[ RadSafe ] Nuclear Power in Utah?

[Dan McCarn]

Just a brief comment... The Colorado Plateau is very stable geologically.

http://cpluhna.nau.edu/Places/places.htm

QUOTE
"The Colorado Plateau is extremely ancient," says author F.A. Barnes, an
expert on the region's geology. "As a distinct mass of continental crust,
it is at least 500 million years old -- probably a lot older." Such
longevity is especially impressive when one considers the globetrotting
adventures of the North American continent from the perspective of
continental drift theory. Over a period of 300 to 400 million years, while
the land mass that would become the North American continent inched
northward from the South Pole, gradually disengaging itself from Africa,
Asia, and South America, the Colorado Plateau region drifted along
comfortably on its western edge. Now shoreline, now inundated by rising
seas, the entire region accumulated huge quantities of sediment, gradually
sinking under its own weight until heat and pressure hardened the deposits
into a mantle of sedimentary rock several miles thick. Even when the entire
western United States began to rise some 10 million years ago, eventually
climbing to elevations as much as three miles above sea level, the Colorado
Plateau region remained stable – perhaps "floating" on a cushion of molten
rock.
UNQUOTE

Dan ii

Dan W McCarn, Geologist
108 Sherwood Blvd
Los Alamos, NM 87544-3425
+1-505-672-2014 (Home – New Mexico)
+1-505-670-8123 (Mobile - New Mexico)
HotGreenChile at gmail.com (Private email) HotGreenChile at gmail dot com


On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 8:16 PM, Jeff Terry <terryj at iit.edu> wrote:

> It is too bad that Westinghouse dropped out of the SMR market. They had a
> great team.
>
> I was fortunate to talk with the Westinghouse group while we were
> conducting research to model SMR construction costs.
>
> The W design was similar to the AP1000 but was scaled down to 225 MWe.
>
> Jeff
>
>
> On Aug 28, 2014, at 8:32 PM, "Thompson, Dewey L" <DThompson3 at ameren.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hummmmmmm
> >
> > No.
> >
> > There is no 100,000 mega-watt electrical fission reactor on earth.
> >
> > This is the hope and dream of starry-eyed idealists salivating over
> fusion.
> >
> > As the previous post mentioned, the Circle W AP 1000 is a pretty
> standard large block PWR reactor.
> >
> > Some older reactors are in the 500-800 MWe range.
> >
> > Most "modern" fission reactors are in the 1000 MWe range. The new Areva
> PWR targets I think 1400-1600 MWe.
> >
> > I have no idea where your information originates from, you may be
> thinking about the Small Modular Reactors which the Department of Energy
> has been trying to seed. These are exciting, as they would be in the range
> of 200-300 MWe (actually anywhere from 25 MWe to about 500 MWe). A small
> city could locate one nearby, and have reliable power costs. There are a
> fair number of approaches to the SMR, and as I think about it, Circle W WAS
> planning to design a SMR using a baby AP-1000 design.  I think it was in
> the 200 MEe range.  They have abandoned that after losing out on the DOE
> seed money.
> >
> > Dewey
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> >> On Aug 28, 2014, at 12:10 PM, "Bean, Jennifer Marie" <jmbean at lanl.gov>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> From:   <jmbean at lanl.gov>
> >> Reply-To:  "The International Radiation  Protection (Health Physics)
> Mailing List"  <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> >> Date:  Thursday, August 28, 2014
> >> To:  <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> >> Subject:   Re: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear Power in Utah?
> >>
> >> AP1000's produce much less power than a normal nuclear power plant.
> They are expected to have about 1000 MWe for a single reactor vs. 100,000
> MWe for the older reactors.  This allows the small modular reactors to be
> placed in areas with smaller energy demands.  And if the demand/population
> grows another reactor can be built and added to the grid.  It would be
> pretty exciting if these got off the ground in the US.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Jennifer
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> In a message dated 8/27/2014 12:36:40 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> sandyfl at cox.net writes:
> >>
> >> Joe, not  only your well-taken comment, I wonder how they would build
> the distribution system to get the power to where it is needed, and last  I
> looked, there isn?t much of a demand in Utah! Normally units are built
> close to the area that it wishes to serve. Now it could be possible that
> the current grid in the area is able to ship he power to where it is
> needed, but what is around Utah where there is an energy  demand?
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Sandy
> >> Retired, Consultant
> >>
> >> From:   <JPreisig at aol.com>
> >> Reply-To:  "The International Radiation  Protection (Health Physics)
> Mailing List"  <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> >> Date:  Wednesday, August 27, 2014  at 9:32 AM
> >> To:  <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> >> Subject:   Re: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear Power in Utah?
> >>
> >> Radsafe,
> >>
> >> Utah is earthquake country.  Read about it in  Bolt's book  on
> >> earthquakes.  No tsunami hazard, thank goodness.  Bad   idea to build a
> >> nuclear plant
> >> in Utah???  Engineer it very  well....
> >>
> >> Joe Preisig
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> In a message dated  8/27/2014 10:56:03 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> sandyfl at cox.net  writes:
> >>
> >> Thanks  Brent,
> >>
> >> This would be a real achievement if  it ever gets off the ground.
> However, with the politics out west,  including Utah, there is a strong
> anti-nuclear stance and seriously  doubt that this project has any legs to
> stand on. I hope that I am  wrong!
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Sandy
> >> Retired,   Consultant
> >>
> >> From:  Brent Rogers   <brent.rogers at optusnet.com.au>
> >> Reply-To:  "The  International  Radiation Protection (Health Physics)
> Mailing List"  <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> >> Date:   Wednesday, August 27, 2014  at 4:24 AM
> >> To:  "The International  Radiation Protection (Health  Physics)
> Mailing List"
> >> <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> >> Subject:  [  RadSafe ]  Nuclear Power in   Utah?
> >>
> >>
> http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-AP1000s-mooted-for-Utah-site-2108147.ht
> >> ml
> >>
> >> Brent   Rogers
> >> Sydney Australia
> >>
> >> Sent from my   iPad
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> >>
> >> For information  on  how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other  settings
> >> visit:
> >> http://health.phys.iit.edu
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> >>
> >> For   information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other  settings
> >> visit:   http://health.phys.iit.edu
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> >>
> >> For information on  how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> >> visit:
> >> http://health.phys.iit.edu
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> >>
> >> For  information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> >> visit:  http://health.phys.iit.edu
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------
> >>
> >> Message: 2
> >> Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 16:22:52 -0700
> >> From: Sander Perle <sandyfl at cox.net>
> >> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear Power in Utah?
> >> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
> >>   List"    <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> >> Message-ID: <D023B60B.67410%sandyfl at cox.net>
> >> Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="ISO-8859-1"
> >>
> >> Joe, could be in all directions. California?s demand has dropped over
> the
> >> years, even to the point where the San Onofre Nuclear Plant has been
> >> shutdown without any apparent ramifications.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Sandy Perle
> >> Retired, Consultant
> >>
> >> From:  <JPreisig at aol.com>
> >> Reply-To:  "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics)
> Mailing
> >> List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> >> Date:  Wednesday, August 27, 2014 at 3:47 PM
> >> To:  <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> >> Subject:  Re: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear Power in Utah?
> >>
> >> Sandy/Radsafe,
> >>
> >>    Wonder if the power will be sent to  California???  An
> updated/revised
> >> version of the USGS USA Seismic risk map  is probably on the USGS
> website
> >> now.
> >>
> >>    Joe Preisig
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> In a message dated 8/27/2014 12:36:40 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> >> sandyfl at cox.net writes:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> RadSafe mailing list
> >> RadSafe at health.phys.iit.edu
> >> http://health.phys.iit.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/radsafe
> >>
> >>
> >> End of RadSafe Digest, Vol 1665, Issue 1
> >> ****************************************
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> >>
> >> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
> > The information contained in this message may be privileged and/or
> confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message
> is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for
> delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
> that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is
> strictly prohibited. Note that any views or opinions presented in this
> message are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent
> those of Ameren. All e-mails are subject to monitoring and archival.
> Finally, the recipient should check this message and any attachments for
> the presence of viruses. Ameren accepts no liability for any damage caused
> by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. If you have received this in
> error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to the message and
> deleting the material from any computer. Ameren Corporation
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> >
> > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>