Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grainne who wrote (21398)	5/7/1998 3:18:00 PM
From: LoLoLoLita	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Christine, Here are my thoughts on U.S. nuclear power safety. A few here have posted to me that the (expensive) nuke nearby has finally been shut down, to their great relief. The main reason that many of our nukes were so expensive to build is that we started (for pressurized water reactors, PWRs, at least) with the design of the Navy submarine reactor and scaled it up in size. When the PRA studies were done in 1970s and 1980s many possible accident sequences were identified that required changes in the design. These resulted in adding more safety systems to the already complex system. I'm not alone in thinking that adding more "safety" systems can actually be detrimental to safety, but that theory was never operative at the NRC, which is the boss. If the system is kept simple, and the reactor runs at a lower temperatures and pressures and pressures than used in the submarine reactor, you can have a safer reactor. All of the reactor vendors now are trying to sell and build advanced light water reactors (ALWRs) which are all claimed to be safer and cheaper than what is currently used. So we have no operating experience. However, the Canadian CANDU design is now in use, and has been for some years. Why don't you look at that? But please remember that most of what you will find in the popular press is inaccurate when it comes to nuclear safety issues. The "real" information is probably going to be difficult to understand without some training or work experience. Please indulge me for summarizing your scientific quest in a slightly sarcastic manner. You believe that all nuclear power is unsafe. You want to prove that this is so. Towards that end, you want to know of the "safest" type of nuclear reactor. By proving that the "safest" is unsafe, you will prove that all reactors are unsafe. Q.E.D. Good Luck! It's a very ambitious project and the logic is somewhat weak. I'm doubtful that your results would be accepted for any type of scientific publication. Please remember one axiom of risk analysis: safety is relative, not absolute. David

To: Grainne who wrote (21398)	5/8/1998 12:16:00 AM
From: LoLoLoLita	Respond to of 108807

>>I understand why nuclear power can be a good thing, but oppose >>it on safety grounds, for the most part, and want to see if >>reactor safety has really improved all that much since I >>formed my initial opinion. If so, then I might revise it. Christine, I'm glad that you have an open mind as to the safety of nuclear power. I probably know as much about it as anyone here, and I can tell you that I would not want to live within the 10-mile emergency planning zone of a large commercial power reactor of current design. This is due to issues of design complexity and human factors previously discussed. However, if ALWRs are built, I might revise that opinion after reviewing their operating experience. Fusion reactors are a completely different story. Anyone who believes that they would be preferable to advanced fission reactors is either woefully misinformed or a shill for the nuclear industry. Fusion will surely lose out on a cost-of-operation basis, and whether or not fusion would have significant environmental or safety advantages over fission is wholly unknown. Judging from the history of technological developments where hazardous technologies are harnessed for human good, it has always been the case that the dangers of a new technology are not fully recognized until after the damn things are built and operating. We began operating fission reactors about 55 years ago. Counting all the test reactors together with commercial power and military reactors, there are over 1000 fission reactors operating in the world. All of this operating experience has been used in the development of ALWRs, in order to make them both safe and economically efficient. It's simply absurd to think that fusion reactors are preferable. David