Dear Terry: I disagree with your characterization that a nuclear power plant is a "complex system" when it is out of control. Consider TMI Unit 2 or the three reactors that melted down at Fukushima dai-ichi. In all of those cases, the designed safety features, specifically the robust containment structures of these four reactors isolated the melted-down reactor core from the outside environment such that the health of the nearby population was not endangered.
Finally, the RBMK reactor at Chernobyl would have never been approved in the West since the plant's "containment" was only a corrugated steel building. All of the RBMK reactors will be shut down by 2031. They have been upgraded since Chernobyl. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/appendices/rbmk-reactors Note in particular the section titled, "Positive void coefficient" in the referenced article.
That condition occurred *only once* in 1979 (about 46 years ago) at the Three Mile Island Unit 2 partial core meltdown. Since then, there have been considerable operational improvements mandated by the NRC that have decreased the probability of a recurrence by orders of magnitude. I believe the key change is mandating 20% of a nuclear plant operator's on-duty time is spent in the plant's simulator drilling various emergency scenarios. (Those simulators and drills were almost nonexistent in 1979. )
As an example of the value of this operational discipline, consider the unplanned full-load trip of DCPP Unit 2 on Saturday, December 1, 2018 at 10:06 AM PST. The plant was inspected after this severe test and was back online only five days later. You will be receiving the archived article via your personal email shortly.
Dear Terry: As I've noted elsewhere, your alarming conclusion is not supported by the excellent operational history of nuclear power plants. Measured on a deaths per TWh basis, nuclear power plants are extremely safe. Your analysis fails to square with the world's nuclear power plant operational safety record. The IAEA calculated 18,329 reactor-years of operation by the world's nuclear reactor fleet by 2019 with 629 reactors across 33 countries. https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/iaea-releases-2019-data-on-nuclear-power-plants-operating-experience
I conclude your 1994 ASME submission with Ron Christensen has at least one methodological flaw.
Here's a tabulation of recent U.S. nuclear power plant shutdowns. See this June 10, 2021 CRS report: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46820/3
All these reactors except TMI-1 should be restarted or rebuilt with modern designs like the Westinghouse AP 1000.
Reactor "State (Cong. District)" "Shutdown Date" "Generating Capacity (Megawatts)" Start-Up Year "Major Factor(s) Contributing to Shutdown"
Crystal River 3 Florida (FL-11) Feb-13 860 1977 Cost of major repairs to reactor containment
Kewaunee Wisconsin (WI-8) May-13 566 1974 Operating losses
San Onofre 2 California (CA-49) June-13 1,070 1983 "Cost of replacing
defective steam generators"
San Onofre 3 California (CA-49) June-13 1,080 1984 "Cost of replacing
defective steam generators"
Vermont Yankee Vermont (VT-at large) Dec-14 620 1972 Operating losses
Fort Calhoun Nebraska (NE-1) Oct-16 479 1973 Operating losses
Oyster Creek New Jersey (NJ-3) Sept. 2018 614 1969 Agreement with state to avoid building cooling towers
Pilgrim Massachusetts (MA-9) May-19 685 1972 Operating losses; rising capital expenditures
Three Mile Island 1 Pennsylvania (PA-10) Oct-19 803 1974 Operating losses
Indian Point 2 New York (NY-17) April-20 1,020 1974 Low electricity prices; settlement with state
Duane Arnold Iowa (IA-1) Aug-20 601 1975 Lower-cost alternative power purchases
Indian Point 3 New York (NY-17) April-21 1,038 1976 Low electricity prices; settlement with state
Total: 9,436 MW
Dear Terry: I disagree with your characterization that a nuclear power plant is a "complex system" when it is out of control. Consider TMI Unit 2 or the three reactors that melted down at Fukushima dai-ichi. In all of those cases, the designed safety features, specifically the robust containment structures of these four reactors isolated the melted-down reactor core from the outside environment such that the health of the nearby population was not endangered.
Finally, the RBMK reactor at Chernobyl would have never been approved in the West since the plant's "containment" was only a corrugated steel building. All of the RBMK reactors will be shut down by 2031. They have been upgraded since Chernobyl. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/appendices/rbmk-reactors Note in particular the section titled, "Positive void coefficient" in the referenced article.
That condition occurred *only once* in 1979 (about 46 years ago) at the Three Mile Island Unit 2 partial core meltdown. Since then, there have been considerable operational improvements mandated by the NRC that have decreased the probability of a recurrence by orders of magnitude. I believe the key change is mandating 20% of a nuclear plant operator's on-duty time is spent in the plant's simulator drilling various emergency scenarios. (Those simulators and drills were almost nonexistent in 1979. )
As an example of the value of this operational discipline, consider the unplanned full-load trip of DCPP Unit 2 on Saturday, December 1, 2018 at 10:06 AM PST. The plant was inspected after this severe test and was back online only five days later. You will be receiving the archived article via your personal email shortly.
Dear Terry: As I've noted elsewhere, your alarming conclusion is not supported by the excellent operational history of nuclear power plants. Measured on a deaths per TWh basis, nuclear power plants are extremely safe. Your analysis fails to square with the world's nuclear power plant operational safety record. The IAEA calculated 18,329 reactor-years of operation by the world's nuclear reactor fleet by 2019 with 629 reactors across 33 countries. https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/iaea-releases-2019-data-on-nuclear-power-plants-operating-experience
I conclude your 1994 ASME submission with Ron Christensen has at least one methodological flaw.