 |
| Admiral Rickover |
June 5, 1953
Important decisions about the future
development of atomic power must frequently be made by people who do not
necessarily have an intimate knowledge of the technical aspects of reactors.
These people are, nonetheless, interested in what a reactor plant will do, how
much it will cost, how long it will take to build and how long and how well it
will operate. When they attempt to learn these things, they become aware of confusion
existing in the reactor business. There appears to be unresolved conflict on
almost every issue that arises.
I believe that this confusion stems from a
failure to distinguish between the academic and the practical. These apparent
conflicts can usually be explained only when the various aspects of the issue
are resolved into their academic and practical components. To aid in this resolution,
it is possible to define in a general way those characteristics which
distinguish the one from the other.
An academic reactor or reactor plant almost
always has the following basic characteristics: (1) It is simple. (2) It is
small. (3) It is cheap. (4) It is light. (5) It can be built very quickly. (6)
It is very flexible in purpose ("omnibus reactor"). (7) Very little
development is required. It will use mostly “off-the-shelf” components. (8) The
reactor is in the study phase. It is not being built now.
On the other hand, a practical reactor plant
can be distinguished by the following characteristics: (1) It is being built
now. (2) It is behind schedule. (3) It is requiring an immense amount of
development on apparently trivial items. Corrosion, in particular, is a
problem. (4) It is very expensive. (5) It takes a long time to build because of
the engineering development problems. (6) It is large. (7) It is heavy. (8) It
is complicated.
The tools of the academic-reactor designer
are a piece of paper and a pencil with an eraser. If a mistake is made, it can
always be erased and changed. If the practical-reactor designer errs, he wears
the mistake around his neck; it cannot be erased. Everyone can see it.
The academic-reactor designer is a
dilettante. He has not had to assume any real responsibility in connection with
his projects. He is free to luxuriate in elegant ideas, the practical
shortcomings of which can be relegated to the category of "mere technical
details." The practical reactor designer must live with these same
technical details. Although recalcitrant and awkward, they must be solved and
cannot be put off until tomorrow. Their solutions require manpower, time and
money.
Unfortunately for those who must make
far-reaching decisions without the benefit of an intimate knowledge of reactor
technology and unfortunately for the interested public, it is much easier to
get the academic side of an issue than the practical side. For a large part
those involved with the academic reactors have more inclination and time to
present their ideas in reports and orally to those who will listen. Since they
are innocently unaware of the real but hidden difficulties of their plans, They
speak with great facility and confidence. Those involved with practical
reactors, humbled by their experiences, speak less and worry more.
Yet it is incumbent on those in high places
to make wise decisions, and it is reasonable and important that the public be
correctly informed. It is consequently incumbent on all of us to state the
facts as forthrightly as possible. Although it is probably impossible to have
reactor ideas labelled as "practical" or "academic" by the
authors, it is worthwhile for both the authors and the audience to bear in mind
this distinction and to be guided thereby.
Yours faithfully
H. G. Rickover
Naval Reactors Branch
Division of Reactor Development
U. S. Atomic
Energy Commission
No comments:
Post a Comment