Skip to main content

View Diary: The Utility of Light: Getting Real with the Existing Energy Infrastructure. (122 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well, okay ... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    if you consider over a decade of operation at "minimum capacity" to be "about a year" then okay, I agree with you (although it still seems silly to me to say 10 years = 1 year). In reality, the Fort St. Vrain plant operated for well over a decade before it was shut down.

    That said, it was an experimental reactor, and it was not a success.

    If you enthusiastically endorse a standard design -- i.e., selecting the "safest and most efficient design" -- then you should write to your local utility and to your congressmen to suggest that no new electrical capacity should be built other than the EPR -- an advanced nuclear reactor design developed in Europe.

    After all, the French have already determined that this is the safest and the most efficient concept that is currently available, and the French have considerable experience with the standardized-design concept. All of their next generation of reactors in France will be required to be this design. Is that good enough for you?

    •  Your right (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      The reactor actually "operated" for 13 years, but it was off line constantly.  I don't know where I got the notion it only operated for a year (lack of research on my part-or I was thinking of my last car}  I agree the EPR is the most likely candidate, but even if another design is selected, it is the uniform construction of all new plants that is important. It would reduce cost with standard componants and greatly reduce the time for environmental impact studies, permits and construction.

      The only shame in ignorance is taking pride in it.

      by carver on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 03:23:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site