Re: Seems pretty clear

Posted by bobbapink on Apr 08, 2002 at 17:26
(207.172.210.4)

Re: Seems pretty clear (DA Morgan)

The reasons are many...(but represent only my opinion)

1) Economics. Ship based reactors require refueling every 15 to 20 years. In order to refuel a ship-based reactor, the core must be completely removed from the vessel. This requires extensive yard time making it more economic to simply replace the [old] reactor with a brand spanking new one (the cost of the replacement core is a fraction of the cost of the effort necessary to effect the replacement)

2) Equipment. Unlike many of their land-based counterparts, ship based reactors have one purpose only – the production of steam in potentially hostile environments. They are therefore built – and managed – to the task at hand.

3) Training. One would think that military nuclear training would be a fraction of what civilians possess but in terms of inspection, maintenance, repair and procedure, military training [probably] far exceeds the civilian world. The whole military mindset plays a role as well - extremely anal-retentive IMO (and necessarily so)

4) Cognizance. If an accident/malfunction/degradation did occur, you are not [as] likely to hear about it unless someone actually dies. I’m pretty sure that situations such as the ones you posted have and do occur on military vessels but you just never hear about.

So, assuming my opinions are correct, one would think that the government is better at managing nuclear power than are private corporations. In the case of the military, that might be true but I couldn’t even begin to wonder what it ends up costing per KWH – all costs considered. Still cheaper than oil considering the output but only if considering the output.




Follow Ups:


Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:
Comments:

[ Forum ] [ New Message ]