the AP1000 Oversight Group, which includes Friends of the Earth and Mothers against Tennessee River Radiation. The report highlighted six areas of major concern and unreviewed safety questions requiring immediate technical review by the NRC. The report concluded that certification of the AP1000 should be delayed until the original and current “unanswered safety questions” raised by the AP1000 Oversight Group are resolved.^[29]

In 2012, Ellen Vancko, from the Union of Concerned Scientists, said that "the Westinghouse AP1000 has a weaker containment, less redundancy in safety systems, and fewer safety features than current reactors".^[30]

In response to Ms. Vancko's concerns, climate policies author and retired nuclear engineer Zvi J. Doron, replied that the AP1000's safety is enhanced by fewer active components, not compromised as Ms. Vancko suggests.^[30] As in direct contrast to currently operating reactors, the AP1000 has been designed around the concept of passive nuclear safety.

In October 2013, Li Yulun, a former vice-president of China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC), raised concerns over the safety standards of the delayed AP1000 third-generation nuclear power plant being built in Sanmen, due to the constantly changing, and consequently untested, design. Citing a lack of operating history, he also questioned the manufacturer's assertion that the AP1000 reactor's "primary system canned motor pumps" were "maintenance-free" over 60 years, the assumed life of the reactor and noted that the expansion from 600 to 1,000 megawatts has not yet been commercially proven.^[31]

Chinese design extensions

In 2008 and 2009, Westinghouse made agreements to work with the Chinese State Nuclear Power Technology Corporation (SNPTC) and other institutes to develop a larger design, the CAP1400 of 1,400 MW_e capacity, possibly followed by a 1,700 MW_e design. China will own the intellectual property rights for these larger designs. Exporting the new larger units may be possible with Westinghouse's cooperation.^[32]^[33]

In September 2014 the Chinese nuclear regulator approved the design safety analysis following a 17-month review.^[34] In May 2015 the CAP1400 design passed an International Atomic Energy Agency's Generic Reactor Safety Review.^[35]

In December 2009, a Chinese joint venture was set up to build an initial CAP1400 near the HTR-10 Shidaowan site.^[32]^[36] In 2015 site preparation started, and approval to progress was expected by the end of the year.^[37]^[38] In March 2017 the first CAP1400 reactor pressure vessel passed pressure tests.^[39]

In February 2019, the Shanghai Nuclear Engineering Research & Design Institute announced that it had begun the conceptual design process for the CAP1700.^[40]

Construction plans

China

Four AP1000 reactors were constructed in China, at Sanmen Nuclear Power Plant in Zhejiang, and Haiyang Nuclear Power Plant in Shandong.^[41]

The Sanmen unit 1 and unit 2 AP1000s were connected to the grid on 2 July 2018 and 24 August 2018 respectively.^[42]

Haiyang 1 started commercial operation on October 22nd, 2018^[43], Haiyang 2 on January 9th, 2019.^[44]

The first four AP1000s to be built are to an earlier revision of the design without a strengthened containment structure to provide improved protection against an aircraft crash.^[45]

China has officially adopted the AP1000 as a standard for inland nuclear projects. The National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) has already approved several nuclear projects, including the Dafan plant in Hubei province, Taohuajiang in Hunan, and Pengze in Jiangxi. The NDRC is studying additional projects in Anhui, Jilin and Gansu provinces.^[46]

In 2014, China First Heavy Industries manufactured the first domestically produced AP1000 reactor pressure vessel, for the second AP1000 unit of Sanmen Nuclear Power Station.^[47]

United States

Two reactors are being constructed at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant In the state of Georgia (Units 3 & 4).^[48]

In South Carolina, two units were being constructed at the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Generating Station (Units 2 & 3).^[49]

The project was abandoned in July 2017, 4 years after it began, due to Westinghouse's recent bankruptcy, major cost overruns, significant delays, and other issues.^[50] The project's primary shareholder (SCANA) initially favored a plan to abandon development of Unit 3, while completing Unit 2. The plan was dependent on approval of a minority shareholder (Santee Cooper). Santee Cooper's board voted to cease all construction resulting in termination of the entire project.

All four reactors were identical and the two projects ran in parallel, with the first two reactors (Vogtle 3 and Summer 2) planned to be commissioned in 2019 and the remaining two (Vogtle 4 and Summer 3) in 2020.^[51]^[52] After Westinghouse filed for bankruptcy protection on March 29, 2017 the construction has stalled.

On April 9, 2008, Georgia Power Company reached a contract agreement with Westinghouse and Shaw for two AP1000 reactors to be built at Vogtle.^[53] The contract represents the first agreement for new nuclear development since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979.^[54] The license request for the Vogtle site is based on revision 18 of the AP1000 design.^[55] On February 16, 2010, President Obama announced $8.33 billion in federal loan guarantees to construct the two AP1000 units at the Vogtle plant.^[56] The cost of building the two reactors is expected to be $14 billion.^[57]

Environmental groups opposed to the licensing of the two new AP1000 reactors to be built at Vogtle filed a new petition in April 2011 asking the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's commission to suspend the licensing process until more is known about the evolving Fukushima I nuclear accidents.^[58] In February 2012, nine environmental groups filed a collective challenge to the certification of the Vogtle reactor design and in March they filed a challenge to the Vogtle license. In May 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

In February 2012, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved the two proposed reactors at the Vogtle plant.^[59]

For VC Summer a delay of at least one year and extra costs of $1.2 billion were announced in October 2014, largely due to fabrication delays. Unit 2 was then expected to be substantially complete in late 2018 or early 2019, with unit 3 about a year later.^[60]

In October 2013, US energy secretary Ernest Moniz announced that China was to supply components to the US nuclear power plants under construction as part of a bilateral co-operation agreement between the two countries. Since China’s State Nuclear Power Technology Co (SNPTC) acquired Westinghouses's AP1000 technology in 2006, it has developed a manufacturing supply chain capable of supplying international power projects. Industry analysts have highlighted a number of problems facing China’s expansion in the nuclear market including continued gaps in their supply chain, coupled with Western fears of political interference and Chinese inexperience in the economics of nuclear power.^[61]

On July 31, 2017, after an extensive review into the costs of constructing Units 2 and 3, South Carolina Electric and Gas decided to stop construction of the reactors at VC Summer and will file a Petition for Approval of Abandonment with the Public Service Commission of South Carolina.^[62]

Bulgaria

On November 22, 2013, the Bulgarian economy and energy minister Dragomir Stoynev announced during a visit to the United States, that Bulgaria wants to build an AP1000 nuclear reactor as the seventh unit of the Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant.^[63] On December 11, the Bulgarian government gave its approval to Bulgarian Energy Holding (BEH) to start talks with Toshiba and Westinghouse on the new unit. Toshiba will hold a 30% share of the new unit. {{As of|December 2013}}, the overall costs of the unit were estimated to be about $8 billion.^[64] On December 13, talks between BEH and Westinghouse started.^[65] {{As of|December 2013}}, Westinghouse planned to complete preparatory work in nine months for technical, financial and economic parameters of the new unit,^[66] so that construction can begin in 2016. In 2013 the Austrian Environment Agency's report on the Bulgarian Ministry for the Environment's Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) on the proposed 7th unit of the Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant found a number of unsubstantiated claims and some serious failings in the Bulgarian EIA report.^[67] On July 30, 2014 a shareholder agreement has been signed by Westinghouse Electric Company LLC and the state-owned Kozloduy NPP for the construction of the Kozloduy-7 nuclear reactor and reactor block, for an estimated total price of $5 billion.^[68]

United Kingdom

In December 2013, Toshiba, through its Westinghouse subsidiary, purchased a 60% share of NuGeneration, with the intention of building three AP1000s at Moorside near the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing site in Cumbria, England, with a target first operation date of 2024.^[69]

On 28 March 2017 the ONR issued a Design Acceptance Confirmation for the AP1000 design, stating that 51 issues identified in 2011 had received an adequate response.^[70]^[71] However, the following day the designer, Westinghouse, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S. because of $9 billion of losses from its nuclear reactor construction projects, mostly the construction of four AP1000 reactors in the U.S.^[72] In late 2017 Toshiba decided to sell its stake in NuGeneration, and the new owner will decide whether to continue the AP1000 project.^[73]

India

In June 2016, the US and India agreed to build six AP-1000 in India as part of civil nuclear deal signed by both countries.^[74] Negotiations are being conducted with the commercial contract expected to be signed by June 2017.^[75] The proposed locations for the six-unit nuclear power plant is the coastal district of Gujarat; however, the site may be moved to the southeastern state of Andhra Pradesh, due to opposition from the local community.^[76] Westinghouse's parent company Toshiba decided in 2017 to withdraw from the construction of nuclear power plants, following financial difficulties, leaving the proposed agreement in doubt.^[77]

See also

References

1. ^{{cite news|title=Chinese AP1000s pass commissioning milestones|url=http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Chinese-AP1000s-pass-commissioning-milestones-2206184.html|accessdate=23 June 2018|work=www.world-nuclear-news.org|date=22 June 2018}}
2. ^¹{{cite techreport |publisher=IAEA |url=https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/31/007/31007051.pdf |title= Westinghouse AP600 Advanced Nuclear Plant Design |first=W. |last=Gangloff}}
3. ^¹{{cite web|title=AP 1000 Public Safety and Licensing |publisher=Westinghouse |date=2004-09-13 |url=http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/AP1000/public_safety_licensing.shtm |format=web |accessdate=2008-01-21 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20070807115318/http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/AP1000/public_safety_licensing.shtm |archivedate=2007-08-07 |deadurl=yes |df= }}
4. ^{{cite news| url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/23/business/energy-environment/nrc-clears-way-for-new-nuclear-plant-construction.html | work=The New York Times | first=Matthew L. | last=Wald | title=N.R.C. Clears Way for Nuclear Plant Construction | date=2011-12-22}}
5. ^{{cite news| url=http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/09/news/economy/nuclear_reactors/ | work=CNN | title=First new nuclear reactors OK'd in over 30 years | date=2012-02-09 }}
6. ^{{cite web|last1=Mochizuki|first1=Takashi|title=Toshiba Expects Write-Down of as Much as Several Billion Dollars|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/toshiba-expects-hefty-write-down-related-to-u-s-nuclear-unit-westinghouse-1482813231|website=Wall Street Journal|accessdate=28 December 2016}}
7. ^{{cite news |url=http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-toshiba-accounting-results-idUKKBN15T0AY |title=Delays, confusion as Toshiba reports $6.3 billion nuclear hit and slides to loss |author=Makiko Yamazaki, Taiga Uranaka |publisher=Reuters |date=14 February 2017 |accessdate=14 February 2017}}
8. ^{{cite news |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38965380 |title=Toshiba chairman quits over nuclear loss |work=BBC News |date=14 February 2017 |accessdate=14 February 2017}}
9. ^{{cite news |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38969273 |title=Toshiba: Why troubled Japanese firms survive |author=Karishma Vaswani |work=BBC News |date=14 February 2017 |accessdate=14 February 2017}}
10. ^{{cite news |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-toshiba-accounting-idUSKBN16V04G |title=Toshiba decides on Westinghouse bankruptcy, sees $9 billion in charges: sources |first=Taro |last=Fuse |publisher=Reuters |date=24 March 2017 |accessdate=25 March 2017}}
11. ^{{cite news |title=Westinghouse emerges from Chapter 11 - World Nuclear News |url=http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Westinghouse-sale-to-Brookfield-completed |accessdate=27 August 2018 |work=www.world-nuclear-news.org}}
12. ^¹²³{{cite journal | last =T.L. Schulz | title =Westinghouse AP1000 advanced passive plant | journal = Nuclear Engineering and Design; Volume 236, Issues 14–16, August 2006, Pages 1547–1557; 13th International Conference on Nuclear Energy, 13th International Conference on Nuclear Energy | volume =236 | issue =14–16 | pages =1547–1557 | url =http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0029549306003190 | format =web | accessdate = 2008-01-21 | doi=10.1016/j.nucengdes.2006.03.049| year =2006 | citeseerx =10.1.1.175.1734 }}
13. ^¹²³⁴{{citation|url=http://www.nuclearinst.com/uploads/Branch%20Presentations/The%20AP1000%20-%20A%20Bull%20-%2016th%20Nov%2010.pdf |title=The AP1000 Nuclear Power Plant - Global Experience and UK Prospects |format=presentation |author=Adrian Bull |work=Westinghouse UK |publisher=Nuclear Institute |date=16 November 2010 |accessdate=14 May 2011 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110722031413/http://www.nuclearinst.com/uploads/Branch%20Presentations/The%20AP1000%20-%20A%20Bull%20-%2016th%20Nov%2010.pdf |archivedate=22 July 2011 |deadurl=yes }}
14. ^ Westinghouse AP 1000 Step 2 PSA Assessment
15. ^Westinghouse certain of safety, efficiency of nuclear power, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, March 29, 2009
16. ^{{cite web|title=UK AP1000 Pre-Construction Safety Report |website=UKP-GW-GL-732 Revision 2 explains the design of the reactor safety systems as part of the process of seeking approval for construction in the UK |publisher=Westinghouse Electric Company |url=https://www.ukap1000application.com/PDFDocs/Safety/UKP-GW-GL-732%20Rev%201.pdf |format=PDF |accessdate=2010-02-23 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110717145503/https://www.ukap1000application.com/PDFDocs/Safety/UKP-GW-GL-732%20Rev%201.pdf |archivedate=2011-07-17 }}
17. ^R.A. and Worrall, A. “The AP1000 Reactor the Nuclear Renaissance Option.” Nuclear Energy 2004.
18. ^{{cite web|url=https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/ap1000.html#ser|title=NRC: Issued Design Certification - Advanced Passive 1000 (AP1000)|website=www.nrc.gov}}
19. ^{{cite web|url=https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/ap1000.html#dcrule|title=Issued Design Certification - Advanced Passive 1000 (AP1000), Rev. 15 Design Certification Rule for the AP1000 Design|publisher=}}
20. ^{{cite web|url=https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/amended-ap1000.html|title=Design Certification Application Review - AP1000 Amendment|publisher=}}
21. ^{{cite news |title = Groups say new Vogyle Reactors need study |publisher = August Chronicle |url = http://m.chronicle.augusta.com/latest-news/2010-04-21/groups-say-new-vogtle-reactors-need-study?v=1271900068 |accessdate = 2010-04-24}}{{Dead link|date=September 2018 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}
22. ^¹Matthew L. Wald. Critics Challenge Safety of New Reactor Design New York Times, April 22, 2010.
23. ^¹²{{cite web |title=Nuclear energy: Planning for the Black Swan |last=Piore |first=Adam |url=http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v304/n6/box/scientificamerican0611-48_BX1.html |date=June 2011 |website=Scientific American }}
24. ^Robynne Boyd. Safety Concerns Delay Approval of the First U.S. Nuclear Reactor in Decades. Scientific American, July 29, 2010.
25. ^{{cite web |url=http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/reactor-design-edges-toward-approval-but-not-without-complaints/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0|title=Reactor Design Edges Toward Approval, but Not Without Complaints|author=Matthew L. Wald|date=March 2011|website=The New York Times Company|accessdate=15 May 2014}}
26. ^AP1000 containment insufficient for DBA, engineer claims {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110613090943/http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2056229 |date=June 13, 2011 }} Nuclear Engineering International, 29 April 2010.
27. ^ACRS Concludes AP1000 Maintains Robustness of Previously Certified Design and is Safe {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111008134656/http://westinghousenuclear.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=294 |date=October 8, 2011 }} Westinghouse. Retrieved 2011-11-04.
28. ^[https://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/21/business/energy-environment/21nuke.html?_r=1& Matthew L. Wald, Washington DC, “Regulators Find Design Flaws in New Reactors”] New York Times, 20 May 2011.
29. ^“Fukushima and the Westinghouse-Toshiba AP1000: A Report for The AP1000 Oversight Group” Arnie Gundersen, November 10, 2011
30. ^¹{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/opinion/sunday/sunday-dialogue-nuclear-energy-pro-and-con.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all |title=Sunday Dialogue: Nuclear Energy, Pro and Con |author= |date=February 25, 2012 |work=New York Times }}
31. ^"China nuclear plant delay raises safety concern" Eric Ng, 7 October 2013, published in South China Morning Post
32. ^¹{{cite web |url= http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf63.html |title=Nuclear Power in China |publisher=World Nuclear Association |date=2 July 2010 |accessdate=18 July 2010| archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20100731142459/http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf63.html| archivedate=31 July 2010 | deadurl=no}}
33. ^{{cite web |url=https://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Downloadable/Meetings/2013/2013-06-24-06-28-TM-NPTD/14-snerdi.pdf |title=CAP 1400 Design & Construction |author=Lin Tian |publisher=IAEA |website=SNPTC |date=27 June 2013 |accessdate=20 September 2016}}
34. ^{{cite news |url=http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-CAP1400-preliminary-safety-review-approved-0909145.html |title=CAP1400 preliminary safety review approved |publisher=World Nuclear News |date=9 September 2014 |accessdate=10 September 2014}}
35. ^{{cite news |url=http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Large-scale-Chinese-reactor-design-passes-IAEA-safety-review-0505164.html |title=Large-scale Chinese reactor design passes IAEA safety review |publisher=World Nuclear News |date=5 May 2016 |accessdate=20 September 2016}}
36. ^{{cite news |url=http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN_New_reactor_design_taking_shape_in_China_1501141.html |title=New reactor design taking shape in China |publisher=World Nuclear News |date=15 January 2014 |accessdate=16 January 2014}}
37. ^{{cite news |url=http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-China-looks-forward-to-reactor-firsts-1409157.html |title=China looks forward to reactor firsts |publisher=World Nuclear News |date=14 September 2015 |accessdate=24 September 2015}}
38. ^{{cite report |url=https://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Downloadable/Meetings/2015/2015-09-01-09-03-NPTDS41894/DAY2/9_CAP1400_introduction_for_IAEA-201509.pdf |title=Introduction of CAP1400 |author=Liao Liang |publisher=IAEA |work=SNERDI |date=September 2015 |accessdate=24 February 2016}}
39. ^{{cite news |url=http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-CAP1400-reactor-vessel-passes-pressure-tests-2203174.html |title=CAP1400 reactor vessel passes pressure tests |publisher=World Nuclear News |date=22 March 2017 |accessdate=22 March 2017}}
40. ^{{cite web |title=上海核工院召开专家技术咨询会 |url=https://www.shhdb.gov.cn/tpxw/1659991.htm |publisher=上海核电办公室 |accessdate=5 March 2019}}
41. ^{{cite web |url=http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Second-Summer-AP1000-under-construction-0611134.html |title=Second Summer AP1000 under construction |author= |date=6 November 2013 |website=World Nuclear News }}
42. ^{{cite news |url=http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Second-Sanmen-AP1000-connected-to-grid |title=Second Sanmen AP1000 connected to grid |publisher=World Nuclear News |date=24 August 2018 |accessdate=27 August 2018}}
43. ^https://www.nucnet.org/all-the-news/2018/10/24/china-s-haiyang-1-becomes-second-westinghouse-ap1000-to-begin-commercial-operation
44. ^ {{cite web |url= http://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Fourth-Chinese-AP1000-enters-commercial-operation |title= Fourth Chinese AP1000 enters commercial operation |date= 9 January 2019 |work= World Nuclear News |publisher= |accessdate= 9 January 2019 }}
45. ^{{Citation |url=http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=40685 |title=Pakistan Deal Signals China's Growing Nuclear Assertiveness |author=Mark Hibbs |work=Nuclear Energy Brief |date=April 27, 2010 |publisher=Carnegie Endowment for International Peace |accessdate=25 February 2011| archiveurl= https://web.archive.org/web/20110117134550/http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=40685| archivedate= 17 January 2011 | deadurl= no}}
46. ^{{cite news| url= http://english.caijing.com.cn/2008-09-11/110011665.html| title= U.S. Technology Picked for Nuclear Plants| author= Li Qiyan| date= September 11, 2008| work= Caijing| accessdate= 2008-10-29| archiveurl= https://web.archive.org/web/20081015232723/http://english.caijing.com.cn/2008-09-11/110011665.html| archivedate= 2008-10-15| deadurl= yes| df= }}
47. ^{{cite news |url=http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-China-produces-first-AP1000-vessel-1106144.html |title=China produces first AP1000 vessel |publisher=World Nuclear News |date=11 June 2014 |accessdate=6 August 2014}}
48. ^{{cite web|url=https://www.southerncompany.com/innovation/nuclear-energy/plant-vogtle-3-and-4.html |title=Plant Vogtle 3 and 4 |author=Southern Company |accessdate=2017-08-29 }}
49. ^{{cite web|url=http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/ap1000_nui_ic_VCSummer.html |title=AP1000 Construction Project Updates - VC Summer |author=Westinghouse |year=2013 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20131019154347/http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/ap1000_nui_ic_VCSummer.html |archivedate=2013-10-19 }}
50. ^{{cite news|title=Scana to evaluate Summer options|url=http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C-Scana-to-evaluate-Summer-options-3003177.html|accessdate=11 April 2018|work=www.world-nuclear-news.org|date=30 March 2017}}
51. ^{{cite web |url= http://www.scana.com/en/investor-relations/nuclear-development/schedule/default.htm |title=Nuclear Financial Information |author=SCANA |year=2013 }}
52. ^{{cite web|url=http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/metro/2015-08-28/plant-vogtle-track-after-schedule-revised|title=The Augusta Chronicle: Local & World News, Sports & Entertainment in Augusta, GA|website=The Augusta Chronicle}}
53. ^{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/apr/10/nuclear.nuclearpower |title=Westinghouse wins first US nuclear deal in 30 years |author=Terry Macalister |work=The Guardian |date=10 April 2008 |accessdate=2008-04-09 |location=London| archiveurl= https://web.archive.org/web/20080411141939/http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/10/nuclear.nuclearpower| archivedate= 11 April 2008 | deadurl= no}}
54. ^{{cite news |title=Georgia Power to Expand Nuclear Plant |publisher=Associated Press |url=https://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/04/09/ap4870687.html |accessdate=2008-04-09 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080413080429/http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/04/09/ap4870687.html |archivedate=2008-04-13 |deadurl=no |df= }}
55. ^{{cite news |title=NRC: Combined License Application Documents for Vogtle, Units 3 and 4 Application |publisher=NRC |url=https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/vogtle/documents.html |accessdate=2011-03-11 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110721061354/http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/vogtle/documents.html |archivedate=2011-07-21 }}
56. ^{{cite news |title = Obama Administration Announces Loan Guarantees to Construct New Nuclear Power Reactors in Georgia |publisher = The White House Office of the Press Secretary |url = http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/obama-administration-announces-loan-guarantees-construct-new-nuclear-power-reactors |accessdate = 2010-04-30 |archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20100501141849/http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/obama-administration-announces-loan-guarantees-construct-new-nuclear-power-reactors |archivedate = 2010-05-01 |deadurl = yes |df = }}
57. ^{{cite news |url=http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/business/local-business/2012-05-11/price-vogtle-expansion-could-increase-900-million |title=Price of Vogtle expansion could increase $900 million |author=Rob Pavey |newspaper=The Augusta Chronicle |date=May 11, 2012 |accessdate=July 25, 2012}}
58. ^{{cite web |url= http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/metro/2011-04-06/groups-want-licensing-reactors-suspended |title=Groups want licensing of reactors suspended |author=Rob Pavey |date=April 6, 2011 |website=Augusta Chronicle }}
59. ^{{cite news | title=NRC Approves Vogtle Reactor Construction | publisher=Nuclear Street | url=http://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear_power_industry_news/b/nuclear_power_news/archive/2012/02/09/nrc-approves-vogtle-reactor-construction-_2d00_-first-new-nuclear-plant-approval-in-34-years-_2800_with-new-plant-photos_2900_-020902.aspx | accessdate= 2012-02-09 }}
60. ^{{cite news |url=http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Cost-of-Summer-AP1000s-increases-0310144.html |title=Cost of Summer AP1000s increases |publisher=World Nuclear News |date=3 October 2014 |accessdate=6 October 2014}}
61. ^“China set to supply components to US nuclear power plants.” Lucy Hornby (Beijing) and Ed Crooks (New York), Financial Times, 30 October 2013 “Analysis - China needs Western help for nuclear export ambitions” David Stanway (Beijing) Reuters, 17 December 2013
62. ^{{cite web|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-31/scana-to-cease-construction-of-two-reactors-in-south-carolina|title=Terms of Service Violation|website=www.bloomberg.com}}
63. ^{{cite web|url=http://www.novinite.com/articles/155777/Bulgaria+Seeks+US+Technology+for+New+Unit+of+Kozloduy+NPP|title=Bulgaria Seeks US Technology for New Unit of Kozloduy NPP - Novinite.com - Sofia News Agency|first=M3 Web -|last=http://m3web.bg|publisher=}}
64. ^{{cite news| url=https://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/11/bulgaria-nuclear-idUSL6N0JQ2L120131211 | work=Reuters | first=Tsvetelia | last=Tsolova | title=UPDATE 1-Bulgaria to start talks with Toshiba over new nuclear unit | date=11 December 2013}}
65. ^{{cite web|url=http://www.standartnews.com/english/read/wsj_westinghouse_electric_in_talks_with_bulgaria_to_build_nuclear_reactor__deal_could_be_worth_several_billion_dollars-1955.html|title=WSJ: Westinghouse Electric in Talks With Bulgaria to Build Nuclear Reactor - Deal Could Be Worth Several Billion Dollars|publisher=}}
66. ^{{cite web|url=http://www.novinite.com/articles/156372/Bulgaria,+Westinghouse+Ink+Deal+on+Kozloduy+NPP|title=Bulgaria, Westinghouse Ink Deal on Kozloduy NPP - Novinite.com - Sofia News Agency|first=M3 Web -|last=http://m3web.bg|publisher=}}
67. ^"Kozloduy NPP – Construction of unit 7: Expert Statement to the Environmental Impact Assessment Report" Andrea Wallner, Helmut Hirsch Adhipati Y. Indradiningrat, Oda Becker, Mathias Brettner Environment Agency Austria, 2013
68. ^{{cite web|url=http://www.focus-fen.net/news/2014/08/01/344391/kozloduy-npp-westinghouse-american-company-and-kozloduy-npp-new-facilities-ead-signed-shareholder-agreement-for-cooperation.html|title=FOCUS Information Agency|website=FOCUS Information Agency}}
69. ^{{cite news |url=http://www.neimagazine.com/news/newsfirst-ap1000-at-moorside-online-by-2024-westinghouse-says-4159583 |title=First AP1000 at Moorside online by 2024, Westinghouse says |publisher=Nuclear Engineering International |date=14 January 2014 |accessdate=15 January 2014}}
70. ^{{cite web|title=AP1000 design completes UK regulatory assessment|publisher=World Nuclear News|url=http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-AP1000-design-completes-UK-regulatory-assessment-30031701.html|date=30 March 2017|accessdate=8 April 2017}}
71. ^{{cite web|url=http://www.onr.org.uk/new-reactors/ap1000/reports/ap1000-signed-dac.pdf|title=New nuclear power stations: Generic Design Assessment: Design Acceptance Confirmation for the AP1000® Reactor |publisher= ONR|date=28 March 2017|accessdate=8 April 2017}}
72. ^{{cite news |url=http://www.neimagazine.com/news/newswestinghouse-files-for-bankruptcy-5773901 |title=Westinghouse files for bankruptcy |publisher=Nuclear Engineering International |date=29 March 2017 |accessdate=4 April 2017}}
73. ^{{cite news |url=http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C-Kepco-named-preferred-bigger-for-UKs-NuGen-07121704.html |title=Kepco named preferred bidder for UK's NuGen |publisher=World Nuclear News |date=7 December 2017 |accessdate=8 December 2017}}
74. ^{{cite news|url=https://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ians/n-joy-us-firm-to-finally-start-work-on-nuclear-power-plants-in-india-116060800074_1.html|title=N-joy: US firm to finally start work on nuclear power plants in India|last=IANS|date=8 June 2016|publisher=|via=Business Standard|newspaper=Business Standard India}}
75. ^{{Cite news|url=http://indianexpress.com/article/business/business-others/westinghouse-ap1000-reactors-patchy-record-cost-concerns-loom-large-2867947/|title=Westinghouse AP1000 reactors: Patchy record, cost concerns loom large|date=2016-06-22|newspaper=The Indian Express|access-date=2016-10-31}}
76. ^{{Cite web|url=http://www.nucnet.org/all-the-news/2016/06/08/preparatory-work-begins-for-six-westinghouse-ap1000-reactors-in-india|title=Preparatory Work 'To Begin Immediately' For Six Westinghouse AP1000 Reactors In India|last=Belgium|first=Central Office, NucNet a.s.b.l., Brussels|website=www.nucnet.org|access-date=2016-10-31}}
77. ^{{cite news |url=http://www.millenniumpost.in/opinion/news-183936 |title=India-US N-deal Under Threat |first=Nitya |last=Chakraborty |newspaper=Millinium Post |date=10 February 2017 |accessdate=24 February 2017}}