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

[Steven Dapra]

Feb. 24

         I did not read Barton's article and can not comment on 
it.  I said it lacked source material and had not been edited for 
spelling, however this statement was based on reading the first two 
or three paragraphs, and on a rapid skimming of the balance.

         I looked at Barton's article to prepare this reply, and he 
wrote, "However Nuclear manufacturers such as Babcock & Wilcox expect 
[to] shorten reactor construction time to only 2 years, by building 
reactors in factories rather than on site."  I am not an engineer, 
nor have I ever worked in the construction industry, however I 
consider this two year claim to be nonsensical.  Even if there were 
no delays (not even from inclement weather) from the day the first 
shovelful of dirt was moved until the day the reactor was ready to 
begin loading its fuel, it is inconceivable to me that the mere act 
of construction would take only two years.

Steven Dapra


At 07:48 PM 2/24/2010, blreider at aol.com wrote:
>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>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>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>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]