home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky sci.environment:14198 sci.energy:6575
- Path: sparky!uunet!noc.near.net!nic.umass.edu!dime!chelm.cs.umass.edu!yodaiken
- From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
- Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
- Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
- Message-ID: <58188@dime.cs.umass.edu>
- Date: 1 Jan 93 19:19:14 GMT
- References: <1992Dec30.161607.25113@vexcel.com> <p2qrxnc@dixie.com> <1992Dec31.165855.22315@vexcel.com>
- Sender: news@dime.cs.umass.edu
- Followup-To: sci.environment
- Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
- Lines: 24
-
- In article <1992Dec31.165855.22315@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
- >In article <p2qrxnc@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
- >nor will it drastically change operational costs. There is no
- >experience with 50 year old reactors. I have read that the issue
- >of embrittlement is not well understood. If John De Armond
- >thinks these figures are junk he better take his arguments to his
- >friends in the nuclear industry.
-
- The facts are that there are proposed methods for reversing embittlement
- but they have not been tried except in the Soviet Union and, I believe,
- one small experimental reactor in Belgium. The costs of these proposed
- methods are large, their effectiveness is not known. The NRC shut down
- Yankee Rowe precisely because its containment vessel showed signs of
- losing enough ductility to make its continued operation dangerous. The
- utility chose to decomission rather than to attempt annealing. The
- rapidity of ductility loss is the subject of controversy.
-
-
-
- --
-
-
- yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
-
-