I'd say that nuclear reactor design is an engineering disaster as it is now. There are too many chances that something bad happens. Why is it so? In the "2nd generation" they just took reactors used for nuclear marine propulsion, adapted to electrical energy production. That would have been fine if nuclear propulsion was not something military, but alas it was and so security was not the first goal of design. The choice of fuel (enriched uranium) was the first error.
mic 2011/4/28 Axil Axil <[email protected]>: > The quality of engineering, operation and management has the primary impact > on the safety and cost of a system. > > > > For example, "The Sporty rear-engined Chevrolet Corvair " (unsafe at any > speed) was a engineering disaster area for the automotive industry. > > > > Today a formula one race car can hit a wall at 200+ miles per hour and the > driver will emerge undamaged. > > > > A nuclear power plant in the Fukushima Japan could have been deployed in a > safe location, on a high hill or behind high sea walls and that ill fated > reactor could have been working well to this very day. > > > > The Chernobyl nuclear reactor could have been still running today if the > operators had not disabled its safety systems and run stress test on it. > > > > There is no getting around stupid designers, operators and management but it > is the technology that always takes the blame. > > > > Fire can be used in a safe way, but if you build a camp fire on the hardwood > floors of your living room, well you deserve what you get…and don’t blame > fire please. > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Michele Comitini > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> 2011/4/28 Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>: >> > Michele Comitini <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> IMHO there is no need to fear that explosions will stop cold fusion. We >> >> have had all kinds of explosions in the history of energy production >> >> and/or >> >> extraction. >> > >> > Yes. For example, when Rudolf Diesel developed his engine, one of them >> > exploded. However, nowadays people have higher standards. >> > Unrealistically >> > high: they demand perfect safety from a new technology even when it will >> > replace an older unsafe technology. >> >> A Thorium powered nuclear plant should be considered "safe"? Not at >> all, but since they market it as "safer", it sells. >> Well IMHO the cold fusion people should stop the >> "completely/absolutely safe" claim, that even being true is not >> believable in people >> experience. They should stay conservatively on "safer" or "safest" >> level. "absolutely safe" triggers more doubts on people used to think >> that >> BP oil spill is something *needed* for granting cheap energy and >> wellness. Experience tells that "nothing comes for free", so use >> "cheaper". If this technology will become viable it will sell itself, >> so it's better to avoid using expression which are used in most >> frauds. >> >> > >> >> Think of nuclear fission with bombs, or hot fusion. Explosions >> >> means lot >> >> of energy and they are tangible even to stupid politicians. >> > >> > If there are explosions or people are irradiated, opponents will say: >> > "We >> > must not allow this. They will never make it safe!! They have had 22 >> > years >> > to make it safe and they still can't do it." >> > One of the opponents at the "60 Minutes" site said that cold fusion >> > research >> > has been funded long enough. It has not produced a practical source of >> > energy, so it should be abandoned. This person measured funding strictly >> > in >> > time, not dollars or man-hours. Measured by the latter standards, cold >> > fusion has made wonderful strides compared to plasma fusion, clean coal, >> > solar PV and other sources of energy. >> >> Even in time 22 years is nothing, think how long it took for all other >> sources to become viable for continuos usage. >> Maybe today standards require a 0 time to market and no "collateral >> damage", but I think it is more a matter of PR and >> marketing. >> >> >> > - Jed >> > >> > >
