Comments on: Firing of nuclear safety chief is inexcusable http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2008/01/16/firing-of-nuclear-safety-chief-is-inexcusable/ Trends, happenings and innovations in the clean technology market Wed, 28 Jul 2010 23:54:49 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Anonymous http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2008/01/16/firing-of-nuclear-safety-chief-is-inexcusable/comment-page-1/#comment-1738 Anonymous Fri, 18 Jan 2008 01:46:00 +0000 http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2008/01/16/firing-of-nuclear-safety-chief-is-inexcusable/#comment-1738 This ongoing dispute with the Nuclear Safety Commission has very worrying implications. An earlier <a href="http://www.biofuels.coop/windblog/?p=189" rel="nofollow">blog entry</a> suggests why. This ongoing dispute with the Nuclear Safety Commission has very worrying implications. An earlier blog entry suggests why.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2008/01/16/firing-of-nuclear-safety-chief-is-inexcusable/comment-page-1/#comment-1737 Anonymous Thu, 17 Jan 2008 02:34:00 +0000 http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2008/01/16/firing-of-nuclear-safety-chief-is-inexcusable/#comment-1737 Contrary to what Steve says, the current fight IS connected to the bigger issue, i.e. the REAL COST of nuclear reactors. The Canadian government has been trying to privatize the business of making medical isotopes for nearly a decade, but the plan still isn't working. Two privately owned replacement reactors, MAPLE1 and MAPLE2, have been under construction all this time; but they are experiencing huge technical problems and cost overruns and thus their startup has been delayed by 8 or 9 years. The old NRU was to be shut down as soon as the new MAPLEs were up and running. Hence, AECL didn't want to spend any new money installing more safety features on the old NRU. The issue is really about the government wanting to get out of the medical-isotope business and thus being unwilling to cover the cost overruns on the privately owned reactors. At the same time, the government doesn't want the public to hear about yet another example of how economically unrealistic nuclear reactors are. As Steve said, government funding is needed for the production of medical isotopes. What does it take to get the politicians and the public to see the real problem, here? RePeter. Contrary to what Steve says, the current fight IS connected to the bigger issue, i.e. the REAL COST of nuclear reactors. The Canadian government has been trying to privatize the business of making medical isotopes for nearly a decade, but the plan still isn’t working. Two privately owned replacement reactors, MAPLE1 and MAPLE2, have been under construction all this time; but they are experiencing huge technical problems and cost overruns and thus their startup has been delayed by 8 or 9 years. The old NRU was to be shut down as soon as the new MAPLEs were up and running. Hence, AECL didn’t want to spend any new money installing more safety features on the old NRU.

The issue is really about the government wanting to get out of the medical-isotope business and thus being unwilling to cover the cost overruns on the privately owned reactors. At the same time, the government doesn’t want the public to hear about yet another example of how economically unrealistic nuclear reactors are. As Steve said, government funding is needed for the production of medical isotopes. What does it take to get the politicians and the public to see the real problem, here?

RePeter.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2008/01/16/firing-of-nuclear-safety-chief-is-inexcusable/comment-page-1/#comment-1736 Anonymous Wed, 16 Jan 2008 22:02:00 +0000 http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2008/01/16/firing-of-nuclear-safety-chief-is-inexcusable/#comment-1736 I think we must have government support for the isoptope business, and the current meddling is frustrating to watch and would probably require a commission to find out what really happened (or not). I did read all of the published letters that flew back and forth, and as an engineer I could see that they were reflecting a very debateable technical issue of various emergency pump configurations and licensing requirements. It is not clear to me what the real shortage of isotopes was, we may never know. This particular unpleasant fight to me is not connected to the bigger issues of what the real costs of nuclear powered electricity are. If everyone knew that Canadian nuclear reactors are liability limited to $75 million dollars, maybe they would ask why? I still wonder why the free market insurance costs should not be built into any reactors built. If commercial liability insurance is too expensive, maybe we should think about what that means for a society? (For those that do know what "k" factors are, yes, I have had post graduate training in reactor engineering) Lets push for sustainable and insurable electricity production and creative energy storage and management methods, billions spent here will ensure an insurable future. Cheers I think we must have government support for the isoptope business, and the current meddling is frustrating to watch and would probably require a commission to find out what really happened (or not). I did read all of the published letters that flew back and forth, and as an engineer I could see that they were reflecting a very debateable technical issue of various emergency pump configurations and licensing requirements. It is not clear to me what the real shortage of isotopes was, we may never know. This particular unpleasant fight to me is not connected to the bigger issues of what the real costs of nuclear powered electricity are.

If everyone knew that Canadian nuclear reactors are liability limited to $75 million dollars, maybe they would ask why? I still wonder why the free market insurance costs should not be built into any reactors built. If commercial liability insurance is too expensive, maybe we should think about what that means for a society? (For those that do know what “k” factors are, yes, I have had post graduate training in reactor engineering)

Lets push for sustainable and insurable electricity production and creative energy storage and management methods, billions spent here will ensure an insurable future.

Cheers

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2008/01/16/firing-of-nuclear-safety-chief-is-inexcusable/comment-page-1/#comment-1735 Anonymous Wed, 16 Jan 2008 13:05:00 +0000 http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2008/01/16/firing-of-nuclear-safety-chief-is-inexcusable/#comment-1735 This is why we should away from nuclear tech. It is too political since only governments can afford to build reactors. Free markets tend to avoid such collisions and rightly so! Darklamp This is why we should away from nuclear tech. It is too political since only governments can afford to build reactors. Free markets tend to avoid such collisions and rightly so!

Darklamp

]]>