More like the “Dumb Pro-Nuclear Quote of the Month.” But if the statement is anti-nuclear, I don’t care who said it.
“Minarick and Kukiela have analyzed precursor events in operating reactors that, had they not been aborted by human or mechanical intervention, could have led to a core-melt. Their semi-empirical estimate of the core-melt probability in 1969-1979 was 0.001 per reactor year (in good agreement with the Three Mile Island experience). This probability in 1980-1981 fell to 0.00015 per reactor year. Based on this analysis, the probability of a core-melt between now and 2000 in one of the 100 U.S. light-water reactors would be about 20 percent. This number can be disputed. D. Phung suggests that on average the core-melt probability in U.S. reactors today is close to Rasmussen’s 0.00005 per reactor year or three times lower than the aforementioned estimate. Newer modifications of light-water reactors, such as Westinghouse’s advanced pressurized-water reactor and General Electric’s boiling-water reactor, designed jointly with Japanese reactor vendors, are estimated to be even safer. Their core-melt probabilities are estimated to lie in the range of 0.000001 to 0.0000001 per reactor year. No one can say whether these safety goals, if achieved, will be sufficient to restore public confidence in nuclear energy. If one accepts Phung’s probability estimate, the chance of a meltdown in a U.S. reactor by 2000 is about one in 12. How much this has been lowered by better operating procedures is unknown.”
Blah, blah, blah. This is how you alienate people.
Design a passively safe reactor instead of mitigating hazards that you create. IFR. ESBWR. AP-1000. MSR. Physically impossible.
Consequences if it does happen? What are the consequences of footprints on the ceiling if you walk up there without special equipment?
Come on, guys. Act professionally. Don’t kludge, to borrow a software term.
Filed under Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day, Safety
Posted on June 26, 2006 by Stewart Peterson |
