Some interesting comments at The Oildrum regarding the history of nuclear energy safety requirements

bananas

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Aug-27-09 06:05 PM
Original message

Some interesting comments at The Oildrum regarding the history of nuclear energy safety requirements

I don't usually read the oildrum, but I came across some interesting comments by AlanfromBigEasy in this thread:

The Future of Nuclear Energy: Facts and Fiction - Part I: Nuclear Fission Energy Today

<big snip>

AlanfromBigEasy on August 8, 2009 - 2:35pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

{sigh}

for such a nuke advocate, you know so VERY little about building nukes.

Nuclear power plants are built on the aviation model. The aerospace industry has demonstrated a unique ability to make complex machines with extraordinarily low failure rates. (Note: Not true of WW II production).

A pipe fitter with 30 years experience in coal and natural gas fired plants is not qualified to build nukes. He does not understand the system and that "good enough" is *NOT* good enough for a nuke !

Often those old timers can never get a nuke rating.

OTOH, a riveter from Boeing is valued because he can be taught a different skill and he understands zero tolerance quality control and quality assurance, documentation and procedure.

Think of those 104 nukes as being coal plants built by Boeing, to the same standards as their 737s, 787s and satellites . Built by aerospace workers and not auto workers.

Zimmer was built by (guy in charge) a guy with GREAT coal plant building experience. Worked on a dozen in his career, headed up building two; both came in on budget and on time. Zimmer was completed and could NOT get an operating license (rightfully so). So Zimmer was converted into a coal fired plant. Billions wasted.

Your attitude reminds me very much of the head of Zimmer. If it is good enough for coal, if it is good enough for war time conditions, it is "good enough". But you point to the safety record of plants that were continually improving their safety and built to ever higher standards while advocating abolishing those standards.

Alan

<snip>

AlanfromBigEasy on August 11, 2009 - 8:49am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

According to your judgment, we do not need safe nukes. We have TOO much safety, according to you.

The rest of society disagrees with you. Your judgment in other areas is suspect as well (Radiation is good for you).

Your examples seem to suggest that primitive reactors built to the war time standards of 1945 should get NRC licenses to operate for 80 years today.

Once the full dimensions of a large scale nuclear accident became apparent, the aviation model of construction was adopted for new nukes. I am QUITE surprised that you are not aware of this fundamental decision made (in the mid or late 1960s ?). This is the cornerstone of nuclear regulation in the USA (which even if you disagree with, you should have been aware of).

As for premature deaths, coal is not the greatest villain. BY YOUR METRICS, we should spend your first few hundred billion on what I propose and make new nukes a secondary priority (as I do propose).

Automobiles & trucks killed 43,313 people directly in 2008. Hundreds of thousands of life altering injuries. They created a majority of air pollution, and that pollution was concentrated in major urban areas where they would hurt as many people as possible.

If delayed deaths from auto injuries and pollution deaths are included, they killed well over 100,000 people in the USA in 2008.

In addition, walking and bicycling cure obesity. People that bicycle to work live 10 years longer on average (+12 years health, -2 years accidents).

I propose a few hundred billion for electrifying railroads (and shifting most freight to them), Urban rail, bicycling and walkable neighborhoods.

Best Hopes,

Alan

<snip>

AlanfromBigEasy on August 11, 2009 - 3:25pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I was taught while in training at River Bend nuclear power plant about the aviation model, which later practice confirmed.

Also mentioned during my tour as a student of Brown's Ferry while under construction.

Your question #11 is nonsensical.

Alan

NQA-1 is largely a subset of ISO 9001.

The requirements of the Quality Assurance parts of 10 CFR are a copy of similar regs for aviation.

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part050/part050-appb.html

<snip>

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

kristopher

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Aug-27-09 08:00 PM
Response to Original message

1. That is interesting.

It bears on more than a few claims made here, so thanks for sharing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

NNadir

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Aug-27-09 08:20 PM
Response to Original message

2. Oh goodie. A bunch of anti-nuke bloggers referring to each other to validate their

Edited on Thu Aug-27-09 08:30 PM by NNadir

biases.

What a surprise.

I can't wait for all of the other anti-nukes to show up to declare one another geniuses who are here to claim that the threat of the nuclear accidents of their imaginations are validated by the extinction of every living thing in Harrisburg, PA, in 1979 and the fact that no one has been able to contact Kiev since 1986.

I especially like the "student" part.

It would be interesting to hear of an anti-nuke having spent a half hour in a physics or chemistry class room, not that there is EVEN ONE of them who would have had a clue about what was being said.

Basically, I think that our anti-nukes do better when rather than citing each other in their circle jerk, they repeat again and again and again and again and again, year after year after year after year after year that http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renew_energy_consump/table1.html">0.091 = 83.436

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

kristopher

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Aug-27-09 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #2

3. Is the information regarding standards correct or incorrect?

I guess your masters at the Nuclear Energy Institute failed to brief you on that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

madokie

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Aug-28-09 05:20 AM
Response to Reply #3

4. crickets

I hear crickets here, I hear crickets there, hell all I hear is crickets everywhere

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Mon May 06th 2024, 06:43 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.