 |
|
debeest
|
|
Not so much that the insurance companies are willing to cover it yet.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dis
|
 |
Las Vegas, Nevada
Feb 2000
time: 21:36
|
|
let me see if I can find the website I was looking at last month. I have mentioned the new generations of nuclear reactors several times in this thread.
They are extremely safe.
The insurance companies are just paper pushers. They don't understand the science, and have no idea how to assign rates. It will take some time for the rates to drop.
I think this is the site.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf77.htm
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf08.htm
cool site for nuclear power buffs like me.
Gas-cooled fast reactors. Like other helium-cooled reactors which have operated or are under development, these will be high-temperature units - 850°C, suitable for power generation, thermochemical hydrogen production or other process heat. For electricity, the gas will directly drive a gas turbine (Brayton cycle). Fuels would include depleted uranium and any other fissile or fertile materials. Spent fuel would be reprocessed on site and all the actinides recycled to minimise production of long-lived radioactive wastes.
While General Atomics worked on the design in the 1970s (but not as fast reactor), none has so far been built.
Lead-cooled fast reactors. Liquid metal (Pb or Pb-Bi) cooling is by natural convection. Fuel is depleted uranium metal or nitride, with full actinide recycle from regional or central reprocessing plants. A wide range of unit sizes is envisaged, from factory-built "battery" with 15-20 year life for small grids or developing countries, to modular 300-400 MWe units and large single plants of 1400 MWe. Operating temperature of 550°C is readily achievable but 800°C is envisaged with advanced materials and this would enable thermochemical hydrogen production.
This corresponds with Russia's BREST fast reactor technology which is lead-cooled and builds on 40 years experience of lead-bismuth cooling in submarine reactors. Its fuel is U+Pu nitride. More immediately the GIF proposal appears to arise from two experimental designs: the US STAR and Japan's LSPR, these being lead and lead-bismuth cooled respectively.
Molten salt reactors. The uranium fuel is dissolved in the sodium fluoride salt coolant which circulates through graphite core channels to achieve some moderation and an epithermal neutron spectrum. Fission products are removed continuously and the actinides are fully recycled, while plutonium and other actinides can be added along with U-238. Coolant temperature is 700°C at very low pressure, with 800°C envisaged. A secondary coolant system is used for electricity generation, and thermochemical hydrogen production is also feasible.
During the 1960s the USA developed the molten salt breeder reactor as the primary back-up option for the conventional fast breeder reactor and a small prototype was operated. Recent work has focused on lithium and beryllium fluoride coolant with dissolved thorium and U-233 fuel. The attractive features of the MSR fuel cycle include: the high-level waste comprising fission products only, hence shorter-lived radioactivity; small inventory of weapons-fissile material (Pu-242 being the dominant Pu isotope); low fuel use (the French self-breeding variant claims 50kg of thorium and 50kg U-238 per billion kWh); and safety due to passive cooling up to any size.
Sodium-cooled fast reactors. This builds on more than 300 reactor-years experienced with fast neutron reactors over five decades and in eight countries. It utilises depleted uranium in the fuel and has a coolant temperature of 550°C enabling electricity generation via a secondary sodium circuit, the primary one being at near atmospheric pressure. Two variants are proposed: a 150-500 MWe type with actinides incorporated into a metal fuel requiring pyrometallurgical processing on site, and a 500-1500 MWe type with conventional MOX fuel reprocessed in conventional facilities elsewhere.
Supercritical water-cooled reactors. This is a very high-pressure water-cooled reactor which operates above the thermodynamic critical point of water to give a thermal efficiency about one third higher than today's light water reactors from which the design evolves. The supercritical water (25 MPa and 510-550°C) directly drives the turbine, without any secondary steam system. Passive safety features are similar to those of simplified boiling water reactors. Fuel is uranium oxide, enriched in the case of the open fuel cycle option. However, it can be built as a fast reactor with full actinide recycle based on conventional reprocessing. Most research on the design has been in Japan.
Very high-temperature gas reactors. These are graphite-moderated, helium-cooled reactors, based on substantial experience . The core can be built of prismatic blocks such as the Japanese HTTR and the GTMHR under development by General Atomics and others in Russia, or it may be pebble bed such as the Chinese HTR-10 and the PBMR under development in South Africa, with international partners. Outlet temperature of 1000°C enables thermochemical hydrogen production via an intermediate heat exchanger, with electricity cogeneration, or direct high-efficiency driving of a gas turbine (Brayton cycle). There is some flexibility in fuels, but no recycle. Modules of 600 MW thermal are envisaged.
Last edited by Dis on 25-05-2004 at 12:46
|
|
| |
|
|
|
debeest
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dissident
The insurance companies are just paper pushers. They don't understand the science, and have no idea how to assign rates. It will take some time for the rates to drop.
|
Dude, it's not that the rates need to drop. There are no rates. Insurance companies are not willing to insure nuke plants for any price.
Insurance companies may not know a lot about the science, but they know a lot about assessing potential damage. They're pretty hard-headed about that. Come back to us when the insurance companies are willing to talk.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DanS
The hydrogen economy isn't pie-in-the-sky. There are hydrogen fueling stations and hydrogen-powered cars, for instance. We just haven't figured out a way to make it work optimally. |
The most likely metal hrdyrate to storage hydrogen in a car is than very costly way of doing it. The replacement of the mtal hrdyrate very 3 month will cost in average car about 10,000 dollar for than yearly cost of 40,000 dollar. Plus hydrogen is than explosive and fire haz worst than gaseline.
GM (general motor) state than fuel cell power car will cost comsuner now between 3 million to 5 million dollar to buy this is the mass production price of the car. How many of you will want to paid that amount of money for than hydrogen-oxygen fuelcell power car.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dissident
let me see if I can find the website I was looking at last month. I have mentioned the new generations of nuclear reactors several times in this thread.
They are extremely safe.
The insurance companies are just paper pushers. They don't understand the science, and have no idea how to assign rates. It will take some time for the rates to drop.
I think this is the site.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf77.htm
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf08.htm
cool site for nuclear power buffs like me.
Gas-cooled fast reactors. Like other helium-cooled reactors which have operated or are under development, these will be high-temperature units - 850°C, suitable for power generation, thermochemical hydrogen production or other process heat. For electricity, the gas will directly drive a gas turbine (Brayton cycle). Fuels would include depleted uranium and any other fissile or fertile materials. Spent fuel would be reprocessed on site and all the actinides recycled to minimise production of long-lived radioactive wastes.
While General Atomics worked on the design in the 1970s (but not as fast reactor), none has so far been built.
Lead-cooled fast reactors. Liquid metal (Pb or Pb-Bi) cooling is by natural convection. Fuel is depleted uranium metal or nitride, with full actinide recycle from regional or central reprocessing plants. A wide range of unit sizes is envisaged, from factory-built "battery" with 15-20 year life for small grids or developing countries, to modular 300-400 MWe units and large single plants of 1400 MWe. Operating temperature of 550°C is readily achievable but 800°C is envisaged with advanced materials and this would enable thermochemical hydrogen production.
This corresponds with Russia's BREST fast reactor technology which is lead-cooled and builds on 40 years experience of lead-bismuth cooling in submarine reactors. Its fuel is U+Pu nitride. More immediately the GIF proposal appears to arise from two experimental designs: the US STAR and Japan's LSPR, these being lead and lead-bismuth cooled respectively.
Molten salt reactors. The uranium fuel is dissolved in the sodium fluoride salt coolant which circulates through graphite core channels to achieve some moderation and an epithermal neutron spectrum. Fission products are removed continuously and the actinides are fully recycled, while plutonium and other actinides can be added along with U-238. Coolant temperature is 700°C at very low pressure, with 800°C envisaged. A secondary coolant system is used for electricity generation, and thermochemical hydrogen production is also feasible.
During the 1960s the USA developed the molten salt breeder reactor as the primary back-up option for the conventional fast breeder reactor and a small prototype was operated. Recent work has focused on lithium and beryllium fluoride coolant with dissolved thorium and U-233 fuel. The attractive features of the MSR fuel cycle include: the high-level waste comprising fission products only, hence shorter-lived radioactivity; small inventory of weapons-fissile material (Pu-242 being the dominant Pu isotope); low fuel use (the French self-breeding variant claims 50kg of thorium and 50kg U-238 per billion kWh); and safety due to passive cooling up to any size.
Sodium-cooled fast reactors. This builds on more than 300 reactor-years experienced with fast neutron reactors over five decades and in eight countries. It utilises depleted uranium in the fuel and has a coolant temperature of 550°C enabling electricity generation via a secondary sodium circuit, the primary one being at near atmospheric pressure. Two variants are proposed: a 150-500 MWe type with actinides incorporated into a metal fuel requiring pyrometallurgical processing on site, and a 500-1500 MWe type with conventional MOX fuel reprocessed in conventional facilities elsewhere.
Supercritical water-cooled reactors. This is a very high-pressure water-cooled reactor which operates above the thermodynamic critical point of water to give a thermal efficiency about one third higher than today's light water reactors from which the design evolves. The supercritical water (25 MPa and 510-550°C) directly drives the turbine, without any secondary steam system. Passive safety features are similar to those of simplified boiling water reactors. Fuel is uranium oxide, enriched in the case of the open fuel cycle option. However, it can be built as a fast reactor with full actinide recycle based on conventional reprocessing. Most research on the design has been in Japan.
Very high-temperature gas reactors. These are graphite-moderated, helium-cooled reactors, based on substantial experience . The core can be built of prismatic blocks such as the Japanese HTTR and the GTMHR under development by General Atomics and others in Russia, or it may be pebble bed such as the Chinese HTR-10 and the PBMR under development in South Africa, with international partners. Outlet temperature of 1000°C enables thermochemical hydrogen production via an intermediate heat exchanger, with electricity cogeneration, or direct high-efficiency driving of a gas turbine (Brayton cycle). There is some flexibility in fuels, but no recycle. Modules of 600 MW thermal are envisaged. |
Before you critize insurance companies look at it from they point of view. It than gas station blow up the land for twenty miles around it arenot render uninhabitable for afew thousand years. There is no radiactive material traveling thousand of miles from than gas station acciden tsite to do damage elsowhere. Insurance companies especial liabilty and property one must weight legal rish,
cost to clean and repair damage to other people property. If they guess wrong they can lose alot of money in claim so they rather view nuclear power as being too riskly to insurance against.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
quote:
It's in serious question whether or not hydrogen cars are even cleaner. A recent Scientific American article concluded that hydrogen fuel cells will only be used in cell phones, laptops etc. for a long time.
|
What's the word for it?
Deja...
damn. Isn't it vu? Deja vu?
As in, "I'm having deja vu".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
debeest
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Insurance companies wouldn't insure nukes because there was no way to predict their commercial exposure, and they're in business to make a predictable profit, not to enable other industries. How do you do risk assessment with one in X million probability of events causing Y billion in claims? How do you assess litigation risk from emotional juries? |
It's true that the unpredictability was a huge consideration. But if there was good reason to believe that the risk was small in comparison to the scale of possible damage, rather than the other way around, they'd have gone for it.
And what was the federal justification for capping nuke company liability at, I think, $600,000,000? Even in 1959 dollars, that's a pittance compared to what Chernobyl cost, and that's already happened once in only about 50 years of commercial reactors. If the nuke companies hadn't seen huge risk, they wouldn't have needed a ridiculously small liability cap.
quote:
Chernobyl is irrelevant as an example of risk or any other technical, environmental, or liability issue affecting US, Japanese and western European commercial grade nuclear plants. TMI, Suruga and Palo Verde would be far more useful bases of comparison. |
Maybe; I don't claim to know the technology at all. But I posit that all of the nuclear plants that have not yet exploded are equally irrelevant as examples of (low) risk. We're pretty sure the risk is small (despite the accidents that have already occurred), so the experiential track record is far too small to be of any real use in demonstrating safety. (Please don't point out the impossibility of showing "no risk," I fully understand it.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:36
|
|
The reason that Hydrogen Fuel Cell in than car have problem have to do with scale of operation. They are good at power small device and huge device and builting. But carsize engine are where the problem is. NASA when they went to the moon use 3 hrdrogen-oxy fuel cells with no problen as they use pure oxygen with no immpurity when than car fuel cell take oxygen from the air.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
debeest
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kucinich
quote:
Originally posted by debeest
It's true that the unpredictability was a huge consideration. But if there was good reason to believe that the risk was small in comparison to the scale of possible damage, rather than the other way around, they'd have gone for it.
And what was the federal justification for capping nuke company liability at, I think, $600,000,000? Even in 1959 dollars, that's a pittance compared to what Chernobyl cost, and that's already happened once in only about 50 years of commercial reactors. If the nuke companies hadn't seen huge risk, they wouldn't have needed a ridiculously small liability cap. |
At least part of the reason has to be that no insurance company would EVER be able to pay the costs of it if something bad occured. |
Own goal! Yes, the damage that could result from a nuke plant disaster would be greater than even an insurance company could cover. And the risk is small, but not so small that they're willing to take that chance. Doesn't that make you a little concerned?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
debeest
|
|
Yep, that's my point too. The consequences are more than we could bear.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dissident
interesting point.
In my case. Our dam has Laughlin/bullhead city, Needles, Lake Havasu city. None of them large cities, but still a sizable population.
and my dam is also a possible terrorist target. |
Who told you that, our prejury commiting government. If you want to hurt than FBI agent just say Rudy Ridge where the FBI murder than pregeant woman and a baby our FBI agents are baby killer. WACO Texas where they murder alot of mother and baby.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dauphin
|
 |
Caught in a tuna net
Jan 1970
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kucinich
quote:
Originally posted by debeest
It's true that the unpredictability was a huge consideration. But if there was good reason to believe that the risk was small in comparison to the scale of possible damage, rather than the other way around, they'd have gone for it.
And what was the federal justification for capping nuke company liability at, I think, $600,000,000? Even in 1959 dollars, that's a pittance compared to what Chernobyl cost, and that's already happened once in only about 50 years of commercial reactors. If the nuke companies hadn't seen huge risk, they wouldn't have needed a ridiculously small liability cap. |
At least part of the reason has to be that no insurance company would EVER be able to pay the costs of it if something bad occured. |
That's true of many things that are insured, but that's why many utilise re-insurance, and why they put negation clauses.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kucinich
quote:
Originally posted by debeest
It's true that the unpredictability was a huge consideration. But if there was good reason to believe that the risk was small in comparison to the scale of possible damage, rather than the other way around, they'd have gone for it.
And what was the federal justification for capping nuke company liability at, I think, $600,000,000? Even in 1959 dollars, that's a pittance compared to what Chernobyl cost, and that's already happened once in only about 50 years of commercial reactors. If the nuke companies hadn't seen huge risk, they wouldn't have needed a ridiculously small liability cap. |
At least part of the reason has to be that no insurance company would EVER be able to pay the costs of it if something bad occured. |
As Dauphin mentioned, there is such a thing as reinsurance. If you spread the risk across the entire insurance industry, and charge enough premium, it's fine. So it's not so much about the potential cost, it's about whether or not you can accurately predict the potential cost, and then set rates so you can make a profit.
Some things are just considered too unpredictable to be insurable. There is enough data on, say, auto accidents for the industry to be able to figure out what rates to charge for the policies (and hell, even then insurers **** up and go bust all the time).
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-05-2004 12:22
|