EPR, Euopean's First Generation III+ Nuclear Reactor

According to AFP, Agence France-Presse, site preparation is already underway and in two months, workers in Flamanville, France will pour the first concrete for the EPR, or European Pressurized Reactor, the first generation III+ reactor currently under construction touted as the safest and cleanest addition to France's network of 58 nuclear reactors.

It is a PWR (pressurized water reactor) in the 1,600 MW class. PWR technology represents 56% of the world’s operational nuclear capacity (205 million kW out of a total of 368 - as of Dec. 31 2005).

The EPR is based on the most recent technologies: the French N4 reactors in operation at Chooz and Civaux Nuclear Power Plants and the Konvoi reactors in operation in Germany. It benefits from over thirty years' operating feedback from nuclear power plants. AREVA has built around 100 nuclear reactors in 11 countries, representing almost 30% of the total installed nuclear power capacity worldwide.

The first EPR already under construction in Olkiluoto, Finland is scheduled to start commercial operation in 2009.

On this occasion it seems appropriate to review the design and safety features of the EPR as claimed by AREVA, the designer and builder of the EPR:

Each of the main safety system is subdivided into four identical sub-systems or "trains" that perform the same function when an abnormal operating situation occurs, in particular to cool the core. Each train is capable of performing the entire safety function on its own. The trains are totally independent and are housed in four separate buildings, each with its own individual protection system.

The reactor containment building rests on a 6 m thick concrete base mat and is enclosed by a double shell. The containment building has two walls: an inner prestressed concrete housing internally covered with a metallic liner and an outer reinforced concrete shell , both 1.30 meters thick. This total 2.60 m concrete thickness is also capable of withstanding external hazards such as an aircraft crash. The EPR is designed in such a way that should an accident occur, the leaktight containment around the reactor would prevent radioactivity and its effects from spreading outside. The containment building could withstand high pressure and temperature, even during extremely severe accidents involving core meltdown or piercing of the steel reactor vessel.

If any part of the molten core did escape from the reactor vessel, it would be passively collected and retained, then cooled in a specially designed area inside the reactor containment building, with water coming from an in-containment storage tank.

It is designed for a 60-year service life, life (compared to the reactors currently in operation, designed for a 40-year service life),

The EPR offers economic generation of electricity. They are estimated as being 10 percent lower, than those of the most modern nuclear units currently in operation

The EPR design features a number of innovations which give improvements on the environmental performance compared to existing reactors:

• a reduction of feedwater consumption,
• a lower heat up of cooling water,
• 17 percent saving on Uranium consumption per MWh produced,
• 15 percent reduction of long-lived actinides generated per MWh,
• 14 percent gain in "electricity generation" versus "thermal release" ratio (compared to 1,000 MWe-class reactors),
• greater flexibility for using MOX (mixed UO2-PuO2) fuel.

Comments

[Will]

When they talk of 'economic viability', does this take into account the decommisioning costs and storage of the waste that this machine will create over its 60 years?

[Dezakin]

Decomissioning is easily part of the cost accounting. People worried about storage cost of the waste seriously dont understand how little this costs or the effect that discounting has on the final cost.

[BILL HANNAHAN]

Here is a good brochure on the EPR.

http://www.areva-np.com/common/liblocal/docs/Brochure/BROCHURE_EPR_US_2.pdf

Converting 5.4 ounces (0.34 lb) of Uranium to fission products will release enough heat to generate an 80 year lifetime supply of electricity for an average American with no CO2 emissions. Our primitive first generation nuclear plants split less than 1% of the Uranium mined to fuel them. In order to produce 5.4 ounces of fission products we mine 58 lb of Uranium.

If we recycle the fuel into breeder reactors the waste stream would be the 5.4 oz of fission products mixed with a few pounds of glass or rocklike material.

If we bury spent fuel rods, of which only about 4% is waste, it would be about 10 pounds of rods per lifetime.

See the graph on page 5 of this report, page 18 of this PDF.

http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/TRS435_web.pdf

Notice that the scales are logarithmic, spent fuel looses 90% of its toxicity in the first 500 years, and would be less toxic than uranium ore in 130,000 years.

The thick black line shows that the toxicity of fission products drops 90% in the first 90 years and drops below uranium ore in 270 years.

Nuclear waste is not a difficult engineering problem. The attention it gets is an indication of the failure of our politically correct education system to teach us how to make wise decisions about life in a hi-tech world.

[Will]

"Decomissioning is easily part of the cost accounting. People worried about storage cost of the waste seriously dont understand how little this costs or the effect that discounting has on the final cost."

Like many UK taxpayers, I am only looking for reassurance that there will be no repeat of the huge post-lifetime costs associated with our first- and second-generation reactors. That is currently estimated at £90 billion ($180 billion). In effect, we are being asked to pay for electricity our parents bought in the '50s and '60s.

As a swing-voter on the nuclear issue, I would very much advice those lobbying for a new generation of reactors in the UK to tell the public exactly why these would be less expensive than our previous reactors, and by exactly how much. No doubt they will be, but I think I have every reason to be concerned, and to expect that this would be an important aspect of selling us this equipment.

[bigTom]

Bill: Good post. We need more like you informing the public.

[Nathan]

What ever happened to Thorium? Cleaner, cheaper, and easier to control...

[Harvey D]

Makes you wonder if improved nuclear plants should not be re-introduced in the main electrical energy supply line and progressively replace most existing dirty coal fired plants.

Lets hope that countries with future major electrical energy deficits, such as China, India, USA, Russia, EU, Canada-Ontario, Australia, Japan, Brazil, Argentina etc will also contribute to the R&D required to further improve the efficiency and safety of the EPR nuclear reactors.

About 100 large EPR could supply enough (relatively clean) energy for the first generation or millions PHEVs and BEVs.

Intermittent Sun + wind + Wave power could also contribute but we need steady production for core energy and building more coal fired plants is not acceptable.

[MarkV]

I'm not sure what the big whup is on this. I'm not familiar with this design but nothing in the writeup impresses me. I've put 20 years into commercial nukes and know something about them. 4 trains of safety systems sound like a lot of complications without commensurate safety benefits over the current 2 or 3 trains. Double containments are not new. Ability to contain accident transients (pressure, temperature, radiation) with earthquakes and outside missiles (even airplanes) isn't new. 60 year life is even new. The "40 year" life of current plants was always about amortizing the financial investment not the physical usefulness. Plants that have been well maintained are receiving license extensions regularly. Plants that were poorly maintained and run have been shutdown early. Its more about good management than the engineering design. I'm much more interested in the passive designs like the AP600 and AP1000. I trust gravity more than 100 diesels in emergencies.

[Fifi]

Will,

Your British nuclear power plants - Magnox and AGR - are decidedly 1rst generation. There was zero planning for decommissioning when they were built. There are no two reactors looking the same: all different, all one-off designs. The whole UKAEA era was a mess from beginning to end. The UK is paying the price of having been there first. It was brave but it's freaking expensive now.

About the NDA (Nuclear Decommissioning Authority), I'm also wondering if there is not a bad case of CYA and self-preservation at the expense of the mission, complete with huge budgetary inflation and completely insane decommissioning schedules. 100 to 150 years to dismantle a power plant? What kind of joke is that? If you drag things so much, no wonder it ends up costing an arm and a leg. It also becomes more and more complicated as the structures age and degrade. But, hey, the NDA guys have a job guaranteed for the rest of their lives.

[Kit P]

The cost of turning LWRs sites into parks has been demonstrated in the US. However, it makes more sense to build new reactors at the sites of the old reactors. Both the Flamanville and Olkiluoto sites already have two reactors. At Olkiluoto, the new reactor will produce the same amount of electricity as both of the existing reactors.

[Amsterdamned]

Bill is right, it is true that the waste issue is not a big engineering problem, and it's not likely to be a serious problem at all for the US.

Lately though, I've been thinking about some longer term solutions. Shooting the waste into Jupiter? Don't laugh. When space transportation gets considerably cheaper (and more reliable!) this may actually be a very real option to deal with the waste permanently.

[Amsterdamned]

Here in Europe, we've had some bad experience with breeders though. The Kalkar story in particular, which used the SNR-300 fast breeder design. Total output was meant to be 327 MW, but the project failed due to a list of reasons and total costs were about 4B USD. That is more than 12B USD per GW. Right now, the site is an amusement park!

Maybe now there's better technology, although public acceptance is still likely to be a very serious issue. But I don't think it's worth the risk; it's just not necessary. Mining the fissiles from the ocean is less risky and likely to be far more cost-effective.

[Ender]

Bill - "Notice that the scales are logarithmic, spent fuel looses 90% of its toxicity in the first 500 years, and would be less toxic than uranium ore in 130,000 years.

The thick black line shows that the toxicity of fission products drops 90% in the first 90 years and drops below uranium ore in 270 years. "

However you are glossing over the fact that spent nuclear fuel contains actinides that uranium ore does not. The actinides like:

"Technetium-99 is one of the most important LLFPs that occur in spent
fuel and in several waste streams from fuel reprocessing. Due to its long halflife
(213 000 years) and the diverse chemical forms in which it can occur, its
radiological significance is important if the repository surroundings are slightly
oxidative. In reducing conditions of deep aquifers, it is remarkably stable and
insoluble as technetium metal or TcO2.
If 99Tc is a real radiological hazard in some repository conditions, new
separation technologies need to be developed."
P99 of your reference

These long lived fission products are not present in any form of uranium ore and can leach out of virtually any containment if it is not done perfectly and contained in perfect conditions. Leaching of containment materials is the least understood and most uncertain aspect of waste containment. The fact that Roman cement exists does not mean that it has exactly the same chemical composition as when it was laid a thousand years ago. For proper containment of all the fission products the Roman cement would have to be 99% the same as when it was formed to contain all the actinides that were interred in it. To properly see if this would happen would require a thousand year test in leaching conditions which is obviously not possible as we have thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel to deal with. So of course we will take a guess and hope for the best.

Simply saying that the average radiation of the spent nuclear fuel is below that of uranium ore is misleading as you should well know. Why not give the facts?

[Amsterdamned]

One little nitpick about transmutation however: this method is largely unproven commercially. So it's also more of a long-term option for waste.

[Amsterdamned]

Intermittent Sun + wind + Wave power could also contribute but we need steady production for core energy and building more coal fired plants is not acceptable.

This is the conventional wisdom. However, high capacity baseload nuclear plants need expensive gas peaking plants to compensate for the discrepancy between their (high) capacity factor and the actual (fluctuating, intermediate) demand.

If it will work as Mills et al have advertised, solar thermal with sufficient storage offers an interesting solution by being able to follow the load with very high correlation, requiring far less expensive gas peaking plants.

It's mostly about how fast they can bring down the costs. If solar thermal power companies can prove within a decade to produce load following power reliably and at a cost lower than new gas fired generation, investors will jump on them like flies on cake, causing the plants to pop out of the desert in a very short timeframe. Which in turn allows more volume benefits and other economies of scale, lowering cost even more.

The Mojave has more than enough solar resource for all of the US, even with the expected demand growth over the next several decades.

[J Anthony]

Amsterdamned:

Re Ausra’s load-following claim via heat storage, why would this be unique? LWRs could presumably also use heat storage for load-following if it worked – they even operate at temperatures and pressures roughly similar to Ausra’s, around 300 deg C and 70 Bar. And LWRs should need less than Ausra’s 16 hour storage time because they produce power at night.

A year or so ago, another Australian solar company, Enviromission, also made the claim of potential load-following capability via heat storage in solar ponds, equally non-unique.

[bigTom]

Amsterdamned,anthony,

The ausra stuff sounds interesting, but will take a while to demonstrate that the conomics are truly there. Of course any thermal generation with low enough working temperature could in principal be matched with thermal storage. It may not be fair, but
licenseing requirements, and delays being as large as they are for Nuclear, anyone wanting capacity in the mid term probably can't wait for Nuclear. Of course we don't have the sort of transmission capability to export large amounts of power from the Mohave. It could cover the SW (CAlifornia, Nevada, and Arizone quite well) but the economics in other markets are probably not as favorable.

[BILL HANNAHAN]

[I'm not sure what the big whup is on this. I'm not familiar with this design but nothing in the writeup impresses me… 4 trains of safety systems sound like a lot of complications without commensurate safety benefits over the current 2 or 3 trains]

Your right, it is over engineered which takes more time and money to build and maintain.

The traditional approach to reactor safety is to push down the probability of an accident by adding more and more safety systems.

The most interesting feature of this plant is that it is designed to take a full (China syndrome) meltdown without hurting anyone. Existing reactors would probably contain the core in such an accident, but that requirement was not part of their design basis. See pages 50-51;

http://www.areva-np.com/common/liblocal/docs/Brochure/BROCHURE_EPR_US_2.pdf

If airplanes could survive the worst possible impact with the ground there would be no need for ejection seats and parachutes.
In a nuclear power plant can absorb the worst possible accident, the safety systems designed to prevent an accident have little impact on public safety. The multiple emergency cooling systems serve mainly to protect the stockholders from the financial loss of an extremely improbable meltdown. If common sense prevailed they could be reduced to two systems designed to conventional standards for protecting such a large investment, saving a substantial amount of time and money.
The reactor design that can save the most lives and provide the best quality of life is the one that can be built in the shortest time at the lowest cost, with a reasonable degree of safety. But the reactor that does not get built saves no lives, so we pander to irrational fear by over engineering.

The EPR takes a belt and suspenders approach to safety. Hopefully in time, with more experience and a better education system, we can take a more rational approach.

["Technetium-99 is one of the most important LLFPs that occur in spent
fuel and in several waste streams from fuel reprocessing. Due to its long halflife
(213 000 years) and the diverse chemical forms in which it can occur...

p99 of your reference….

Simply saying that the average radiation of the spent nuclear fuel is below that of uranium ore is misleading as you should well know. Why not give the facts?]

Welcome back Ender. Seeing as how you got the facts from my reference it is a little cheeky to accuse me of not giving the facts. As you know the graph is not simply “the average radiation of the spent nuclear fuel”, rather it is,

“Radiotoxicity (defined for the purposes of this report as
the activity or quantity of radionuclides in spent fuel or HLW multiplied by
their effective dose coefficients accounting for radiation and tissue weighting
factors by ingestion, inhalation and absorption) refers to the adverse biological
effects on humans from radioactive material in spent fuel.”

Some people think that risk is proportional to half life, the longer the half life the greater the risk.

Take uranium, half life 4.4 billion years. It decays through 14 radiation events to stable lead, releasing about 200 times more radiation than the single decay event of Tc99 to stable ruthenium.

The earths crust and oceans are loaded with a huge mass of uranium, not contained in specially designed repositories. Why aren’t we all dead?

My recommendation is to bury the waste under several hundred feet of deep seabed mud under 10,000 feet of ancient sea water. If a little Tc99 leaks out, no big deal.

[high capacity baseload nuclear plants need expensive gas peaking plants to compensate for the discrepancy between their (high) capacity factor and the actual (fluctuating, intermediate) demand.]

Nuclear plants are run at full power because their fuel cost is only 0.45 cents per kWh.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat8p2.html

I would love to be in a situation where our nuclear plant capacity exceeded baseload demand. To get there we will have to mass produce nuclear plants, and that will result in much lower plant cost per MW, in which case throttling nuclear plants would be acceptable.

The idea that nuclear plants are too ponderous to follow a load is false. They must be able to handle big load changes including a full turbine trip. The control systems are very fast, otherwise the turbine would over speed and explode, as in any steam plant. The EPR brochure discusses its ability to stay on line following a trip.

[page 15 of the brochure

Reactor trip is prevented by a fast reactor power cutback to part
load when one of the following events occurs:
• loss of steam generator feedwater pumps, provided at least one
of them remains available,
• turbine trip,
• full load rejection,
• loss of one reactor coolant pump.

page 56 of the brochure,

It has the capacity to be
permanently operated at any power level between 20 and 100%
of its nominal power in a fully automatic way, with the primary
and secondary frequency controls in operation.
The EPR capability regarding maneuverability is a particularly well
adapted response to scheduled and unscheduled power grid
demands for load variations, managing of grid perturbations or
mitigation of grid failures.]

Nuclear powered ships experience much faster power swings than the grid.

When electric vehicles become common nighttime loads will grow and may equal or exceed daytime loads. We need to start expanding baseload capacity now to meet that new demand.

--

[hung]

Văn phòng Q.1 HCM từ 50 USD/tháng !
* Chỉ cần từ 50 - 120 USD/tháng, Công ty của bạn đã có thể sở hữu 1 văn phòng làm việc chuyên nghiệp tại Building 19 tầng ngay trung tâm quận 1 Tp.HCM.
* Thủ tục đăng ký đơn giản, hậu mãi chu đáo; có chiết khấu cho người giới thiệu (Hấp dẫn!).
* Vui lòng xem chi tiết tại: Van phong cho thue gia re Q.1 HCM - Virtual office Vietnam

http://www.goffice.com.vn - http://www.goffice.vn
hoặc gọi: 08.2200911

[Dezakin]

My recommendation is to bury the waste under several hundred feet of deep seabed mud under 10,000 feet of ancient sea water. If a little Tc99 leaks out, no big deal.
My observation is thats a giant waste of time. We don't need to dispose of Tc99 or other fission products for all time, only for a century at most. Then we decide to use the same cheap method again, or we have an industrial use for it. A giant dispose of the one ring of Sauron project simply isn't necissary, and above ground dry cask storage is allways the best option.

[Ender]

Bill - "The earths crust and oceans are loaded with a huge mass of uranium, not contained in specially designed repositories. Why aren’t we all dead?"

Because as you should well know uranium is not element that can get into human tissue like Sr90 Te99 and Ce33 that make their way by replacing calcium and other elements in our tissues causing cancer clusters for one thing.

I see you offered no rebuttal of the leaching problem except a strawman. Sorry strawman burnt. In fact leaching and unexpected radionucleide transport is one of the main stumbling blocks for the commissioning of Yucca Mountain. If all the billions that have been spent on that repository cannot solve the problem then it is not going to be solved anytime soon.

"My recommendation is to bury the waste under several hundred feet of deep seabed mud under 10,000 feet of ancient sea water. If a little Tc99 leaks out, no big deal."

So just how do you do that Bill? What happens if a ship carrying the waste founders in a storm. What if the company contracted to do the burying cuts corners? Just how do you dig a hole several hundreds of feet under the ocean????

[Nucbuddy]

Ender,

You do not seriously think that anyone will die from cancer (from any cause) a century or more from now, do you? Already, two-thirds of all cancers (not including the easy-to-cure cancers such as melanoma) are permanently cured -- and the cure-rate goes up every year. Cancer is not-even now the leading cause of death (in the United States), and it is close to being wiped-out. The more cheap nuclear-electricity that is created, the more anti-cancer research that can be conducted. If you are worried about cancer, you should be building nuclear powerplants.

By the way, regarding Tc-99:
uic.com.au/nip26.htm

The radioisotope most widely used in medicine is technetium-99m, employed in some 80% of all nuclear medicine procedures - 40,000 every day.
[...]
Its logistics also favour its use. Technetium generators, a lead pot enclosing a glass tube containing the radioisotope, are supplied to hospitals from the nuclear reactor where the isotopes are made. They contain molybdenum-99, with a half-life of 66 hours, which progressively decays to technetium-99. The Tc-99 is washed out of the lead pot by saline solution when it is required. After two weeks or less the generator is returned for recharging.
[...]
In developed countries (26% of world population) the frequency of diagnostic nuclear medicine is 1.9% per year, and the frequency of therapy with radioisotopes is about one tenth of this. The use of radiopharmaceuticals in diagnosis is growing at over 10% per year.

Tc-99m, which has a relatively-short 6-hour half-life, decays to Tc-99, which has a ~200,000-year half-life.

[Dezakin]

Because as you should well know uranium is not element that can get into human tissue like Sr90 Te99 and Ce33 that make their way by replacing calcium and other elements in our tissues causing cancer clusters for one thing.

Being pedanting I suppose you mean Sr90, Tc99 and Cs-137. Second, if you actually knew anything about biochemistry you would be aware the biouptake of uranium is similar, consistant with other heavy metals.

While these radioisotopes do pose risks to human health, the danger is a bit exagerated. You have to ingest them somehow and they aren't exactly very mobile in the environment. You face much higher risks from radon inhalation, or indeed stable toxins that have high environmental mobility.

[Amsterdamned]

Re Ausra’s load-following claim via heat storage, why would this be unique? LWRs could presumably also use heat storage for load-following if it worked – they even operate at temperatures and pressures roughly similar to Ausra’s, around 300 deg C and 70 Bar. And LWRs should need less than Ausra’s 16 hour storage time because they produce power at night.

Then that would have to be compared against the higher costs of another turbine; the primary turbine already runs at very high capacity. Another turbine would have to be built, which would have a very low capacity factor (because of load-following) and thus a low return on capital. I'm not sure how this would work out in terms of economics, but it seems logical that this will increase the LCOE of fission because of the lower return on capital.

The economics of solar thermal, OTOH, become more favorable with more storage, especially with a lower cost array such as Ausra's.

You see, the whole idea with the economics of thermal storage is to increase the return on investment, by increasing the capacity factor of the turbine.

This effect seems to be rather weak or even completely lost for nuclear load following, as an adittional turbine has to be constructed with a low capacity factor and thus a low return on investment.

But I could be wrong of course; nuclear turbines (especially low temp ones that could be combined with Ausra's cheap storage system) can be inexpensive, so adding another one might not decrease overall economics at all.

If it turns out to be affordable for nuclear, then it's just fine with me.

Unfortunately, nuclear has historically proven to be quite the subsidy spunge. Governments really have to stop financing these plants so much, both directly and indirectly, and also have to stop providing insurance, and then we'll find out if fission is really as cheap as often claimed.

[Amsterdamned]

Of course, it seems obvious that Ausra may not be willing to license their storage technology to the nuclear industries, or build it for them.

[BILL HANNAHAN]

[ "The earths crust and oceans are loaded with a huge mass of uranium, not contained in specially designed repositories. Why aren’t we all dead?"]

[Because as you should well know uranium is not element that can get into human tissue like Sr90 Te99 and Ce33 that make their way by replacing calcium and other elements in our tissues causing cancer clusters for one thing.]

Ender, all of these issues are accounted for in the calculation of

RADIOTOXICITY

“(defined for the purposes of this report as the activity or quantity of radionuclides in spent fuel or HLW multiplied by their effective dose coefficients accounting for radiation and tissue weighting factors by ingestion, inhalation and absorption) refers to the adverse biological effects on humans from radioactive material in spent fuel.”

If the radiotoxicity of uranium ore was zero there would be no reference line for uranium ore on the chart.

Tc99 is a fission product. The radiotoxicity of the fission products, including all of theTc99, drops below uranium ore in 270 years. The radiotoxicity of the Tc99 alone starts off 300 times below uranium ore and goes down from there with the passage of time.

If all the Tc99 leached out into the seawater it would be at least 300 times less toxic than dissolving the uranium ore in sea water. Millions of tons of uranium ore wash into the sea each year by erosion.

Most likely the Tc99 will not leach out before one or more ice ages have come, if ever.

My guess is that a 500 foot thick sheet of ice scraping off half the surface of North America and Europe will raise more concern than a little Tc99 in the seawater.

[I see you offered no rebuttal of the leaching problem except a strawman. Sorry strawman burnt.]

The straw man has arisen, leaching Tc99 is a non problem.

[In fact leaching and unexpected radionucleide transport is one of the main stumbling blocks for the commissioning of Yucca Mountain. If all the billions that have been spent on that repository cannot solve the problem then it is not going to be solved anytime soon.]

You set up the straw man of Yucca as the only option. It is not the only option or the best option. We don’t need a solution anytime soon. As Dezakin points out, the volume of waste is so small, dry cask storage can serve until breeder reactor technology matures or we pick some other course.

Sea water uranium in a once through fuel cycle can provide ten billion people with the U.S. level of electricity consumption for 400 years, so there is no rush.

["My recommendation is to bury the waste under several hundred feet of deep seabed mud under 10,000 feet of ancient sea water. If a little Tc99 leaks out, no big deal."
So just how do you do that Bill?]

I would build a robot to drill the holes and implant the waste canisters. It would be much easier than deep water oil and gas work because that involves drilling holes thousands of feet into the seabed, often through rock, and maintaining a sealed pipe connection with the surface.

[What happens if a ship carrying the waste founders in a storm.]
It could be recovered, but the shipping containers (normally recycled) would be good for several thousand years, enough for most toxicity to dissipate. Several nuclear submarines are on the seabed, some with plutonium warheads that are less well protected. They are not considered a serious hazard because of the dilution capacity of the sea.

[What if the company contracted to do the burying cuts corners?]

I cannot imagine a more highly monitored activity. I would rather have an unethical company implanting nuclear waste canisters than almost any other industrial activity, as the only people they could hurt would be themselves, and even that would be difficult.

--

[Hp Pavilion DV4000 battery]

is very good!!!
(Hp dv4000 battery) , Hp Pavilion ZE2000 battery