Spring Break
Why nuclear meltdown is unlikely to occur
Scott Conover
Issue date: 1/15/09 Section: Forum
Although many people are frightened of the dangers with the use of the nuclear power plant, the model itself is both relatively safe to use and maintain as a source of relatively clean civilian power and also relatively safe against potential meltdown and other related issues. The fact is that nuclear power is among the cheapest and most efficient options available to us. Perhaps one of the most significant points against nuclear power is the Chernobyl disaster, in which a nuclear reactor suffered a meltdown in the USSR on April 26, 1986. Although it was horrific accident, it is not particularly likely to occur again in our lifetime.
In his work, "The Nuclear Energy Option", Bernard L. Cohen lists reasons as why a Chernobyl-style power plant would not be possible to construct in the United States. They will be introduced hereafter in portions, but the original text can be found online in bullet format with further explanations at http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter7.html. Parts of his work have been modified for the list, but there are no significant changes to content.
First of all, according to Professor Cohen, a Chernobyl-style reactor would not be licensed in the United States. "A reactor which is unstable against a loss of water, which is unstable against a temperature increase, [or which has] a large power reactor without a containment could not be licensed here."
Second, the rule of law in the United States in far stronger in the United States than it was in the former USSR. Cohen writes:
"In contrast to the laxity at Chernobyl, regulations are strictly enforced here. Violations like operators cheating on examinations or falling asleep on the job, failing to report promptly on minor malfunctions, or failing to carry out a required inspection have brought large fines, plus lots of bad publicity to the utility. Flagrantly violating rules of reactor operation, and disabling important safety interlocks, are essentially unthinkable in U.S. plants."
In his work, "The Nuclear Energy Option", Bernard L. Cohen lists reasons as why a Chernobyl-style power plant would not be possible to construct in the United States. They will be introduced hereafter in portions, but the original text can be found online in bullet format with further explanations at http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter7.html. Parts of his work have been modified for the list, but there are no significant changes to content.
First of all, according to Professor Cohen, a Chernobyl-style reactor would not be licensed in the United States. "A reactor which is unstable against a loss of water, which is unstable against a temperature increase, [or which has] a large power reactor without a containment could not be licensed here."
Second, the rule of law in the United States in far stronger in the United States than it was in the former USSR. Cohen writes:
"In contrast to the laxity at Chernobyl, regulations are strictly enforced here. Violations like operators cheating on examinations or falling asleep on the job, failing to report promptly on minor malfunctions, or failing to carry out a required inspection have brought large fines, plus lots of bad publicity to the utility. Flagrantly violating rules of reactor operation, and disabling important safety interlocks, are essentially unthinkable in U.S. plants."
Note: writers will not reply to comments.
Be the first to comment on this story
Comments by registered users are approved by default.