« Return to Thread: Just wondering..
Re: Just wondering..
by Byron Jeff
::
Rate this Message:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 09:43:42AM -0500, David VanHorn wrote:
> Why is it that we don't site nuclear power plants inside military bases?
It's possible that the two sites may not match up very well.
> It would seem to afford pretty good security for very little
> additional investment, and I'm also wondering why we don't have the
> military running them.
I think that it's a perception that security the biggest issue.
> If we followed the French model, and built one design instead of
> designing each one differently, then we could gain significant
> advantages.
That's probably the biggest issue. The cost overruns that occur is due to a
lack of standardization and oversight decisions being made after the plant
construction has already started. If a plant can be preapproved before
construction and be virtually guaranteed not to have additional requirements
imposed once construction is started, then the costs go down significantly.
> If the military runs them, then we can be assured that the sensitive
> bits are in safe hands through the whole process.
Typical fissionable material can only be used to make dirty bombs anyway.
You really need pure plutonium to make a decent nuclear weapon.
> In the end, the waste has to be disposed of, but that's a fairly small
> problem, and one that's pretty well understood.
But the perception unfortunately runs counter to that. How can we change
that perception?
> Alternatively, we can continue buying foreign oil and fueling the
> problems over there, or burning natural gas and coal which both
> release significant pollutants and radioactives into the air, as well
> as whatever CO2 burden is associated.
Good synopsis.
BAJ
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
> Why is it that we don't site nuclear power plants inside military bases?
It's possible that the two sites may not match up very well.
> It would seem to afford pretty good security for very little
> additional investment, and I'm also wondering why we don't have the
> military running them.
I think that it's a perception that security the biggest issue.
> If we followed the French model, and built one design instead of
> designing each one differently, then we could gain significant
> advantages.
That's probably the biggest issue. The cost overruns that occur is due to a
lack of standardization and oversight decisions being made after the plant
construction has already started. If a plant can be preapproved before
construction and be virtually guaranteed not to have additional requirements
imposed once construction is started, then the costs go down significantly.
> If the military runs them, then we can be assured that the sensitive
> bits are in safe hands through the whole process.
Typical fissionable material can only be used to make dirty bombs anyway.
You really need pure plutonium to make a decent nuclear weapon.
> In the end, the waste has to be disposed of, but that's a fairly small
> problem, and one that's pretty well understood.
But the perception unfortunately runs counter to that. How can we change
that perception?
> Alternatively, we can continue buying foreign oil and fueling the
> problems over there, or burning natural gas and coal which both
> release significant pollutants and radioactives into the air, as well
> as whatever CO2 burden is associated.
Good synopsis.
BAJ
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
« Return to Thread: Just wondering..
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
