• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Home
  • About
  • Podcast
  • Archives

Atomic Insights

Atomic energy technology, politics, and perceptions from a nuclear energy insider who served as a US nuclear submarine engineer officer

inFact Video – Nuclear Energy Choices Made Simple

March 24, 2010 By Rod Adams

The brief, recently produced video below does a reasonably good job of explaining a complex subject in a way that is understandable and digestible.

Unfortunately, there are a couple of minor points that are not accurate. They detract from the video’s value, but should not spoil the overall point. Perhaps the originator will take the time to complete some fact checking and make a corrected version.

(For example, Brian states that the Chernobyl reactor was a “prototype, generation one reactor.” He later claims that “it was the oldest reactor operating, decades obsolete.” Neither of those statements are true. The reactor that blew up was not the oldest reactor, in fact, it was unit number 4 on a station where construction started in the 1970s. The specific unit that blew up was only completed 3 years before the accident, so advanced machinery age was not a factor in the event. The reactor’s RBMK design was not even all that obsolete; it was completed during the second generation of nuclear power plant design using different selection criteria than would have been used in countries outside the Iron Curtain.)

Filed Under: Uncategorized

About Rod Adams

Rod Adams is Managing Partner of Nucleation Capital, a venture fund that invests in advanced nuclear, which provides affordable access to this clean energy sector to pronuclear and impact investors. Rod, a former submarine Engineer Officer and founder of Adams Atomic Engines, Inc., which was one of the earliest advanced nuclear ventures, is an atomic energy expert with small nuclear plant operating and design experience. He has engaged in technical, strategic, political, historic and financial analysis of the nuclear industry, its technology, regulation, and policies for several decades through Atomic Insights, both as its primary blogger and as host of The Atomic Show Podcast. Please click here to subscribe to the Atomic Show RSS feed. To join Rod's pronuclear network and receive his occasional newsletter, click here.

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. David Lewis says

    March 24, 2010 at 11:44 AM

    I don’t think the errors in this are “minor”. The other big error is the claim that newly designed and operating Gen III designs “produce almost NO high level waste” in comparison to previous designs. The guy has great delivery, but what he is delivering is worse than BS.
    All he had to do was mention that at Chernobyl there was no containment structure, and at Three Mile Island there was. Instead, it appears he is lying, and once that suspicion is aroused, its the end for credibility. PR like this is a big part of what destroyed the nuclear industry in the first place.
    The statement that Chernobyl was a Generation I design isn’t just an error of fact, it is part of an argument that is total BS. It continues on with the claim that Generation III reactors are the solution to the waste problem. “We’ve already created most of the nuclear waste the world will ever see”. You can’t pile BS on top of BS and call it a minor point.
    When you had NRC Commissioner Dale Klein on Atomic #151 he ignored Dan Yurman’s opening list of topics and kicked off the discussion with what he called the “number 1 near term challenge” for the NRC and the nuclear industry, which he stated was “waste confidence”.
    A video claiming the problem is solved by existing designs that are operating now because they don’t produce the waste in the first place is about the worst thing I can imagine to show someone who had waste concerns.
    So, hopefully, the video authors will modify what they’ve done after doing some fact checking.

  2. Steve Packard says

    March 24, 2010 at 4:09 PM

    While I appreciate that this video is going for the right thing, there are some points I have to take issue with. call them nitpicks, perhaps, but the thing we have to remember is that the one thing we need to value as nuclear proponents is being honest and factually accurate. That’s what we have on the anti-nukes and we need to keep beating that drum, but part of it includes the need to cross every t and dot every i so that we don’t look bad and don’t give them anything to go after.
    Chernobyl was not a prototype. Was it obsolete? Well, it was not old, but I’d say that some aspects of the RBMK were obsolete before it was ever designed. The RBMK has some great features in terms of economics and capabilities, but many corners are cut in the design – that is for sure. Using a monolithic graphic block with water tubes for cooling is a design that goes all the way back to Hanford-B and it’s one that most of the rest of the world had abandoned. The RBMK pretty much ignored passive inherent safety and primary design criteria appears to be big and cheap.
    Construction was even worse. The graphite reactors of this type built in the US had a very strong biological sheild, layers of thick iron and steel reinforced concrete. By the time of Chernobyl, redundant containment structures were standard. The reactor at Chernobyl was originally supposed to have a containment structure, but that was omitted during construction. They put a sub-standard concrete cap on it and just built an industrial roof over the complex, no better than a warehouse.
    However, the one thing I take issue with on this video is the attitude of “is nuclear safe yet” and “is it yet ready” and “we’ve finally worked out the kinks.”
    It implies new reactors solve a problem that never really existed. It’s not that it’s finally so advanced that it’s okay, it always was safe and the PWR’s built in the 1960’s, though not as advanced as today’s never posed a threat to anyone.

Primary Sidebar

Categories

Join Rod’s pronuclear network

Join Rod's pronuclear network by completing this form. Let us know what your specific interests are.

Recent Comments

  • Eino on Oil and gas opposition to consolidate interim spent fuel (CISF) storage facilities in Permian Basin
  • Rod Adams on Can prototype nuclear reactors be licensed in the US under current rules?
  • Rob Brixey on Can prototype nuclear reactors be licensed in the US under current rules?
  • Jon Grams on Oil and gas opposition to consolidate interim spent fuel (CISF) storage facilities in Permian Basin
  • Rod Adams on Oil and gas opposition to consolidate interim spent fuel (CISF) storage facilities in Permian Basin

Follow Atomic Insights

The Atomic Show

Atomic Insights

Recent Posts

Oil and gas opposition to consolidate interim spent fuel (CISF) storage facilities in Permian Basin

Atomic Energy Wells

Enough with “renewables!”

Can prototype nuclear reactors be licensed in the US under current rules?

Atomic Show #303 – Bret Kugelmass, CEO Last Energy

  • Home
  • About Atomic Insights
  • Atomic Show
  • Contact
  • Links

Search Atomic Insights

Archives

Copyright © 2023 · Atomic Insights

Terms and Conditions - Privacy Policy