[Paul Nollen]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door patrickve

Als de frequentie waarmee dat verwacht wordt, te gebeuren, zeg maar, 1 keer gemiddeld om de 100 000 jaar is, is dat aanvaardbaar of niet ? Zijn er geen andere dingen van hetzelfde rampen niveau die op zulke tijdschaal kunnen voorvallen ?

Het probleem met dergelijke voorspellingen is dat het "ergste incident" dus ook morgen kan gebeuren en dan 99999 jaar niet meer als de voorspelling klopt. Ik denk echter dat de nucleaire industrie een "erg" incident niet meer zal overleven.

Ik ben dan wel voorzichtig voorstander va nde voorstellen van Teller en Sacharov om die dingen diep onder de grond te steken.

The solution I favor (Sacharov) would be to build reactors underground, deep enough so that even a worst case accident would not discharge radioactive substances into the atmosphere.”

Other research has shown that underground reactors protect against:
* Attacks by aircraft
* Other forms of terrorist attacks,
* Sabotage and vandalism
* Radiation release inthe event of an accident

Teller assumed a deep (200 meters) reactor setting. Research conducted during the 1970's, however concluded that there were cost penalties connected with deep reactors. This conclusion ought to be assessed in light of current construction costs. Wes Myers, and Ned Elkins suggested that past cost research had not evaluated siting in underground salt formations.

Myers and Elkins favored salt formation settings and noted some of the cost benefits:
* Decommissioning costs,through in-situ decommissioning and
disposal
• Transportation costs,through co-located storage/disposal facilities
• Excavation costs, which are ~$20/m3 in salt vs~$40 to $80/m3in
granite
• Facility costs,through elimination of the containment structure
• Reactor costs,through the use of modular reactor
• Site costs for successive reactors, due to the lack of constraints on
lateral expansion in the subsurface
• Security costs, because of the need for fewer guards and physical
protection measures
• Insurance costs,through reduced health and property risks

There would, of course be ways of indirectly recovering the cost of excavating granite. The mined granite could be processed for Thorium. The recovered thorium then run through LFTRs, and the power produced would more than pay the cost of mining, but this approach does not lower upfront costs, and for the near future there are less expensive ways to mine thorium.

Paul