Nuclear Rising?

What is of concern, of course, is the possibility of terrorists getting hold of radioactive or even fissionable materials over the enormous time spans of time (tens of thousands of years) of some of these isotopes. In view of the current fears of terrorist acts, this omission is striking.

Considerable thought (see Willich and Taylor and Rochlin) has been put into this dilemma, going back to the 1970s and before, long before the terrorist threat became front and center. The issue was identified as long-term safeguards. (Safeguards is the term that has been used by the international nuclear industry for the systems and procedures to prevent illicit diversion of nuclear materials from operations in the industry, as distinct from safety from accidents in nuclear-reactor operation.) Several different approaches were proposed during those times, including deep-sea or outerspace disposal, both possibly making the disposal irretrievable. The present U.S. policy, however, names mined geological repositories, which makes the disposed materials retrievable and therefore requiring guard force to prevent unauthorized diversion of these materials.

The requirement of guards for such time periods, extending over thousands of years, is difficult to conceive of, being longer than human history. Even if attempted over some extended time period short of that, it has been suggested that some sort of "nuclear priesthood" would be needed to carry it out (see Science, 1972). Even if such an institution could be established, it would have to extend way beyond the lengths of time that the ancient Pharaohs attempted to hide their treasures (only to have them uncovered a mere few thousand years later).

In the editorial of this issue, titled "Nuclear's Comeback," the editor mentions expected future nuclear power costs to be "highly competitive." One has to assume that such costs would cover operation over the entire fuel cycle, including disposal of high-level wastes (the "tail end" of the cycle). Operating costs are commonly discounted over time periods of the investment. The inclusion of disposal costs over the periods of the order just laid out here makes such calculations meaningless for either financial or public policy purposes (see Grossman and Cassedy).

—E.S. Cassedy IEEE Life Member

For Further Reading

Misleading Title

There are a number of other considerations that should be made when adapting this approach. One consideration is this means the multiratio CT relay-metering application must remain on the tested ratio. One must be careful that there is no remanance in the CT core that may have distorted the test results. This remanance may change with time, shifting the accuracy of the measurement system's correction factors. This system presents an opportunity to show us how many in-service CTs have an output distorted by remanance and what the distortion is, if any.

The system they are discussing has merit and should be complimented for bringing a new tool to the industry that can check, to metering accuracy level, an existing CT installation in the field. There has not been an effective system for HV and EHV field testing of CTs to metering accuracy levels. CT analyzers are available for low and medium voltage CTs from several suppliers.

—Delbert D. Weers
IEEE Senior Member

A Great Magazine

Permit me to cite an incident to bring the real value of this magazine in content, quality, and attractiveness even to outsiders. Recently, I was on a transcontinental flight. I decided to use the time to read the current issue of the IEEE P&E Magazine cover to cover to spend my travel time usefully. The passenger sitting next me became curious and asked if he could browse it. He works for an electrical manufacturing company. A half hour later, he asked me how he could subscribe to it. I immediately jumped at the opportunity and encouraged him to contact the IEEE Headquarters. My point is, if this publication attracts a nonmember, imagine its value for PES members.

No wonder that many of our PES members find our magazine a very valuable resource in enhancing their professional expertise. Indeed, it is not surprising that it has won prestigious awards in the short span since its inception. I encourage all members to make best use of it and share your comments with Mel Olken. If you have any creative ideas to improve any aspect of this valuable resource, please share them with Mel or any of the P&E Editorial Board Members who are listed in the masthead page of each issue.

—S. S. (Mani) Venkata
PES Vice-President, Technical Information Services
(Publications)

Blackout Prevention

The transmission system demands for more reactive power (kVAr) to maintain system voltage and reliability as the load grows (primarily inductive loads). Accordingly, our Transmission System Planning Department used to provide us annually with a list of system reactive kVAr requirements based on their load-flow analysis. Then we in the Distribution Planning used to add the static/shunt capacitor banks in the distribution system in the form of 600/900/1,800/2,700 kVAr sizes throughout the distribution systems based on our studies. The reasons of adding shunt banks at the distribution system were many fold:

• economical to add the capacitor banks at lower voltage at a cost under US$10/kVAr; the banks could be fixed/timer/voltage control depending on the distribution loads
• maintains satisfactory voltage level for the customers in the distribution systems and with additional benefit of line loss savings
• shunt banks added to the distribution system meets the transmission system requirements at a much lower cost.

—Debabrata (Debu) Kundu,
Sr. IEEE Member