[ RadSafe ] Claim that "Nuclear power is too risky" (CNN)
Brennan, Mike (DOH)
Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV
Thu Feb 25 10:49:10 CST 2010
If I recall, Babcock and Wilcox tried the "build reactors in factories"
scheme before, and earned a fair share of the blame for the financial
problems that helped bring nuclear power to a halt in this country.
They underbid to get as many contracts for reactor vessels as they
could, even though they did not have a proven process for making them.
They kept reassuring customers that everything was fine and the vessels
were about to be delivered, even when they knew it would take many
months. Eventually, after delays in some cases of years, customers had
to go elsewhere. The cost of delays went into the hundreds of millions,
back when a million was a lot of money. As I remember, one of the top
people killed himself because of the disgrace.
If they are talking about a factory for some of the small, modular
designs being talked about; maybe. If they are talking about a factory
for the big pieces of a 1,000+ MW PWR or BWR; I wouldn't be confident.
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
Behalf Of Steven Dapra
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 7:37 PM
To: blreider at aol.com; radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Claim that "Nuclear power is too risky" (CNN)
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.
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
>Barbara Reider, CHP
>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)
> Something about Mark Z. Jacobson.
> A critique of some of Jacobson's claims about reactors. (Critique
> lacks source material and was not edited for spelling.)
> Find more about MZJ by doing a Google search.
>At 04:21 PM 2/24/2010, Roger Helbig wrote:
> >The Know_Nukes group on Yahoo has this recent message about why not
> >power - expect it is riddled with less than accurate information.
> >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
> >energy options. Nuclear energy isn't one of them.
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:
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
More information about the RadSafe