Nuke the Wales?

Not my job, man....

How Nuclear Regained its Power - icWales - 16 Jan 08

"Where does that leave policy-making in Wales? The Welsh Assembly Government is not supportive of nuclear power and while some members might support an extension to the life of Wylfa on Anglesey, there is little doubt that they would decide against replacing it.

However, decisions on large-scale power projects remain with the UK government, and as the local community in Anglesey supports its replacement it is likely to go ahead. Given the economic impact on the island of Wylfa not being replaced, with the consequences for the aluminium smelter, many in WAG may feel secretly relieved that an economic- ally necessary but, to them, unpalatable decision has been taken away."

Nuke the Wales?

Not my job, man....

How Nuclear Regained its Power - icWales - 16 Jan 08

"Where does that leave policy-making in Wales? The Welsh Assembly Government is not supportive of nuclear power and while some members might support an extension to the life of Wylfa on Anglesey, there is little doubt that they would decide against replacing it.

However, decisions on large-scale power projects remain with the UK government, and as the local community in Anglesey supports its replacement it is likely to go ahead. Given the economic impact on the island of Wylfa not being replaced, with the consequences for the aluminium smelter, many in WAG may feel secretly relieved that an economic- ally necessary but, to them, unpalatable decision has been taken away."

Finnish Fiasco Follow-Up

Another report from the pros opposite Dover...

Things to do, or not do. Do use a slump test on your concrete pours. Do use the current blueprints. Do store in proper facilities. Don't use fishing boat manufacturers to build reactors. Don't tie your shoes together.

Not exactly nuclear pioneer Alvin Weinberg's "nuclear priesthood" unless you're talking about a pretty screwed-up religion. (He wasn't and no nuclear Reformation is in sight.) Speaking of Weinberg, in December of 1974 he is reported to have responded to a question about the prospects of solar (vs. nuclear) by saying if solar was not more than 2.5 times the cost of nuclear, he'd be for solar. [cited on page 9 of "The Menace of Atomic Energy", Revised Edition, Nader and Abbot, Norton, 1979]

Power Failure: What Britain Should Learn from Finland's Nuclear Saga - The Independent (UK) - 16 Jan 08

"The first major safety problem came with the first component to be built – the concrete base, which was not mixed properly. Construction was set back two months as a result.

Further problems occurred with an important new safety feature – the steel container designed to house radioactive materials in case of an accident and to protect the reactor from outside threats. The finished container was found to have inadequate welding, an outdated design and was even damaged during storage.

It emerged that it had been built by a Polish company more used to building fishing ships than nuclear power plant components.

Those are just the most high-profile design flaws. At the last count, the Finnish nuclear regulator had detected 1,700 'listed quality deviations' on the project."

Finnish Fiasco Follow-Up

Another report from the pros opposite Dover...

Things to do, or not do. Do use a slump test on your concrete pours. Do use the current blueprints. Do store in proper facilities. Don't use fishing boat manufacturers to build reactors. Don't tie your shoes together.

Not exactly nuclear pioneer Alvin Weinberg's "nuclear priesthood" unless you're talking about a pretty screwed-up religion. (He wasn't and no nuclear Reformation is in sight.) Speaking of Weinberg, in December of 1974 he is reported to have responded to a question about the prospects of solar (vs. nuclear) by saying if solar was not more than 2.5 times the cost of nuclear, he'd be for solar. [cited on page 9 of "The Menace of Atomic Energy", Revised Edition, Nader and Abbot, Norton, 1979]

Power Failure: What Britain Should Learn from Finland's Nuclear Saga - The Independent (UK) - 16 Jan 08

"The first major safety problem came with the first component to be built – the concrete base, which was not mixed properly. Construction was set back two months as a result.

Further problems occurred with an important new safety feature – the steel container designed to house radioactive materials in case of an accident and to protect the reactor from outside threats. The finished container was found to have inadequate welding, an outdated design and was even damaged during storage.

It emerged that it had been built by a Polish company more used to building fishing ships than nuclear power plant components.

Those are just the most high-profile design flaws. At the last count, the Finnish nuclear regulator had detected 1,700 'listed quality deviations' on the project."