[ RadSafe ] Nuclear Power in Utah?
JPreisig at aol.com
JPreisig at aol.com
Sat Aug 30 23:52:04 CDT 2014
Hey Dan/Radsafe:
Geologically stable, yes. Seismically stable, not so much. There's
a reason UUtah has a good seismology group.
google earthquake and wasatch ...
Read what you find. People building a 1000 MWe reactor, or whatever,
in Utah need to determine the actual level of seismic risk, and if one can
engineer a reactor to be built in Utah.
Go look at the Wasatch fault. Bring your Estwing and your Brunton
compass.
Joe Preisig
In a message dated 8/30/2014 7:39:01 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
hotgreenchile at gmail.com writes:
The Wasatch Range forms the western boundary of the Colorado Plateau.
Staying well within the bounds of the Colorado Plateau gives high assurance
of a stable area. 500 million years of stability is a very, very, very
long
time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Plateau
QUOTE The province is bounded by the Rocky Mountains in Colorado, and by
the Uinta Mountains and Wasatch Mountains branches of the Rockies in
northern and central Utah. It is also bounded by the Rio Grande Rift,
Mogollon Rim and the Basin and Range Province. Isolated ranges of the
Southern Rocky Mountains such as the San Juan Mountains in Colorado and the
La Sal Mountains in Utah intermix into the central and southern parts of
the Colorado Plateau.The province is bounded by the Rocky Mountains in
Colorado, and by the Uinta Mountains and Wasatch Mountains branches of the
Rockies in northern and central Utah. It is also bounded by the Rio Grande
Rift, Mogollon Rim and the Basin and Range Province. Isolated ranges of the
Southern Rocky Mountains such as the San Juan Mountains in Colorado and the
La Sal Mountains in Utah intermix into the central and southern parts of
the Colorado Plateau. 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 Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 11:06 AM, <JPreisig at aol.com> wrote:
> Hmmmmm,
>
> Utah is still earthquake country. See the Wasatch fault, I think.
>
> Joe Preisig
>
> PS This fault has been active in the last 20 years.
>
>
>
>
> In a message dated 8/29/2014 4:30:15 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> hotgreenchile at gmail.com writes:
>
> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
More information about the RadSafe
mailing list