Reply To: T-shirt designers unite and take over

[Rematog]

Actually, I think we have two factors on this issue.

First is how “strict” the regulation will be. Second is what each of us view’s as strict.

I would call how a current fission plant is regulated as “strict”. I don’t see this being the case for FF.

This is what I would see as the “regulation” for the first 5-10 years (while it is new and unproven, see below).

Site: (not NRC so much as state/local regs). Limits to how much population can be within a certain radius. My low end is a 1 mile radius, may be higher. Would require warning alarm for radiation leakage.

Operations and Security: I feel the NRC would require 24/7/365 on-site operators and security. Don’t think you’d be required to have the SWAT team. Building required to contain any radiation leakage, but not have the massive strength of a fission plant containment dome.

Other: Standard air/water/wetlands/construction permits required. If new site, would need an environmental impact statement. Would have to meet OSHA requirements for operations staff.

Business/Financial: While not “regulation” in the sense of rules of law, the factor’s of how business is done and why, do constrain how things happen.

If installed by for profit corporation, esp if publicly traded company, there would need to be the usually cost/operations guarantees. The FF power module manufacturer would need to guarantee the output, the required inputs (fuel, cooling water), environmental effects (emissions of gases, waste heat, radiation, etc) and to some degree the amount of maintenance required. The Engineering and Construction companies that design and build the complete facility would have to guarantee the overall cost to build and total system performance (including things like cooling water usage).

The actual owner avoids most of the risk involved in purchasing/building the facility. The owner gets the risks involved with running it. The lending institutions (banks/bond holders etc.) that finance a lot of the cost, INSIST on this risk avoidance.

If the owner is a utility or public agency, this changes more in the details. Neither of these types of owner is generally willing to take much of the risk for a project’s development.

All of the above is true even if distributed. Does a building owner take the risk for the air conditioning system working in a new building. No. The supplier is responsible for the equipment working (we call that a warranty) and the designer/builder for the system working (has power, air ducts correct, thermostats work, system cools evenly and controllable). There is a bank with a mortgage on the building. I’ve not been involved with this type of project, but I’d fall out of my chair in shock to find out that the bank just gives the owner a check and says “Have it built by anyone you want, any way you want, and we don’t care if there is anyone liable for it being built right.” I doubt is a bank commits to loan money for a major building until the bids for the design and construction are in hand and have been reviewed by the Bank’s engineer. I’ve known some Bank’s engineers, they were sharp fellows.