[ RadSafe ] Claim that "Nuclear power is too risky" (CNN)

[Ahmad Al-Ani]

The United Arab Emirates expect the first of their 4 South Korean version to be completed in 7 years. This is also quite a challenge considering that all resources, human and technology, have to be imported and for the first time.

See more details here 
http://www.enec.gov.ae/timeline/

and do not miss thier policy statement 
http://www.enec.gov.ae/images/pdfs/en/uae-peaceful-nuclear-energy-policy.pdf 

Ahmad

 
----- Original Message ----
From: "blreider at aol.com" <blreider at aol.com>
To: sjd at swcp.com; rhelbig at sfo.com; radsafe at radlab.nl
Sent: Thu, February 25, 2010 5:48:58 AM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Claim that "Nuclear power is too risky" (CNN)


Steve, I read Charles Barton's Nuclear Green article and while I agree with going forward with a nuclear power program in the US, I can't imagine that anyone really expects US (or other) nuclear power reactors to take 2 years to build in the near future. 

The Westinghouse AP1000 has been promised in 5 years and is a standardized reactor and containment design,  however each site needs a certain amount of site-specific engineering and therefore it does take time for that, QA of the components, and for the licensing even if the manufacturing goes smoothly.  It has been 3 years since the Chinese ordered their AP1000s, and my guess is that their licensing process is a lot faster than ours in the US.  It will be interesting to see how commitments for 5 year delivery times are met both on the first ones and on the multiple orders expected for the AP1000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000

Barbara Reider, CHP







-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Dapra <sjd at swcp.com>
To: Roger Helbig <rhelbig at sfo.com>; radsafe at radlab.nl
Sent: Wed, Feb 24, 2010 8:19 pm
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Claim that "Nuclear power is too risky" (CNN)


Feb. 24 

  Something about Mark Z. Jacobson. 

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Z._Jacobson 

  A critique of some of Jacobson's claims about reactors. (Critique lacks source material and was not edited for spelling.) 

  http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2010/02/mark-z-jacobson-is-not-credible-as.html 

  Find more about MZJ by doing a Google search. 

Steven Dapra 


At 04:21 PM 2/24/2010, Roger Helbig wrote: 
>The Know_Nukes group on Yahoo has this recent message about why not nuclear 
>power - expect it is riddled with less than accurate information. Anyone 
>know anything about Mark Z Jacobson - 
> 
>Nuclear power is too risky By Mark Z. Jacobson, Special to CNN 
>February 22, 2010 4:27 p.m. EST 
>Palo Alto, California (CNN) -- If our nation wants to reduce global warming, 
>air pollution and energy instability, we should invest only in the best 
>energy options. Nuclear energy isn't one of them. 

[edit] 


_______________________________________________ 
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list 

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html 

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ 

_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/