tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post7496242080979779966..comments2023-04-07T05:19:44.951-04:00Comments on Yes Vermont Yankee: San Onofre reactions: The Accurate, the Mixed, and the UglyMeredith Angwinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02737538041807740424noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-42165496582749011732013-06-13T19:36:56.462-04:002013-06-13T19:36:56.462-04:00Peter51, we have to be careful with any message ab...Peter51, we have to be careful with any message about "new" plants that leaves an impression that the old ones are somehow not safe, when they are in fact very safe. We can't throw away the operating record of the last 50 years where there has been no documented case of public harm coming from nuclear plant operation, a record no other major industrial activity can match. If it were me, I'd start with that, and then say something like, "And, to maintain and extend that record, here are the things our new plants can do.", and go through the list as you suggest.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-32744680008079701782013-06-12T15:48:03.489-04:002013-06-12T15:48:03.489-04:00After watching the video debate, I was appalled at...After watching the video debate, I was appalled at a statement by Bergman, who said that SCE hasn't adequately explained what happened with the Unit 3 tube leak. Either Bergman is technically illiterate, which wouldn't surprise me, or he intentionally misled the debate moderator. SCE, Mitsubishi, and the NRC have all come to the conclusion that the root cause of the tube leak was fluid elastic instability set up by the high steam flow velocities in the upper tube bundles. This information is easily obtainable with a Google search. As Meredith has stated, operating at 70% power would have reduced the flow velocities, and changed the vibration on the tubes. It is not that complicated, and should not have taken the NRC a year to review.<br /><br />With regard to the public image problem for nuclear power, I can think of one area where some communication with the public might be very useful. The new SMRs being developed by B&W, Westinghouse, NuScale, and others are going to be very different machines. How about a public relations campaign that goes something like the following:<br /><br />"You said you wanted a safer nuclear power plant, so we designed one. You said you wanted a plant that could be kept safe, even if all power is lost, so we developed a plant that doesn't need any outside sources of electrical power. You said you wanted a plant that can withstand the direct crash of a large airliner, so we developed a plant than can do that, too. You said you wanted a power plant that can deliver constant, reliable, emission-free and environmentally friendly power at a reasonable cost, so we did that too! Here is the new SMR from [B&W, Westinghouse, etc.].<br /><br />This type of message that directly addresses the fears of the public can be adapted for the existing plants, too, but the NRC-required B.5.b portable pumps and generators need to be stressed. These ideas can be communicated, if someone wants to inform the public.<br />Pete51noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-21121636363017730262013-06-12T07:17:18.037-04:002013-06-12T07:17:18.037-04:00That former nucler regulator Freeman thinks energy...That former nucler regulator Freeman thinks energy storage is now practical is amazingly ignorant. Maybe you should put together a compendium of statements by anti-nuke nuclear regulators that illustrate they are ignorant about the whole topic. We now have a nuclear "agnostic" leading NRC. This wordsmithing is cover for underlying anti-nuke beliefs that get them appointed to the NRC.Robert Hargraveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06846491141058940965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-74113208954827078482013-06-11T19:18:06.739-04:002013-06-11T19:18:06.739-04:00Pete51
Sandman said some very important things ab...Pete51<br /><br />Sandman said some very important things about avoiding the ways we tend to escalate confrontation. All of us can learn from him. <br /><br />However, I still think that his redefinitions of common words is a very obvious type of framing. My own word choices use ordinary definitions. In my opinion, a theory can't be dependent on odd word choices. The theory should work even if you describe it simply.<br /><br />The nuclear industry has huge public image problems. Understanding the emotional underpinning for these problems is essential. Not talking down to people is essential. Not throwing facts at people is essential. Sandman is mostly right about this. <br /><br />However, if you don't correct misstatements, it can look like you are agreeing with them. It's not as simple as it might be. <br /><br />Sandman has many excellent insights. However, he uses new definitions for old words, and this choice doesn't help me understand anything.<br /><br />Meredith<br />Meredith Angwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02737538041807740424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-23275442217553860552013-06-11T17:05:00.687-04:002013-06-11T17:05:00.687-04:00Meredith-
If I could follow up on the points made ...Meredith-<br />If I could follow up on the points made by Peter Sandman in Rod's podcast, as well as the information on Sandman's website...<br /><br />I think this material is extremely important. We can argue about terms like "risk" and "outrage" or "reaction" and "emotion", but the nuclear industry is left with a horrible public image problem. Ultimately, the "outrage" level overwhelms the actual risk factors as the industry has defined them. It is really a psychological problem, and therefore needs a psychological solution.<br /><br />Sandman's recommendations may be a little too 'surrendering', in my opinion, but he does understand people's emotional motivations. Perhaps a little humility from the industry is needed to open up people's minds to the message.Pete51noreply@blogger.com