The purpose and outcome of the Nukers studies into ECCS and meltdown.

Consider the forward to the Ergen Report , commisioned in 1966 to examine ECCS and the progress of meltdown in large cores: It states, as published in 1967, the following

Emergency core cooling : report
Author: W K Ergen; U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. Advisory Task Force on Power Reactor Emergency Cooling.
Publisher: Oak Ridge, Tenn : USAEC, Division of Technical Information Extension, [1966?]
Edition/Format: Book : EnglishView all editions and formats
Database: WorldCat
Rating:

“INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

Appointment and Charter of Task Force
On October 27, 1966, the Director of Regulation, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Mr. Harold L. Price, appointed a “task force to conduct a review of power reactor emergency core cooling systems and core protection.
The letter of appointment stated that
“Because of the increasing size and complexity of nuclear
power plants, the AEC regulatory staff and the Advisory
Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) have become increasingly
interested in the adequacy of emergency core
cooling systems and the phenomena associated with core
meltdown. As a result of extended consideration of these
matters by the staff and the ACRS, the Commission and the
ACRS have agreed that a task force should be set up t o review
certain aspects of these problems.

The charter of the Task Force is as follows:
1. To consider and advise the Commission on the following
topics :
The degree to which core cooling systems could be
augmented, by way of design modifications and/or
new design concepts, for additional assurance that
substantial meltdown is prevented.

The potential history of large molten masses of
fuel following a hypothetical accident.

The possible interactions of molten fuel with
materials or atmospheres in containments, and
phenomena associated therewith.

The design and development problems associated with
systems whose objective is to cope with large molten
masses of fuel.

2. To review existing information bearing on the topics listed
in 1.

3. To recommend a course of action to assure development of any additional information needed”.”
end quote.

I ask the question, how much money has been spent and how many lies told since 1966 to produce the result we now know with certainty occurred at Unit 1 Fukushima Diiachi on DAY ONE of the nuclear disaster. See previous two posts.

How many solar panels is that? How many tons of LNG? How many wind farms, How much lost potential for advancement? How many geothermal power plants in Japan could that money have built?

If anything reveals the old fashioned origins of nuclear industry, its dictatorial, bombastic, extremist, denialist, dishonest culture reveals it. And so do the age of the patents upon it rests, which Groves had to steal from Sziliard.


%d bloggers like this: