What input would you like to give the DOE’s SEAB SMR subcommittee for their report to establish a fleet of SMRs in the U.S. large enough to contribute to the nation’s clean energy goals?
The Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB), Small Modular Reactor Subcommittee (SMR) apparently began its work in March 2012 and is to report back to the parent SEAB by this coming October.
The subcommittee is tasked with identifying areas in which standards for safety, security, and nonproliferation should be developed for SMRs to enhance U.S. leadership in civil nuclear energy, as well as identify challenges, uncertainties and risks to commercialization and policies that may be appropriate to accelerate deployment in support of national goals. These considerations include economics, waste management and policy uncertainties.
This does not include input on the current FOA for SMRs. The subcommittee is looking for new input beyond the current FOA (that horse has already left the barn – move on).
The subcommittee had a public meeting at the Forrestal Bldg in D.C. on May 30, but not many people were there. What would you like the subcommittee to know, consider, put in its report back to the main SEAB for the future establishment of SMRs in the U.S.? I’m happy to copy and send in to the committee all the Linked-In comments that are posted. Please identify yourself and your experience, past or qualifications. Thanks, Deborah Deal-Blackwell, APR.
Here’s the link for more information about the subcommittee’s marching orders:
http://www.nuclear.gov/smrsubcommittee/documents/Charge%20memo%20to%20the%20SMR%20Subcommittee.pdf
Мне кажется, что пафос и высокопарность, это отличительная черта современного околонаучного бизнеса. Безотносительно к национальной принадлежности. Если же без пафоса, то зачем народу малые реакторы?
- чистая энергия
- безопасность (техническая)
- безопасность (энергетическая)
- нераспространение (сомнительно)
Что там еще?
