U.S. Nuclear Regulators Greatly Underestimate Potential for Nuclear Disaster

Posted by $ nickursis 6 years, 10 months ago to Science
2 comments | Share | Flag

Whether you are pro on non nuke, one of the issues that has never been handled is the entire life cycle of the system, from cradle to grave. Fukushima proved bad design and poor planning leads to a huge mess that will end up costing billions or trillions, and force ever greater government control on us to maintain order after a huge mess occurs. Better to e honest, and look at data, and address the issues before they become 525 sieverts of radiation, such that a robot lasts 10 minutes before frying. The spent pool idea is not a good one. Having sailed on nukes for most of 20 years, and seen the abuse the Navy does to them, I know they are fundamentally safe, until you start mixing in politics, special interests and money. TEPCO ignored the potential of a 30 foot tsunami, since it would have cost a lot of money to prevent, but it would have cost a lot less than what they are on the hook for now, with only 40 more years to go to clean up. If only Galts motor was around....
SOURCE URL: http://wws.princeton.edu/news-and-events/news/item/us-nuclear-regulators-greatly-underestimate-potential-nuclear-disaster


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by Dobrien 6 years, 10 months ago
    Thanks Nickursis for this post.
    To me $50 million spent to save a potential $125 billion .0004% is a cheap one time insurance premium let alone the potential for many many lives ruined.
    But the article suggests the cost of $125 billion is way underestimated. Nuclear power plants are a very dangerous facility when a problem occurs. Congress should investigate the Russian................. Roullette game the NRC is playing.


    "These catastrophic consequences, which could be triggered by a large earthquake or a terrorist attack, could be largely avoided by regulatory measures that the NRC refuses to implement. Using a biased regulatory analysis, the agency excluded the possibility of an act of terrorism as well as the potential for damage from a fire beyond 50 miles of a plant. Failing to account for these and other factors led the NRC to significantly underestimate the destruction such a disaster could cause.The NRC analysis found that a fire in a spent-fuel pool at an average nuclear reactor site would cause $125 billion in damages, while expedited transfer of spent fuel to dry casks could reduce radioactive releases from pool fires by 99 percent. However, the agency decided the possibility ofsuch a fire is so unlikely that it could not justify requiring plant owners to pay the estimated cost of $50 million per pool."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo