[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Archive Top]
[cdn-nucl-l] RE: RE: Nuclear Silliness (Dan Meneley) (Jaro Franta)
Come on guys, wake up and smell the roses!
It is crazy to go back to the beginning and start over with design ideas that may (or may not) work out in the end. The commercial plants that exist are serviceable, safe, and economic. We can gradually improve them, as we've been doing already for 30 years.
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA [mailto:cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA] On Behalf Of cdn-nucl-l-request@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 11:02 PM
To: cdn-nucl-l@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA
Subject: cdn-nucl-l digest, Vol 1 #2734 - 4 msgs
Send cdn-nucl-l mailing list submissions to
cdn-nucl-l@mailman.McMaster.CA
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/cdn-nucl-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
cdn-nucl-l-request@mailman.McMaster.CA
You can reach the person managing the list at
cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman.McMaster.CA
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of cdn-nucl-l digest..."
This is a digest version of the
Canadian Nuclear Discussion List
_______________________________________________
Today's Topics:
1. RE: RE: Nuclear Renaissance (Dan Meneley) (Jaro Franta)
2. Re: RE: Nuclear Renaissance (Dan Meneley) (Rod Adams)
3. RE: [cannula] Safety of Nuclear Power (George Stanford)
4. Safety of Nuclear Power; "We have met the enemy and he is us!" (Jerry Cuttler)
--__--__--
Message: 1
From: "Jaro Franta" <jaro-10kbq@sympatico.ca>
To: "'Rod Adams'" <atomicrod@aol.com>,
"'Canadian Nuclear Discussion List'" <cdn-nucl-l@mailman1.cis.mcmaster.ca>
Subject: RE: [cdn-nucl-l] RE: Nuclear Renaissance (Dan Meneley)
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 18:46:48 -0500
Rod Adams wrote on January-16-10 2:02 PM
<snip>The idea that the time for design work ended thirty years ago is
reminiscent of the guy at the patent office in the 1800s who lamented that
all that could be invented had already been invented.<end>
Good point Rod.
I also think that its about making viable choices -- based on past
experience.
For instance, nobody was hurt in the Monju accident many years ago.
But what utility would in their right mind build plants that stay shut down
for a decade, following a relatively insignificant event ? ....and the
sodium fire there wasn't the worst thing that can happen in such plants --
especially if they rely on steam generators for power conversion.
Its NOT like there weren't any better alternatives !
Jaro
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
--__--__--
Message: 2
From: Rod Adams <atomicrod@aol.com>
Subject: Re: [cdn-nucl-l] RE: Nuclear Renaissance (Dan Meneley)
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 19:22:31 -0500
To: Canadian Nuclear Discussion List <cdn-nucl-l@mailman1.cis.mcmaster.ca>
--Apple-Mail-110--148373132
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii
Jaro:
The solution to the lengthy shutdown is not a complete change in design fo=
r an insignificant issue, but a continuing and focused effort by the peopl=
e who KNOW that fission is better than combustion to repeat that fact regu=
larly and loudly.
We should not be afraid to beat our drum - how do you think that other haz=
ardous enterprises like burning coal, transporting natural gas, and flying=
in heavier than air vehicles keep operating? They teach people that the=
benefits are worth the minor risks and they teach people that they are ma=
king prudent choices to keep the risks under control without pricing the=
service/product so high that no one can afford it. Any NASCAR fan knows=
that it is possible to design vehicles to allow a 175 MPH crash and allow=
the driver to walk away, but few of them can or will spend the money to=
enable that level of safety in their own automobile.
In the below, Lauvergeon is simply acting like any company executive whose=
engineers have produced a design that is losing sales because it is too=
complex, takes too long to build, and is too expensive. The "French exper=
ts" quoted are acting in their employer's interest and trying to justify=
the added expense, even though the EPR safety features that the market is=
not willing to pay for. Volvo and Mercedes salesmen do the same thing, bu=
t the pitch falls on deaf ears for someone with a Chevrolet budget.
How can you improve on the proven record of Gen II reactors? Sure, the mod=
els "prove" a higher level of safety, but even TMI, which actually melted=
a large portion of the core, would never have needed a "core catcher". Th=
e fact that systems without that expensive addition would not be licensed=
in France is typical protectionism, not safety.
Testifying before the Sustainable Development Committee of the French Nati=
onal Assembly, Lauvergeon said that the outcome of the UAE bid poses funda=
mental questions about the nature of the world nuclear market and the leve=
l of safety requirements for reactors that will still be operating in 2050=
or 2070. .......The [Korean] APR-1400 has a single steel containment stru=
cture and does not have a core catcher; it is also based on twin units tha=
t share some facilities - a design that, French experts said, would not be=
licensed in France. (NUCLEONICS WEEK, JANUARY 14, 2010)
Rod
On Jan 17, 2010, at 6:46 PM, Jaro Franta wrote:
> Rod Adams wrote on January-16-10 2:02 PM
>=20
> <snip>The idea that the time for design work ended thirty years ago is
> reminiscent of the guy at the patent office in the 1800s who lamented th=
at
> all that could be invented had already been invented.<end>
>=20
> Good point Rod.
>=20
> I also think that its about making viable choices -- based on past
> experience.
>=20
> For instance, nobody was hurt in the Monju accident many years ago.
>=20
> But what utility would in their right mind build plants that stay shut=
down
> for a decade, following a relatively insignificant event ? ....and the
> sodium fire there wasn't the worst thing that can happen in such plants=
--
> especially if they rely on steam generators for power conversion.
>=20
> Its NOT like there weren't any better alternatives !
>=20
>=20
> Jaro
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
--Apple-Mail-110--148373132
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=us-ascii
<html><head></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode=
: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Jaro:<div><br></div><div=
>The solution to the lengthy shutdown is not a complete change in design=
for an insignificant issue, but a continuing and focused effort by the pe=
ople who KNOW that fission is better than combustion to repeat that fact=
regularly and loudly.</div><div><br></div><div>We should not be afraid to=
beat our drum - how do you think that other hazardous enterprises like bu=
rning coal, transporting natural gas, and flying in heavier than air vehic=
les keep operating? They teach people that the benefits are worth the mino=
r risks and they teach people that they are making prudent choices to keep=
the risks under control without pricing the service/product so high that=
no one can afford it. Any NASCAR fan knows that it is possible to design=
vehicles to allow a 175 MPH crash and allow the driver to walk away, but=
few of them can or will spend the money to enable that level of safety in=
their own automobile.</div><div><br></div><div>In the below, Lauvergeon=
is simply acting like any company executive whose engineers have produced=
a design that is losing sales because it is too complex, takes too long=
to build, and is too expensive. The "French experts" quoted are acting in=
their employer's interest and trying to justify the added expense, even=
though the EPR safety features that the market is not willing to pay for.=
Volvo and Mercedes salesmen do the same thing, but the pitch falls on dea=
f ears for someone with a Chevrolet budget.</div><div><br></div><div>How=
can you improve on the proven record of Gen II reactors? Sure, the models=
"prove" a higher level of safety, but even TMI, which actually melted a=
large portion of the core, would never have needed a "core catcher". The=
fact that systems without that expensive addition would not be licensed=
in France is typical protectionism, not safety.</div><div><br></div><div>=
<p style=3D"margin-right: 0cm; margin-left: 36pt; font-size: 12pt; font-fa=
mily: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span lang=3D"EN-US" style=3D"font-famil=
y: StoneSerifStd-Medium; ">Testifying before the Sustainable Development=
Committee of the French National Assembly, Lauvergeon said that the outco=
me of</span><b><span lang=3D"EN-US"> </span></b><b><span lang=3D"EN-U=
S" style=3D"font-family: StoneSerifStd-Medium; color: red; ">the UAE bid=
poses fundamental questions about the nature of the world nuclear market=
and the level of safety requirements for reactors that will still be oper=
ating in 2050 or 2070</span></b><span lang=3D"EN-US" style=3D"font-family:=
StoneSerifStd-Medium; ">. .......<span style=3D"color: black; ">The [Kore=
an] APR-1400 has a single steel containment structure and does not have a=
core catcher; it is also based on twin units that share some facilities=
- a design that, French experts said, would not be licensed in France.</s=
pan><b> </b>(</span><span lang=3D"EN-US" style=3D"font-size: 10pt; fo=
nt-family: HelveticaNeue-Condensed; ">NUCLEONICS WEEK, JANUARY 14,=
2010</span>)<o:p></o:p></p><div><font class=3D"Apple-style-span" face=3D"=
'Times New Roman', serif" size=3D"4"><span class=3D"Apple-style-span" styl=
e=3D"font-size: 16px; ">Rod</span></font></div><div><font class=3D"Apple-s=
tyle-span" face=3D"'Times New Roman', serif" size=3D"4"><span class=3D"App=
le-style-span" style=3D"font-size: 16px;"><br></span></font></div></div><d=
iv><div>On Jan 17, 2010, at 6:46 PM, Jaro Franta wrote:</div><br class=3D"=
Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div>Rod Adams wrote=
on January-16-10 2:02 PM<br><br><snip>The idea that the time for de=
sign work ended thirty years ago is<br>reminiscent of the guy at the paten=
t office in the 1800s who lamented that<br>all that could be invented had=
already been invented.<end><br><br>Good point Rod.<br><br>I also th=
ink that its about making viable choices -- based on past<br>experience.<b=
r><br>For instance, nobody was hurt in the Monju accident many years ago.<=
br><br>But what utility would in their right mind build plants that stay=
shut down<br>for a decade, following a relatively insignificant event ?=
....and the<br>sodium fire there wasn't the worst thing that can happen=
in such plants --<br>especially if they rely on steam generators for powe=
r conversion.<br><br>Its NOT like there weren't any better alternatives !<=
br><br><br> Jaro<br>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><=
br><br></div></blockquote></div><br></body></html>=3D
--Apple-Mail-110--148373132--
--__--__--
Message: 3
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 20:53:04 -0600
To: "Jaro Franta" <jaro-10kbq@sympatico.ca>
From: George Stanford <gstanford@aya.yale.edu>
Cc: <cdn-nucl-l@mailman1.cis.mcmaster.ca>
Subject: [cdn-nucl-l] RE: [cannula] Safety of Nuclear Power
<html>
<body>
<font size=3D3>Jaro:<br><br>
I hear you saying that we should postpone for
several decades commercial demonstration of something that's almost
finished -- a technology (the IFR) that can do everything we need to put
the world on a truly sustainable energy course -- while embarking on a
crash R&D program to see whether the LFTR can live up to its promise
to do the same thing. The reason? Worry that an innocuous
accident such as another TMI might arouse enough fear in an irrational
and ill-informed citizenry to cause them to jeopardize their energy
future by turning their back on nuclear power. I do suppose that
could conceivably be the reaction here, but the nuclear renaissance will
proceed, regardless, in China, India, Russia, or France -- wherever the
need for nuclear energy is even partially grasped.<br><br>
Is it not part of our job to give the public a
realistic comprehension of relative risks? To let the public, the
media, and the regulators know that the LNT model of radiation risk is
nonsense? To foster realization, for example, that living
downstream from a hydro dam is far more risky than living next door to a
nuclear plant? To get across the message that nuclear power is
necessary for sustainable energy independence? Can't we see that
bad-mouthing the safety of other peoples' reactors reinforces the very
reaction that worries you (and me)?<br><br>
As we twiddle our thumbs, the rest of the world
is forging ahead with fast reactors and the fuel processing that goes
with them. That will proceed, with or without US
participation -- but the chance of another TMI would be no smaller
without US/Canadian leadership than with it.<br><br>
Currently, the competition between LFTR and IFR
is more apparent than real. The former is a budding R&D project
(which should indeed go forward), while the latter needs a little seed
money (and official blessing) to get commercialization under way.
If the LFTR turns out in the future to be competitive in the marketplace,
well and good -- it will earn its rightful place as a minor or major
player.<br><br>
Some who know more about the regulatory business
than I do point out that the US system, being design-oriented, contains a
myriad of unnecessarily detailed requirements that are actually
detrimental to overall safety. They observe that a fundamental
policy switch to performance-oriented requirements would lead to much
greater efficiency, greatly reduce costs without sacrificing safety, and
make it much easier for innovative designs to reach the
marketplace. Not that that transformation is likely to happen
anytime soon, given our bureaucratic, politicized, technically naive
decision-making mechanism. But the factor of-three-or-more
construction-cost differential between here and Asia does not by any
means bring commensurate safety benefits.<br><br>
Can we not learn from Areva's mistakes as well
as their insights? Rod Adams' remarks, below, are very much to the
point.<br><br>
Surely it's our duty as nuclear professionals to
make the realities known, instead of rolling over and playing
dead.<br><br>
Cheers,<br><br>
-- George<br><br>
BTW, I'm sharing this correspondence via bcc with the IFR discussion
group. -- G.<br><br>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br><br>
At 06:22 PM 1/17/2010, Rod Adams wrote:<br>
Jaro:<br><br>
The solution to the lengthy shutdown [of Monju] is not a complete change
in design for an insignificant issue, but a continuing and focused effort
by the people who KNOW that fission is better than combustion to repeat
that fact regularly and loudly.<br><br>
We should not be afraid to beat our drum - how do you think that other
hazardous enterprises like burning coal, transporting natural gas, and
flying in heavier than air vehicles keep operating? They teach people
that the benefits are worth the minor risks and they teach people that
they are making prudent choices to keep the risks under control without
pricing the service/product so high that no one can afford it. Any NASCAR
fan knows that it is possible to design vehicles to allow a 175 MPH crash
and allow the driver to walk away, but few of them can or will spend the
money to enable that level of safety in their own automobile.<br><br>
In the below, Lauvergeon is simply acting like any company executive
whose engineers have produced a design that is losing sales because it is
too complex, takes too long to build, and is too expensive. The
"French experts" quoted are acting in their employer's interest
and trying to justify the added expense, even though the EPR safety
features that the market is not willing to pay for. Volvo and Mercedes
salesmen do the same thing, but the pitch falls on deaf ears for someone
with a Chevrolet budget.<br><br>
How can you improve on the proven record of Gen II reactors? Sure, the
models "prove" a higher level of safety, but even TMI, which
actually melted a large portion of the core, would never have needed a
"core catcher". The fact that systems without that expensive
addition would not be licensed in France is typical protectionism, not
safety.<br><br>
Testifying before the Sustainable Development Committee of the French
National Assembly, Lauvergeon said that the outcome of<b> the UAE bid
poses fundamental questions about the nature of the world nuclear market
and the level of safety requirements for reactors that will still be
operating in 2050 or 2070</b>. .......The [Korean] APR-1400 has a single
steel containment structure and does not have a core catcher; it is also
based on twin units that share some facilities - a design that, French
experts said, would not be licensed in France.<b> </b>(NUCLEONICS
WEEK, JANUARY 14, 2010)<br>
</font><font size=3D4>Rod<br><br>
</font><font size=3D3>On Jan 17, 2010, at 6:46 PM, Jaro Franta
wrote:<br><br>
Rod Adams wrote on January-16-10 2:02 PM<br><br>
<snip>The idea that the time for design work ended thirty years ago
is<br>
reminiscent of the guy at the patent office in the 1800s who lamented
that<br>
all that could be invented had already been invented.<end><br><br>
Good point Rod.<br><br>
I also think that its about making viable choices -- based on past<br>
experience.<br><br>
For instance, nobody was hurt in the Monju accident many years
ago.<br><br>
But what utility would in their right mind build plants that stay shut
down<br>
for a decade, following a relatively insignificant event ? ....and
the<br>
sodium fire there wasn't the worst thing that can happen in such plants
--<br>
especially if they rely on steam generators for power
conversion.<br><br>
Its NOT like there weren't any better alternatives !<br><br>
<br>
Jaro<br>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^<br><br>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br><br>
At 04:38 PM 1/17/2010, Jaro Franta wrote:<br>
Sorry George, I think you are missing my point:<br>
<br>
All it takes is a <i>media event</i> like TMI-II, to stop the =93nuclear
renaissance=94 dead in its tracks !<br>
<br>
Much technical improvement has been done since March 28 1979 =96 good
enough for the current global fleet of nuke plants.<br>
<br>
But now we=92re talking about a ten-fold global expansion (or
greater).<br>
<br>
And you missed the main point of my message completely: <br>
The high degree of safety of Gen-III+ designs like Areva=92s 1600MWe PWR
<b>comes at a very high cost</b> =96 a cost that threatens the renaissance,
not just economically, but by inviting displacement by less safe but
cheaper designs =96 at least according to what Anne Lauvergeon
said:<br><br>
Testifying before the Sustainable Development Committee of the French
National Assembly, Lauvergeon said that the outcome of<b> the UAE bid
poses fundamental questions about the nature of the world nuclear market
and the level of safety requirements for reactors that will still be
operating in 2050 or 2070</b>. .......The [Korean] APR-1400 has a single
steel containment structure and does not have a core catcher; it is also
based on twin units that share some facilities - a design that, French
experts said, would not be licensed in France.<b> </b>(NUCLEONICS
WEEK, JANUARY 14, 2010)<br>
With these questions in mind, it hardly seems reasonable to me, to
advocate things like sodium-cooled reactors for Gen-IV =96 as in fact that
letter to Holdren & Chu does....<br>
<br>
<i>in the future, NPP cost needs to come down. Not by limiting levels of
safety, but by adopting reactor types which obviate the need for added
safety features.<br>
</i> <br>
<br>
Jaro<br>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>From:</b> cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA
[<a href=3D"mailto:cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA"; eudora=3D"auto=
url">
mailto:cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA</a>] <b>On Behalf Of
</b>George Stanford<br>
<b>Sent:</b> January-17-10 3:38 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Franta, Jaroslav<br>
<b>Cc:</b> cdn-nucl-l@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [cdn-nucl-l] Safety of Nuclear Power<br>
<br>
Jaro & All:<br><br>
Seems to me that too many of us nuclear-power
advocates are shooting ourselves in the foot by stressing the safety
aspect of whatever our pet reactor type is. THE SAFETY ISSUE IS
SPURIOUS. We all know that. Of all heavy industries, the
commercial nuclear power industry has an unparalleled safety record --
yes, even including Chernobyl. To suggest that any type of Gen -II,
Gen-III, or Gen-IV reactor is dangerous does not convince the public that
your reactor is good -- it reinforces the wrong-headed opinion that
nuclear power in general is too dangerous to have around.<br><br>
Safety is of prime importance, of course, and we
have learned well how to avoid designs that are truly dangerous (like the
original RBMKs). In comparing various proposed, realistic reactor
systems, their absolute safety will be so good that relative safety is
strictly marginal and essentially meaningless.<br><br>
What's dangerous (to energy security) is
misleading the public into thinking that nuclear power is unusually
risky. As I recall, there was a hydro plant accident in Russia a
few months ago that killed more people that Chernobyl did. How many
of us even heard about it? All industries have risks, but nuclear's
risks are minuscule in comparison with any industry that's not all office
work.<br><br>
Realistic decisions will be based on such
factors as economics, waste management, resource utilization, long-term
sustainability, environmental impact, proliferation implications, and the
specific application. There's lots of room for a variety of reactor
types. We need to get moving in this part of the world, or we will
continue to lose leadership in the evolution and management of nuclear
technology to Asia and Europe.<br><br>
That's how I see it. I hope you will
agree,<br><br>
Cheers,<br><br>
-- George<br><br>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br><br>
At 08:20 AM 1/15/2010, Franta, Jaroslav wrote:<br><br>
<br>
....seems to me the message is clear: in the future, NPP cost needs to
come down. Not by limiting levels of safety, but by adopting reactor
types which obviate the need for added safety features. Namely, avoidance
of process fuids & gases with lots of stored energy (water, steam, SC
water, etc.) or potential for fires (sodium - as in LMFR like IFR).
Remember that when the global fleet of nukes is increased by a factor of
ten, a corresponding increase in plant safety will be required just to
maintain current safety level of the global fleet.<br><br>
<i>Jaro</i> <br>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ </font></body>
</html>
--__--__--
Message: 4
From: "Jerry Cuttler" <jerrycuttler@rogers.com>
To: "Canadian Nuclear Discussion List" <CDN-NUCL-L@mailman1.cis.mcmaster.ca>
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 22:59:10 -0500
Subject: [cdn-nucl-l] Safety of Nuclear Power; "We have met the enemy and he is us!"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_00DE_01CA97C8.AE3C4800
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Well, I'll add my views to this discussion.
I think we have to read Ted Rockwell's Nuclear Energy Facts Report, =
again and again. "The latest edition of the Report will always be =
posted on: http://learningaboutenergy.com "
Our CANDU and LWRs reactors are safe enough, but we have a huge army of =
nuclear safety analysts who keep urging that more and more safety =
analysis be carried out and more and more safety improvements be =
introduced without cost-benefit analyses. We do not denounce the LNT =
assumption; we continue to tie nuclear energy to fatal cancers, so we =
have an on-going safety problem. =20
In addition to my article, Nuclear Energy and Health, I've written (at =
an editor's request): Commentary on Using LNT for Radiation Protection =
and Risk Assessment, which will be published in a journal in March.
We will continue to have a "nuclear waste" problem until we start =
building IFRs and recycling used fuel.
I'm reminded of Pogo's famous statement (attached): "We have met the =
enemy and he is us!"
Jerry
----- Original Message -----=20
From: George Stanford=20
To: Jaro Franta=20
Cc: cdn-nucl-l@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA=20
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 9:53 PM
Subject: [cdn-nucl-l] RE: [cannula] Safety of Nuclear Power
Jaro:
I hear you saying that we should postpone for several decades =
commercial demonstration of something that's almost finished -- a =
technology (the IFR) that can do everything we need to put the world on =
a truly sustainable energy course -- while embarking on a crash R&D =
program to see whether the LFTR can live up to its promise to do the =
same thing. The reason? Worry that an innocuous accident such as =
another TMI might arouse enough fear in an irrational and ill-informed =
citizenry to cause them to jeopardize their energy future by turning =
their back on nuclear power. I do suppose that could conceivably be the =
reaction here, but the nuclear renaissance will proceed, regardless, in =
China, India, Russia, or France -- wherever the need for nuclear energy =
is even partially grasped.
Is it not part of our job to give the public a realistic =
comprehension of relative risks? To let the public, the media, and the =
regulators know that the LNT model of radiation risk is nonsense? To =
foster realization, for example, that living downstream from a hydro dam =
is far more risky than living next door to a nuclear plant? To get =
across the message that nuclear power is necessary for sustainable =
energy independence? Can't we see that bad-mouthing the safety of other =
peoples' reactors reinforces the very reaction that worries you (and =
me)?
As we twiddle our thumbs, the rest of the world is forging ahead =
with fast reactors and the fuel processing that goes with them. That =
will proceed, with or without US participation -- but the chance of =
another TMI would be no smaller without US/Canadian leadership than with =
it.
Currently, the competition between LFTR and IFR is more apparent =
than real. The former is a budding R&D project (which should indeed go =
forward), while the latter needs a little seed money (and official =
blessing) to get commercialization under way. If the LFTR turns out in =
the future to be competitive in the marketplace, well and good -- it =
will earn its rightful place as a minor or major player.
Some who know more about the regulatory business than I do point =
out that the US system, being design-oriented, contains a myriad of =
unnecessarily detailed requirements that are actually detrimental to =
overall safety. They observe that a fundamental policy switch to =
performance-oriented requirements would lead to much greater efficiency, =
greatly reduce costs without sacrificing safety, and make it much easier =
for innovative designs to reach the marketplace. Not that that =
transformation is likely to happen anytime soon, given our bureaucratic, =
politicized, technically naive decision-making mechanism. But the =
factor of-three-or-more construction-cost differential between here and =
Asia does not by any means bring commensurate safety benefits.
Can we not learn from Areva's mistakes as well as their insights? =
Rod Adams' remarks, below, are very much to the point.
Surely it's our duty as nuclear professionals to make the =
realities known, instead of rolling over and playing dead.
Cheers,
-- George
BTW, I'm sharing this correspondence via bcc with the IFR discussion =
group. -- G.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
At 06:22 PM 1/17/2010, Rod Adams wrote:
Jaro:
The solution to the lengthy shutdown [of Monju] is not a complete =
change in design for an insignificant issue, but a continuing and =
focused effort by the people who KNOW that fission is better than =
combustion to repeat that fact regularly and loudly.
We should not be afraid to beat our drum - how do you think that other =
hazardous enterprises like burning coal, transporting natural gas, and =
flying in heavier than air vehicles keep operating? They teach people =
that the benefits are worth the minor risks and they teach people that =
they are making prudent choices to keep the risks under control without =
pricing the service/product so high that no one can afford it. Any =
NASCAR fan knows that it is possible to design vehicles to allow a 175 =
MPH crash and allow the driver to walk away, but few of them can or will =
spend the money to enable that level of safety in their own automobile.
In the below, Lauvergeon is simply acting like any company executive =
whose engineers have produced a design that is losing sales because it =
is too complex, takes too long to build, and is too expensive. The =
"French experts" quoted are acting in their employer's interest and =
trying to justify the added expense, even though the EPR safety features =
that the market is not willing to pay for. Volvo and Mercedes salesmen =
do the same thing, but the pitch falls on deaf ears for someone with a =
Chevrolet budget.
How can you improve on the proven record of Gen II reactors? Sure, the =
models "prove" a higher level of safety, but even TMI, which actually =
melted a large portion of the core, would never have needed a "core =
catcher". The fact that systems without that expensive addition would =
not be licensed in France is typical protectionism, not safety.
Testifying before the Sustainable Development Committee of the French =
National Assembly, Lauvergeon said that the outcome of the UAE bid poses =
fundamental questions about the nature of the world nuclear market and =
the level of safety requirements for reactors that will still be =
operating in 2050 or 2070. .......The [Korean] APR-1400 has a single =
steel containment structure and does not have a core catcher; it is also =
based on twin units that share some facilities - a design that, French =
experts said, would not be licensed in France. (NUCLEONICS WEEK, =
JANUARY 14, 2010)
Rod
On Jan 17, 2010, at 6:46 PM, Jaro Franta wrote:
Rod Adams wrote on January-16-10 2:02 PM
<snip>The idea that the time for design work ended thirty years ago is
reminiscent of the guy at the patent office in the 1800s who lamented =
that
all that could be invented had already been invented.<end>
Good point Rod.
I also think that its about making viable choices -- based on past
experience.
For instance, nobody was hurt in the Monju accident many years ago.
But what utility would in their right mind build plants that stay shut =
down
for a decade, following a relatively insignificant event ? ....and the
sodium fire there wasn't the worst thing that can happen in such =
plants --
especially if they rely on steam generators for power conversion.
Its NOT like there weren't any better alternatives !
Jaro
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
At 04:38 PM 1/17/2010, Jaro Franta wrote:
Sorry George, I think you are missing my point:
=20
All it takes is a media event like TMI-II, to stop the "nuclear =
renaissance" dead in its tracks !
=20
Much technical improvement has been done since March 28 1979 - good =
enough for the current global fleet of nuke plants.
=20
But now we're talking about a ten-fold global expansion (or greater).
=20
And you missed the main point of my message completely:=20
The high degree of safety of Gen-III+ designs like Areva's 1600MWe PWR =
comes at a very high cost - a cost that threatens the renaissance, not =
just economically, but by inviting displacement by less safe but cheaper =
designs - at least according to what Anne Lauvergeon said:
Testifying before the Sustainable Development Committee of the French =
National Assembly, Lauvergeon said that the outcome of the UAE bid poses =
fundamental questions about the nature of the world nuclear market and =
the level of safety requirements for reactors that will still be =
operating in 2050 or 2070. .......The [Korean] APR-1400 has a single =
steel containment structure and does not have a core catcher; it is also =
based on twin units that share some facilities - a design that, French =
experts said, would not be licensed in France. (NUCLEONICS WEEK, =
JANUARY 14, 2010)
With these questions in mind, it hardly seems reasonable to me, to =
advocate things like sodium-cooled reactors for Gen-IV - as in fact that =
letter to Holdren & Chu does....
=20
in the future, NPP cost needs to come down. Not by limiting levels of =
safety, but by adopting reactor types which obviate the need for added =
safety features.
=20
=20
Jaro
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
=20
=20
=20
From: cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA [ =
mailto:cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA] On Behalf Of George =
Stanford
Sent: January-17-10 3:38 PM
To: Franta, Jaroslav
Cc: cdn-nucl-l@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA
Subject: [cdn-nucl-l] Safety of Nuclear Power
=20
Jaro & All:
Seems to me that too many of us nuclear-power advocates are =
shooting ourselves in the foot by stressing the safety aspect of =
whatever our pet reactor type is. THE SAFETY ISSUE IS SPURIOUS. We all =
know that. Of all heavy industries, the commercial nuclear power =
industry has an unparalleled safety record -- yes, even including =
Chernobyl. To suggest that any type of Gen -II, Gen-III, or Gen-IV =
reactor is dangerous does not convince the public that your reactor is =
good -- it reinforces the wrong-headed opinion that nuclear power in =
general is too dangerous to have around.
Safety is of prime importance, of course, and we have learned =
well how to avoid designs that are truly dangerous (like the original =
RBMKs). In comparing various proposed, realistic reactor systems, their =
absolute safety will be so good that relative safety is strictly =
marginal and essentially meaningless.
What's dangerous (to energy security) is misleading the public =
into thinking that nuclear power is unusually risky. As I recall, there =
was a hydro plant accident in Russia a few months ago that killed more =
people that Chernobyl did. How many of us even heard about it? All =
industries have risks, but nuclear's risks are minuscule in comparison =
with any industry that's not all office work.
Realistic decisions will be based on such factors as economics, =
waste management, resource utilization, long-term sustainability, =
environmental impact, proliferation implications, and the specific =
application. There's lots of room for a variety of reactor types. We =
need to get moving in this part of the world, or we will continue to =
lose leadership in the evolution and management of nuclear technology to =
Asia and Europe.
That's how I see it. I hope you will agree,
Cheers,
-- George
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
At 08:20 AM 1/15/2010, Franta, Jaroslav wrote:
....seems to me the message is clear: in the future, NPP cost needs to =
come down. Not by limiting levels of safety, but by adopting reactor =
types which obviate the need for added safety features. Namely, =
avoidance of process fuids & gases with lots of stored energy (water, =
steam, SC water, etc.) or potential for fires (sodium - as in LMFR like =
IFR). Remember that when the global fleet of nukes is increased by a =
factor of ten, a corresponding increase in plant safety will be required =
just to maintain current safety level of the global fleet.
Jaro=20
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ _______________________________________________ =
cdn-nucl-l mailing list cdn-nucl-l@mailman.McMaster.CA =
http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/cdn-nucl-l
------=_NextPart_000_00DE_01CA97C8.AE3C4800
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META name=3DGENERATOR content=3D"MSHTML 8.00.6001.18865">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial>Well, I'll add my views to this=20
discussion.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial>I think we have to read Ted Rockwell's =
Nuclear=20
Energy Facts Report, again and again. <FONT size=3D3=20
face=3D"Times New Roman">"The latest edition of the Report will always =
be posted=20
on: <FONT color=3D#0000ff><U><A=20
href=3D"http://learningaboutenergy.com";>http://learningaboutenergy.com</A=
></U></FONT> =20
"</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial>Our CANDU and LWRs reactors are safe =
enough, but we=20
have a huge army of nuclear safety analysts who keep urging that more =
and more=20
safety analysis be carried out and more and more safety =
improvements=20
be introduced without cost-benefit analyses. We do=20
<U>not</U> denounce the LNT assumption; we continue to tie nuclear =
energy to=20
fatal cancers, so we have an on-going safety problem. =
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial>In addition to my article, Nuclear =
Energy and=20
Health, I've written (at an editor's request): Commentary on Using LNT =
for=20
Radiation Protection and Risk Assessment, which will be published in a =
journal=20
in March.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial>We will continue to have =
a "nuclear waste"=20
problem until we start building IFRs and recycling used =
fuel.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial>I'm reminded of Pogo's famous statement =
(attached): "We have met the enemy and he is us!"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial>Jerry</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style=3D"TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=3DMsoNormal=20
align=3Dcenter><B><SPAN=20
style=3D"TEXT-TRANSFORM: uppercase; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; =
mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></SPAN></B></P></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; =
PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
<A title=3Dgstanford@aya.yale.edu =
href=3D"mailto:gstanford@aya.yale.edu";>George=20
Stanford</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A =
title=3Djaro-10kbq@sympatico.ca=20
href=3D"mailto:jaro-10kbq@sympatico.ca";>Jaro Franta</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A=20
title=3Dcdn-nucl-l@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA=20
=
href=3D"mailto:cdn-nucl-l@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA";>cdn-nucl-l@mailman1.c=
is.McMaster.CA</A>=20
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, January 17, 2010 =
9:53=20
PM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [cdn-nucl-l] RE: =
[cannula]=20
Safety of Nuclear Power</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><FONT size=3D3>Jaro:<BR><BR> =
<FONT=20
color=3D#ff0000>I hear you saying that we should postpone for several =
decades=20
commercial demonstration of something that's almost finished -- a =
technology=20
(the IFR) that can do everything we need to put the world on a truly=20
sustainable energy course </FONT>-- while embarking on a crash R&D =
program=20
to see whether the LFTR can live up to its promise to do the same =
thing. =20
The reason? Worry that an innocuous accident such as another TMI =
might=20
arouse enough fear in an irrational and ill-informed citizenry to =
cause them=20
to jeopardize their energy future by turning their back on nuclear=20
power. I do suppose that could conceivably be the reaction here, =
but the=20
nuclear renaissance will proceed, regardless, in China, India, Russia, =
or=20
France -- wherever the need for nuclear energy is even partially=20
grasped.<BR><BR> Is it not part of our job to =
give the=20
public a realistic comprehension of relative risks? To let the =
public,=20
the media, and the regulators know that the LNT model of radiation =
risk is=20
nonsense? To foster realization, for example, that living =
downstream=20
from a hydro dam is far more risky than living next door to a nuclear=20
plant? To get across the message that nuclear power is necessary =
for=20
sustainable energy independence? Can't we see that bad-mouthing =
the=20
safety of other peoples' reactors reinforces the very reaction that =
worries=20
you (and me)?<BR><BR> As we twiddle our =
thumbs, the=20
rest of the world is forging ahead with fast reactors and the fuel =
processing=20
that goes with them. That will proceed, with or without US =
participation -- but the chance of another TMI would be no smaller =
without=20
US/Canadian leadership than with it.<BR><BR> =20
Currently, the competition between LFTR and IFR is more apparent than=20
real. The former is a budding R&D project (which should =
indeed go=20
forward), while the latter needs a little seed money (and official =
blessing)=20
to get commercialization under way. If the LFTR turns out in the =
future=20
to be competitive in the marketplace, well and good -- it will earn =
its=20
rightful place as a minor or major =
player.<BR><BR> =20
Some who know more about the regulatory business than I do point out =
that the=20
US system, being design-oriented, contains a myriad of unnecessarily =
detailed=20
requirements that are actually detrimental to overall safety. =
They=20
observe that a fundamental policy switch to performance-oriented =
requirements=20
would lead to much greater efficiency, greatly reduce costs without=20
sacrificing safety, and make it much easier for innovative designs to =
reach=20
the marketplace. Not that that transformation is likely to =
happen=20
anytime soon, given our bureaucratic, politicized, technically naive=20
decision-making mechanism. But the factor of-three-or-more=20
construction-cost differential between here and Asia does not by any =
means=20
bring commensurate safety benefits.<BR><BR> =
Can we not=20
learn from Areva's mistakes as well as their insights? Rod =
Adams'=20
remarks, below, are very much to the =
point.<BR><BR> =20
Surely it's our duty as nuclear professionals to make the realities =
known,=20
instead of rolling over and playing =
dead.<BR><BR> =20
Cheers,<BR><BR> -- George<BR><BR>BTW, =
I'm=20
sharing this correspondence via bcc with the IFR discussion =
group. --=20
G.<BR><BR>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<BR><BR>At 06:22 PM=20
1/17/2010, Rod Adams wrote:<BR>Jaro:<BR><BR>The solution to the =
lengthy=20
shutdown [of Monju] is not a complete change in design for an =
insignificant=20
issue, but a continuing and focused effort by the people who KNOW that =
fission=20
is better than combustion to repeat that fact regularly and =
loudly.<BR><BR>We=20
should not be afraid to beat our drum - how do you think that other =
hazardous=20
enterprises like burning coal, transporting natural gas, and flying in =
heavier=20
than air vehicles keep operating? They teach people that the benefits =
are=20
worth the minor risks and they teach people that they are making =
prudent=20
choices to keep the risks under control without pricing the =
service/product so=20
high that no one can afford it. Any NASCAR fan knows that it is =
possible to=20
design vehicles to allow a 175 MPH crash and allow the driver to walk =
away,=20
but few of them can or will spend the money to enable that level of =
safety in=20
their own automobile.<BR><BR>In the below, Lauvergeon is simply acting =
like=20
any company executive whose engineers have produced a design that is =
losing=20
sales because it is too complex, takes too long to build, and is too=20
expensive. The "French experts" quoted are acting in their employer's =
interest=20
and trying to justify the added expense, even though the EPR safety =
features=20
that the market is not willing to pay for. Volvo and Mercedes salesmen =
do the=20
same thing, but the pitch falls on deaf ears for someone with a =
Chevrolet=20
budget.<BR><BR>How can you improve on the proven record of Gen II =
reactors?=20
Sure, the models "prove" a higher level of safety, but even TMI, which =
actually melted a large portion of the core, would never have needed a =
"core=20
catcher". The fact that systems without that expensive addition would =
not be=20
licensed in France is typical protectionism, not =
safety.<BR><BR>Testifying=20
before the Sustainable Development Committee of the French National =
Assembly,=20
Lauvergeon said that the outcome of<B> the UAE bid poses fundamental =
questions=20
about the nature of the world nuclear market and the level of safety=20
requirements for reactors that will still be operating in 2050 or =
2070</B>.=20
.......The [Korean] APR-1400 has a single steel containment structure =
and does=20
not have a core catcher; it is also based on twin units that share =
some=20
facilities - a design that, French experts said, would not be licensed =
in=20
France.<B> </B>(NUCLEONICS WEEK, JANUARY 14, =
2010)<BR></FONT><FONT=20
size=3D4>Rod<BR><BR></FONT><FONT size=3D3>On Jan 17, 2010, at 6:46 PM, =
Jaro Franta=20
wrote:<BR><BR>Rod Adams wrote on January-16-10 2:02 =
PM<BR><BR><snip>The=20
idea that the time for design work ended thirty years ago =
is<BR>reminiscent of=20
the guy at the patent office in the 1800s who lamented that<BR>all =
that could=20
be invented had already been invented.<end><BR><BR>Good point=20
Rod.<BR><BR>I also think that its about making viable choices -- based =
on=20
past<BR>experience.<BR><BR>For instance, nobody was hurt in the Monju =
accident=20
many years ago.<BR><BR>But what utility would in their right mind =
build plants=20
that stay shut down<BR>for a decade, following a relatively =
insignificant=20
event ? ....and the<BR>sodium fire there wasn't the worst thing that =
can=20
happen in such plants --<BR>especially if they rely on steam =
generators for=20
power conversion.<BR><BR>Its NOT like there weren't any better =
alternatives=20
=
!<BR><BR>Jaro<BR>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^<BR><BR>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=
~~~~~~<BR><BR>At=20
04:38 PM 1/17/2010, Jaro Franta wrote:<BR>Sorry George, I think you =
are=20
missing my point:<BR> <BR>All it takes is a <I>media event</I> =
like=20
TMI-II, to stop the =93nuclear renaissance=94 dead in its tracks=20
!<BR> <BR>Much technical improvement has been done since March 28 =
1979 =96=20
good enough for the current global fleet of nuke =
plants.<BR> <BR>But now=20
we=92re talking about a ten-fold global expansion (or =
greater).<BR> <BR>And=20
you missed the main point of my message completely: <BR>The high =
degree of=20
safety of Gen-III+ designs like Areva=92s 1600MWe PWR <B>comes at a =
very high=20
cost</B> =96 a cost that threatens the renaissance, not just =
economically, but=20
by inviting displacement by less safe but cheaper designs =96 at least =
according=20
to what Anne Lauvergeon said:<BR><BR>Testifying before the Sustainable =
Development Committee of the French National Assembly, Lauvergeon said =
that=20
the outcome of<B> the UAE bid poses fundamental questions about the =
nature of=20
the world nuclear market and the level of safety requirements for =
reactors=20
that will still be operating in 2050 or 2070</B>. .......The [Korean] =
APR-1400=20
has a single steel containment structure and does not have a core =
catcher; it=20
is also based on twin units that share some facilities - a design =
that, French=20
experts said, would not be licensed in France.<B> </B>(NUCLEONICS =
WEEK, =20
JANUARY 14, 2010)<BR>With these questions in mind, it hardly seems =
reasonable=20
to me, to advocate things like sodium-cooled reactors for Gen-IV =96 =
as in fact=20
that letter to Holdren & Chu does....<BR> <BR><I>in the =
future, NPP=20
cost needs to come down. Not by limiting levels of safety, but by =
adopting=20
reactor types which obviate the need for added safety=20
=
features.<BR></I> <BR> <BR> Jaro<BR>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^=
^^^<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR><B>From:</B>=20
cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA [<A=20
href=3D"mailto:cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA"; =
eudora=3D"autourl">=20
mailto:cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA</A>] <B>On Behalf Of=20
</B>George Stanford<BR><B>Sent:</B> January-17-10 3:38 =
PM<BR><B>To:</B>=20
Franta, Jaroslav<BR><B>Cc:</B>=20
cdn-nucl-l@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA<BR><B>Subject:</B> [cdn-nucl-l] =
Safety of=20
Nuclear Power<BR> <BR>Jaro & =
All:<BR><BR> =20
Seems to me that too many of us nuclear-power advocates are shooting =
ourselves=20
in the foot by stressing the safety aspect of whatever our pet reactor =
type=20
is. THE SAFETY ISSUE IS SPURIOUS. We all know that. =
Of all=20
heavy industries, the commercial nuclear power industry has an =
unparalleled=20
safety record -- yes, even including Chernobyl. To suggest that =
any type=20
of Gen -II, Gen-III, or Gen-IV reactor is dangerous does not convince =
the=20
public that your reactor is good -- it reinforces the wrong-headed =
opinion=20
that nuclear power in general is too dangerous to have=20
around.<BR><BR> Safety is of prime importance, =
of=20
course, and we have learned well how to avoid designs that are truly =
dangerous=20
(like the original RBMKs). In comparing various proposed, =
realistic=20
reactor systems, their absolute safety will be so good that relative =
safety is=20
strictly marginal and essentially =
meaningless.<BR><BR> =20
What's dangerous (to energy security) is misleading the public into =
thinking=20
that nuclear power is unusually risky. As I recall, there was a =
hydro=20
plant accident in Russia a few months ago that killed more people that =
Chernobyl did. How many of us even heard about it? All =
industries=20
have risks, but nuclear's risks are minuscule in comparison with any =
industry=20
that's not all office work.<BR><BR> Realistic=20
decisions will be based on such factors as economics, waste =
management,=20
resource utilization, long-term sustainability, environmental impact,=20
proliferation implications, and the specific application. =
There's lots=20
of room for a variety of reactor types. We need to get moving in =
this=20
part of the world, or we will continue to lose leadership in the =
evolution and=20
management of nuclear technology to Asia and=20
Europe.<BR><BR> That's how I see it. I =
hope you=20
will agree,<BR><BR> =20
Cheers,<BR><BR> -- =20
George<BR><BR>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<BR><BR>At 08:20 AM =
1/15/2010,=20
Franta, Jaroslav wrote:<BR><BR><BR>....seems to me the message is =
clear: in=20
the future, NPP cost needs to come down. Not by limiting levels of =
safety, but=20
by adopting reactor types which obviate the need for added safety =
features.=20
Namely, avoidance of process fuids & gases with lots of stored =
energy=20
(water, steam, SC water, etc.) or potential for fires (sodium - as in =
LMFR=20
like IFR). Remember that when the global fleet of nukes is increased =
by a=20
factor of ten, a corresponding increase in plant safety will be =
required just=20
to maintain current safety level of the global =
fleet.<BR><BR><I>Jaro</I>=20
<BR>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^=20
</FONT>_______________________________________________ cdn-nucl-l =
mailing list=20
cdn-nucl-l@mailman.McMaster.CA=20
=
http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/cdn-nucl-l</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY=
></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_00DE_01CA97C8.AE3C4800--
--__--__--
_______________________________________________
cdn-nucl-l mailing list
cdn-nucl-l@mailman.McMaster.CA
http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/cdn-nucl-l
End of cdn-nucl-l Digest