Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
5. Beware
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 02:16 AM
Mar 2013
June 5, 1953


Important decisions about the future development of atomic power must frequently be made by people who do not necessarily have an intimate knowledge of the technical aspects of reactors. These people are, nonetheless, interested in what a reactor plant will do, how much it will cost, how long it will take to build and how long and how well it will operate. When they attempt to learn these things, they become aware of confusion existing in the reactor business. There appears to be unresolved conflict on almost every issue that arises.

I believe that this confusion stems from a failure to distinguish between the academic and the practical. These apparent conflicts can usually be explained only when the various aspects of the issue are resolved into their academic and practical components. To aid in this resolution, it is possible to define in a general way those characteristics which distinguish the one from the other.

An academic reactor or reactor plant almost always has the following basic characteristics:
(1) It is simple.
(2) It is small.
(3) It is cheap.
(4) It is light.
(5) It can be built very quickly.
(6) It is very flexible in purpose (“omnibus reactor”).
(7) Very little development is required. It will use mostly “off-the-shelf” components.
(8) The reactor is in the study phases. It is not being built now.

On the other hand, a practical reactor plant can be distinguished by the following characteristics:
(1) It is being built now.
(2) It is behind schedule.
(3) It is requiring an immense amount of development on apparently trivial items. Corrosion, in particular, is a problem.
(4) It is very expensive.
(5) It takes a long time to build because of the engineering development problems.
(6) It is large.
(7) It is heavy.
(8) It is complicated.

The tools of the academic-reactor designer are a piece of paper and a pencil with an eraser. If a mistake is made, it can always be erased and changed. If the practical-reactor designer errs, he wears the mistake around his neck; it cannot be erased. Everyone can see it.

The academic-reactor designer is a dilettante. He has not had to assume any real responsibility in connection with his projects. He is free to luxuriate in the elegant ideas, the practical shortcomings of which can be relegated to the category of “mere technical details.” The practical-reactor designer must live with these same technical details. Although recalcitrant and awkward, they must be solved and cannot be put off until tomorrow. Their solutions require manpower, time and money.

Unfortunately for those who must make far-reaching decisions without the benefit of an intimate knowledge of reactor technology and unfortunately for the interested public, it is much easier to get the academic side of an issue than the practical side. For a large part those involved with the academic reactors have more inclination and time to present their ideas in reports and orally to those who will listen. Since they are innocently unaware of the real but hidden difficulties of their plans, [t]hey speak with great facility and confidence. Those involved with practical reactors, humbled by their experiences, speak less and worry more.

Yet it is incumbent on those in high places to make wise decisions, and it is reasonable and important that the public be correctly informed. It is consequently incumbent on all of us to state the facts as forthrightly as possible. Although it is probably impossible to have reactor ideas labelled as “practical” or “academic” by the authors, it is worthwhile for both the authors and the audience to bear in mind this distinction and to be guided thereby.


Hyman G. Rickover

Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, U.S. Navy, (27 January 1900 – 8 July 1986) was known as the "Father of the Nuclear Navy".
Safer Nuclear Power, at Half the Price [View all] Rhiannon12866 Mar 2013 OP
A video on the topic was also posted... PoliticAverse Mar 2013 #1
Don't know how I missed this! Thanks so much! Rhiannon12866 Mar 2013 #2
This message was self-deleted by its author guyton Mar 2013 #3
Makes sense to me... Rhiannon12866 Mar 2013 #4
One of the advantages of the thorium cycle wtmusic Mar 2013 #11
Really? kristopher Mar 2013 #13
Yes... really. FBaggins Mar 2013 #21
Getting to the Sun from Earth is remarkably energy intensive Fumesucker Mar 2013 #29
This message was self-deleted by its author guyton Mar 2013 #30
Beware kristopher Mar 2013 #5
Thank you! Rhiannon12866 Mar 2013 #6
At the sales stage they always sound great. kristopher Mar 2013 #7
I agree, may sound promising when still in the planning stage Rhiannon12866 Mar 2013 #8
The liquid salt reactor, if implemented, could be a successful connection between jonthebru Mar 2013 #9
The future energy source is well known - renewables. kristopher Mar 2013 #10
Highly radioactive cooling salt pscot Mar 2013 #27
thanks for posting wtmusic Mar 2013 #12
You're welcome Rhiannon12866 Mar 2013 #15
Half the price but just as deadly to the human race. nt ladjf Mar 2013 #14
I dunno. Fossil fuels are pretty damned deadly, and getting deadlier. hunter Mar 2013 #17
Fossil fuels are very deadly, but the effects aren't as long lasting. However, the obvious answer ladjf Mar 2013 #18
Actually, the effects are longer lasting. hunter Mar 2013 #19
The negative effects of the Chernobyl will last for about 48,000 years. ladjf Mar 2013 #22
And the half life of mercury is forever. hunter Mar 2013 #24
You've got my vote! Nihil Mar 2013 #28
Why is it just as deadly? FBaggins Mar 2013 #20
The Chernobyl disaster will impact the environment for about 48,000 years. ladjf Mar 2013 #23
Sometimes the bullshit gets so thick you have to respond. wtmusic Mar 2013 #25
Thousands of posts on the INTERNET state that it will take about 48,000 years for all of the ladjf Mar 2013 #31
Oh! Why didn't you say so??? FBaggins Mar 2013 #32
‘Scientists don’t know why’: Cesium-137 in soil near Chernobyl has half-life of 180 to 320 years, ladjf Mar 2013 #33
That's just nuts. Sorry. FBaggins Mar 2013 #34
And CO2 will impact for 150,000 years or more NickB79 Mar 2013 #26
morning kick Cooley Hurd Mar 2013 #16
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Safer Nuclear Power, at H...»Reply #5