5 Comments

  1. Rod,

    I haven’t listened to this yet, but will. I’ll predict that my comment is pertinent though:

    The Chairman is a “malicious complier.” He (like the president) touts that he is for “safe” nuclear power expansion “in the future” without defining “safe” or “future.”

  2. I would have appreciated discussion about the difference in cost if the design of that “brittle SC wall module #2 in Figure 1 (redacted) that Dr Ma is so concerned about was modified in the way he wants.

    I wondered, is there just a standard AP1000 or can they supply versions for different performance levels?

    A guy who wants to build his AP1000 where all he has to worry about is the standard, common, garden variety event such as an Airbus full of fuel hurled by a Category 5 tornado striking the weakest point of Module #2 just as an earthquake measuring 8.2 on the Richter scale occurs is one thing, but what about all those guys who want to build them in more hazardous places?

    Some are having a field day with Dr. Ma’s statement that “the impact energy could shatter the wall as it does to a glass cup”. See: http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=11-P13-00015&segmentID=2

    Its good to see Rod putting interviews like this out.

  3. I find the Chairman’s conduct in the review of Westinghouse’s design application offensive and demonstrative of the lack of good governance at NRC

    to abide by the Administrative Procedures Act and the

    rule of law. I don’t believe that NRC has licensed a

    new nuclear plant since its existence. So any criticism that NRC is in bed with the industry is without merit.

    Its a sad commentary on the operations of the US Federal government that the nuclear industry has been forced to resort to building its business overseas and not in the US.

Comments are closed.

Similar Posts

  • Atomic Show #187 – Women In Nuclear (US WIN) 2012

    During the period from July 15-18 2012, more than 440 nuclear professionals attended the annual U. S. Women In Nuclear (US WIN) conference held in Orlando, FL. I spoke to three of the attendees – Julie Ezold, Sandy DePirro, and Savannah Fitzwater – about the conference and about the organization. The women work in three…

  • The Atomic Show #154 – Atomic Round-up With Five Experts

    Rod Adams got together with Margaret Harding, Dan Yurman, Meredith Angwin, and Charles Barton for a round up of recent atomic industry and technology developments. Topics discussed included new enrichment facilities, enrichment technology, public meetings about new nuclear power plants, and small reactor plant developments. Meredith Angwin is a physical chemist with long experience in…

  • Atomic Show #275 – Managing advanced nuclear development during pandemic

    Managing any business is hard work, especially during a global pandemic with stay-at-home orders in place. It requires creativity and flexibility along with some amount of prior preparation. On May 11, 2020, I gathered a group of representatives from several start-up companies that are developing advanced nuclear technologies to talk about how they are making…

  • Mark Cooper is wrong about SMRs and nuclear energy

    Mark Cooper of the Vermont Law School has published another paper in a series critiquing the economics of nuclear energy; this one is titled The Economic Failure of Nuclear Power and the Development of a Low Carbon Electricity Future: Why Small Modular Reactors are Part of the Problem and Not the Solution. It is not…

  • The Atomic Show #102 – Constellation, itsgettinghotinhere.org, cost vs investment

    Nuclear energy news. Atomic conversation with Robert Margolis, Kelly Taylor and Rod Adams Kelly Taylor, Robert Margolis and I got together on August 17, 2008 to discuss the events of the week in nuclear energy. Kelly and Robert had been involved in an interesting discussion with people from itsgettinghotinhere.org regarding the expansion of Dominion Power’s…

  • Healthy doses of radiation

    Doses of radiation that are lower than about 700 mGy/yr (see note below) are more likely to reduce cancer incidence and increase life span than to decrease it. In other words, moderate radiation doses are good for you in the same way as moderate exercise is good for you. The basis for this economy-altering assertion…