US Small-Scale Nuclear Reactor Industry Gains Traction In Missouri

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Small-Scale Nuclear Reactor Industry Gains Traction In Missouri

Posted by Soulskill on Friday April 20, 2012 @06:26AM from the grabbing-market-share-from-mr-fusion dept.

trichard writes with this quote from an AP report: "Ameren Missouri is vying to be the first utility in the country to seek a construction and operating license for a small-scale nuclear reactor, a technology that's appealing to utilities because of the smaller upfront costs and shorter development lead times. The small reactors, about a fourth or less the capacity of full-size nuclear units, are appealing to the nuclear industry because they could be manufactured at a central plant and shipped around the world. By contrast, building nuclear reactors today is a more cumbersome process that must be done largely on site and takes years."

200 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

How does the MTBF scale? by Kenja · 2012-04-20 06:30 · Score: 4, Interesting

Do lots of smaller reactors fail at a rate statistically below or at least equal to a single larger reactor that generates the same amount of power?

--

"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
1. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by CanHasDIY · 2012-04-20 06:35 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Do lots of smaller reactors fail at a rate statistically below or at least equal to a single larger reactor that generates the same amount of power?
  From TFS:
  
  "Ameren Missouri is vying to be the first utility in the country to seek a construction and operating license for a small-scale nuclear reactor,
  Guessing this means it's probably far to early to tell...
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
2. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by Kenja · 2012-04-20 06:40 · Score: 1
  
  Guessing this means it's probably far to early to tell..
  Should be calculated by the engineers in the design phase of the project.
  
  --
  
  "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
3. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by ColdWetDog · 2012-04-20 06:41 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  I just love it that Alaska isn't considered 'part of the country'. Maybe we should just go back to being in Russia, although I would prefer Canada myself.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
4. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 06:45 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  Then if we could only get Mexico to take back Texas, the country would be perfect!
5. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  Well, being newer designs than most large reactors, so that helps vs. existing installations, not vs. hypothetical new large reactor installations.
  It should be easier (i.e. less incentive to break rules) to get small reactors removed from service when needed, since it won't be taking such a huge chunk of generation capacity offline, which is good.
  Mass-produced at the factory vs. onsite building may mean a more skilled/careful workforce, reducing construction defects.
  But there's no good reason I know of they should be inherently safer against abuse, accident, or neglect than larger reactors.
6. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by h4rr4r · 2012-04-20 06:52 · Score: 0
  
  Bzzt wrong. The plant was never installed, Toshiba never got NRC approval.
  They are part of the USA and they do not have one of these small reactors installed.
7. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by gregulator · 2012-04-20 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  Mass-produced at the factory vs. onsite building may mean a more skilled/careful workforce, reducing construction defects.
  I guess you've never worked in a factory. ;-)
8. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by gumbi+west · 2012-04-20 06:54 · Score: 2
  
  Have they applied for a license yet? According to the Wikipedia page on the reactor itself, no.
9. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by h4rr4r · 2012-04-20 06:54 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  California is the 8th largest economy in the world, or so. It is in no way Communist, perhaps it has some social programs but that is not communism. Communism is a real thing, not just some slur you use against people wealthier than you.
10. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by h4rr4r · 2012-04-20 06:55 · Score: 2
  
  I guess you've never worked construction. :)
  We're setting the bar pretty low here.
11. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by Baloroth · 2012-04-20 06:57 · Score: 1, Offtopic
  
  Who isn't considering Alaska part of the country? That plant is only proposed. From Wikipedia:
  
  Toshiba never began the expensive process for approval that is required by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
  In other words, no one has yet sought a construction and operating license for a small-scale nuclear reactor yet. TFA is about a company that is, if not at that stage, is certainly under way toward it. Galena's plan is currently stalled.
  
  --
  "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
12. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by honestmonkey · 2012-04-20 06:58 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I suppose it depends on the design, but a smaller reactor can be built so that if it loses cooling it just shuts down (i.e. the reaction stops), not melts down. I remember reading about this a long time ago, about how we could have reactors in neighborhoods with no problems. Oh wait, here we go:
  
  "Most [small reactors] are also designed for a high level of passive or inherent safety in the event of malfunction. A 2010 report by a special committee convened by the American Nuclear Society showed that many safety provisions necessary, or at least prudent, in large reactors are not necessary in the small designs forthcoming."
  
  From http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf33.html.
  
  --
  Everything you know is wrong, Just forget the words and sing along.
13. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 06:59 · Score: 0
  
  Uh, Galena doesn't have a plant yet. Their plan is to use the same model nuclear reactor (Toshiba 4S), which has not been approved by the NRC yet. Ameren, Missouri can absolutely vie to be the first utility in the country to apply for a license.
14. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by Raistlin77 · 2012-04-20 07:01 · Score: 2
  
  Sometimes it is a good idea to do a little more research before whining...
  Galena Nuclear Power Plant
  Why nuclear energy is on hold for Alaska
15. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 07:02 · Score: 0
  
  I'd rather keep both states and send off NYC (just the city), New Jersey, and California.
16. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by CanHasDIY · 2012-04-20 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  Don't blame me, I didn't write the summary.
  
  So, this means Ameren MO's small reactor will be the nations second, then?
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
17. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 07:06 · Score: 0
  
  A lot of people in the US have no idea how much poorer they would be without California and New Jersey.
18. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by Chrisq · 2012-04-20 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  I just love it that Alaska isn't considered 'part of the country'. Maybe we should just go back to being in Russia, although I would prefer Canada myself.
  its probably just wishful thinking ... if only Palin wasn't American
19. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by h4rr4r · 2012-04-20 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  The USA would only have one real economy left, Texas.
  Why do you want our country to be poor?
  Why do you hate America and those Americans that make our country so rich and powerful?
20. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by CanHasDIY · 2012-04-20 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  California is the 8th largest economy in the world, or so. It is in no way Communist, perhaps it has some social programs but that is not communism. Communism is a real thing, not just some slur you use against people wealthier than you.
  Oh, grow a sense of humor.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
21. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by CanHasDIY · 2012-04-20 07:14 · Score: 0
  
  A lot of people in the US have no idea how much poorer they would be without California and New Jersey.
  [Citation needed]
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
22. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by jamstar7 · 2012-04-20 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  Does it matter? The econutters will do their damnedest to make sure none of these puppies go online. They've got a track record of going apeshit as soon as they hear the word 'nuclear'. And considering the units will be manufactured 'elsewhere' and shipped to the site, they'll scream that the terrorrorrorrorists will be able to shortstop one of them and make a WMD or something. This tells me that this idea, great in concept, just ain't gonna fly.
  
  Pity. Thorium reactors are much safer all the way around and don't contain plutonium.
  
  --
  Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
23. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by h4rr4r · 2012-04-20 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  Look for yourself.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP
24. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by theshowmecanuck · 2012-04-20 07:18 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  It's OK, they'll make them at Foxconn.
  
  --
  -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
25. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 07:23 · Score: 0
  
  Nations claiming to be capitalist have murdered millions. I don't get your point.
26. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by h4rr4r · 2012-04-20 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  "econutters" have never stopped any plants before. They make a great strawman though, don't they?
  The reality is plants tend to not get built due to them not being a very high return on investment.
27. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 07:28 · Score: 0
  
  Good point; you can see Russia from your house, after all.
28. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by h4rr4r · 2012-04-20 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  My point is Capitalist nations are generally not what one thinks of as police states. You knew that though. Instead you wanted to distract from the point, I am glad that you live in a country were people have enough free time to do that. I bet it is a capitalist nation or blended economy nation.
29. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by gstrickler · 2012-04-20 07:29 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  You're absolutely correct, they're not communists (well, very few are).
  He should have said the "Social Democrat Republic of California".
  They're not socialists either, but they do lean that direction, as long as it doesn't hurt the revenues of Hollywood or Silicon Valley.
  
  --
  make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
30. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by CanHasDIY · 2012-04-20 07:37 · Score: 0
  
  I have a sense of humor, but using communist as a slur is not funny.
  You're right; how insensitive of me to potentially offend communist nations by comparing them to a place like Kalifornia.
  
  My bad.
  
  Nor is it constructive to attack the very parts of our nation that make us one of the wealthiest nations in history.
  Citation needed.
  
  Considering that Kalifornia is constantly on the verge of fiscal default, thanks in large part to mostly unfunded social welfare (not that I have a problem with social welfare in principle, only in how it's distributed in places like Kalifornia), I would refrain from touting the states fiscal success if I were you.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
31. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by wintercolby · 2012-04-20 07:37 · Score: 2
  
  Putty and paint make it what it ain't.
  
  --
  Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know. --Aldous Huxley
32. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by h4rr4r · 2012-04-20 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  You are not offending communists, your are trivializing what they are. You are no different than those that trivialize what the Nazis did by using that term as a generic slur for anyone they disagree with.
  California is our nations largest economy. Wikipedia has a nice article about that. California could probably fund that stuff if they did not give more money in federal income tax than they receive.
33. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by WindBourne · 2012-04-20 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  Toshiba's suggesting that they could build a reactor there, is not the same thing as having an energy company apply for licenses to use a reactor.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
34. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by h4rr4r · 2012-04-20 07:49 · Score: 1
  
  Like you said they are not socialists so that does not fit either. Nor are they a republic, they are a state in our union. They lack national sovereignty.
  Socialism is another thing all together. That again ignorant Americans seem to enjoy using as some sort of catchall slur at their opponents. I say Americans because I know of no other nation that has so many people that like to use labels for political ideologies as generic slurs. It is quite possible this happens in other nations I have not visited.
35. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by h4rr4r · 2012-04-20 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  That was not a terrorist attack. It was a legitimate action in a war. Nice try though. Funny how you bring that up but fail to mention that fire bombing killed a lot more people in Japan.
  Capitalists are guilty of many things, but so far they have tended to use religion as a reason for those things instead of their own economic ideology.
36. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by gstrickler · 2012-04-20 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  They are a republic. They're not an independent nation, but they are a sovereign state organized as a republic.
  
  --
  make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
37. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by h4rr4r · 2012-04-20 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  My mistake I thought republics had to be sovereign in the actual sense.
38. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 08:05 · Score: 0
  
  You can stop fusion in a Tokamak and it does not run the possibility of meltdown due to cooling failure. You stop feeding it fuel to stop the reaction. In contrast to fission where there is large amount of fuel in the reactor.
39. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by dontmakemethink · 2012-04-20 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  I suppose it depends on the design, but a smaller reactor can be built so that if it loses cooling it just shuts down (i.e. the reaction stops), not melts down. I remember reading about this a long time ago, about how we could have reactors in neighborhoods with no problems. Oh wait, here we go: "Most [small reactors] are also designed for a high level of passive or inherent safety in the event of malfunction. A 2010 report by a special committee convened by the American Nuclear Society showed that many safety provisions necessary, or at least prudent, in large reactors are not necessary in the small designs forthcoming."
  Yeah, let's downplay the need for safety measures. What could go wrong? Whatever you do, don't employ the truly fail-safe measures that CANDU reactors have proven effective since the 60's. I mean, where's the fun in that?
  
  --
  
  War as we knew it was obsolete
  Nothing could beat complete denial
  - Emily Haines
40. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by dargaud · 2012-04-20 08:18 · Score: 2
  
  "econutters" have never stopped any plants before. They make a great strawman though, don't they?
  Yes they have. Sorry if the link is in french. Just search for Plogoff.
  
  --
  Non-Linux Penguins ?
41. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 08:22 · Score: 0
  
  GDP doesn't matter when the state is bankrupt. Any state that can't provide for its citizens based on its own policies is dead weight.
42. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by Coren22 · 2012-04-20 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  California could probably fund that stuff if they did not give more money in federal income tax than they receive.
  They could also fund there programs better if every costly program came with a funding section too. Something like the taxes/fees go up by x% to fund this program. The problem has been that California separates funding bills from spending bills, and all funding bills must be voted on by the populous.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
43. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by ensignyu · 2012-04-20 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  That's war, not terrorism. Two different things, both horrific. WWII killed a lot more than a couple hundred thousand people.
44. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  I remember reading about this a long time ago, about how we could have reactors in neighborhoods with no problems.
  I think your memory's playing tricks on you. That's not how Maniac Mansion ended.
45. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 08:33 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Yeah, let's downplay the need for safety measures. What could go wrong? Whatever you do, don't employ the truly fail-safe measures that CANDU reactors have proven effective since the 60's. I mean, where's the fun in that?
  I see your CANDU and I raise you LFTR reactors
46. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by Coren22 · 2012-04-20 08:34 · Score: 2
  
  Also, the Toshiba 4S (which this is most likely) is pretty safe to begin with as it is sealed, and uses liquid sodium which has a tendency not to boil (understatement...)
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba_4S
  There are also some designs utilizing Thorium that look pretty promising. The Thorium232 requires neutron input to convert to U235, which then is the fission source, so when something happens, power to the reaction is cut off and the thorium just stops being converted, and no more reaction.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_reactor
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
47. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by Coren22 · 2012-04-20 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  They just put up lawsuits against the reactors, which causes the energy company to spend money defending themselves, and either delay the reactor, or get it completely stopped. The "econutters", or NIMBYS as I prefer to call them, are the biggest problem with getting new reactors online in the US.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
48. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by AmiMoJo · 2012-04-20 08:37 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  A 2010 report by a special committee convened by the American Nuclear Society showed that many safety provisions necessary, or at least prudent, in large reactors are not necessary in the small designs forthcoming.
  Wow, seriously, you are happy to take the word of the pro-nuclear lobby in this matter? You know that most of the accidents we have had were due to overconfidence, mismanagement, operators lying to regulators...
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
49. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 08:38 · Score: 0
  
  That was not terrorism. That was an act of war. Only thing making it more than the typical bombings that happen in war is that they were atomic bombs and the damage from them was unheard of from a single bomb before that time. There was a factor of "Look, we can fuck you over with this new technology, so just give up!" but that is not the same as "We will cause all of your people to live in fear and terror!"
50. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2012-04-20 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  Why? This is not really an engineering project, but a business enterprise trying to create "facts on the ground" with nuclear deployments, before the outright ban of the technology.
  Call it a "fission expedition".
  
  --
  "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
  Never been known to fail..."
51. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by marcosdumay · 2012-04-20 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  Theoreticaly, the worse failure modes are less likely, even when weighted by produced power. And, also theoreticaly, they should reduce faster than with big sized reactors.
  On practice, well, who knows?
  
  --
  Rethinking email
52. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 08:49 · Score: 0
  
  Plenty of people think it only happened as a warning to the USSR. To frighten them,maybe inspire a little terror.
53. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by h4rr4r · 2012-04-20 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  No, the biggest problems are the high upfront costs and low returns over a long period. Investors don't want to wait that long to get their money back.
54. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by h4rr4r · 2012-04-20 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  The state is also giving lots of money to the feds, you know the money that midwesterners eat up in farm subsidies. Without that they probably could balance a budget.
55. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by StopKoolaidPoliticsT · 2012-04-20 09:03 · Score: 2
  
  California also controls 53 out of 435 seats in the House of Representatives, far more than any other state and roughly 1/8th of the total Representatives. If they have a problem with the amount of money they give to the federal government or receive back, they have a lot of sway to change those laws. Band together with a couple other states large states with similar interests, like New York, and they wield a lot of power.
  
  That they've consistently refused to do anything about it, implies that they really don't have a problem with it. In fact, they tend to be advocates of spending more money and creating more programs at the federal level, which is the same problem those states have at the state level.
  
  --
  Stop Koolaid Politics
56. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by Rising+Ape · 2012-04-20 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  The article says it's about 200 MW, which is much larger than the 4S. It's probably Westinghouse's new SMR.
  Or at least Westinghouse's claimed SMR - I don't think they've actually got a worked out design yet.
57. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by Renraku · 2012-04-20 09:13 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  A small reactor in simulations fails about as much as a big reactor, only it can be built to be a tomb if something goes wrong and the worst happens. Look at B&W's mPower modular reactor design, for example.
  
  --
  Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
58. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by mister_playboy · 2012-04-20 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  The USA would only have one real economy left, Texas.
  That economy also happens to be the one with the most minimum wage employees of any state.
  
  --
  Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
59. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by interkin3tic · 2012-04-20 09:24 · Score: 3
  
  I don't follow. Californians pay more in federal taxes than they receive in federal spending. They contribute more to the nation's finances than they consume = they're pulling more than their weight.
  
  Or is there an exception that I haven't heard about where if a state is facing a deficit, they don't need to pay federal taxes? Because if so, then those thousands of dollars I gave to the IRS, I'd like them back.
  
  Sorry to sound bitter, but it's personal: California is not fucking dead weight, Tennessee and other red states that take in more federal funding than they contribute are dead weight. Worse actually: they're a drain on the economy. California keeps it's budget problems in-state.
60. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by CanHasDIY · 2012-04-20 09:27 · Score: 0
  
  California is our nations largest economy.
  Yea, and if the tech companies were to move out of Silicon Valley, Kalifornia would become the nation's largest welfare state.
  
  Face it, they got lucky; had the engineers who founded the IC revolution set up camp somewhere other than the west coast it would probably look like something out of The Road Warrior by now.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
61. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by interkin3tic · 2012-04-20 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  Considering that Kalifornia is constantly on the verge of fiscal default, thanks in large part to mostly unfunded social welfare
  By most accounts, the problem is California's tax base. In the 70's or 80's, they made it impossible to reassess property taxes. Promises to police and fire unions are driving many small towns to bankruptcy. I've heard nothing to suggest that social welfare is the single cause or even a major cause of the budget problems.
62. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by CanHasDIY · 2012-04-20 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  Considering that Kalifornia is constantly on the verge of fiscal default, thanks in large part to mostly unfunded social welfare
  By most accounts, the problem is California's tax base. In the 70's or 80's, they made it impossible to reassess property taxes. Promises to police and fire unions are driving many small towns to bankruptcy. I've heard nothing to suggest that social welfare is the single cause or even a major cause of the budget problems.
  Hence my use of the words, "mostly unfunded;" I don't have a problem with social welfare, so long as it's regulated and paid for.
  
  I've heard nothing to suggest that promises to police and fire unions are the single cause or even a major cause of CA's budget problems, either. Of course, since neither of us cited a source, we'll both have to assume the other is being at least somewhat hyperbolic.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
63. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 11:42 · Score: 0
  
  What nonsense. California's property tax take continues to grow without limit, and grow versus personal income.
  Our property tax has DOUBLED since we bought our house, not so long ago, while our income is flat.
  Most of the real the trouble happened during the Davis administration, when pension benefits and unemployment checks were doubled, on the basis of a short-term spike in income tax revenue, and the assumption that stock market returns would always yield 8%. Those of us who insisted on 3% returns, of course, were shouted down.
  Subsequent attempts to reign in spending have been cleverly opposed by the Nurses and Teachers unions, among others. Meanwhile, the Left has worked overtime to import 3rd-world poverty into the major cities, and manipulated the body count to gerrymander their districts, assuring a healthy majority control in the legislature, where they continue to oppose fiscal responsibility.
64. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 12:38 · Score: 0
  
  I don't follow. Californians pay more in federal taxes than they receive in federal spending.
  You need to look at more up to date numbers.
  It's funny. The District of Columbia receives $0.30 for every dollar paid. That's why their licenses plates say taxation without representation.
65. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 12:54 · Score: 0
  
  California could probably fund that stuff if they did not give more money in federal income tax than they receive.
  California receives more tax money than it pays.
66. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by honestmonkey · 2012-04-20 13:16 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The folks (I was going to say idiots, but perhaps they just don't understand science) commenting a few levels up and down around here that worry about safety need to read about this - LFTR reactors. From Wikipedia and memory, they can be made inherently safe. That is, they can't melt down. No China syndrome. It's not that they have absolutely no safety measures, it's that you need fewer of them, and don't have to worry about the reactor like those in Fukushima. If something happens to the cooling, the reactor automatically shuts down. Not "the sensors pick up a rise in temperature so the blast doors start to automatically close" kind of shut down, but "the thing doesn't work if the cooling isn't in place, so no reaction".
  
  Anyway, yeah, I'm just a shill for the nuclear industry. Caught me. Dang.
  
  --
  Everything you know is wrong, Just forget the words and sing along.
67. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by FirstOne · 2012-04-20 15:04 · Score: 2
  
  "Theoreticaly, the worse failure modes are less likely, even when weighted by produced power. And, also theoreticaly, they should reduce faster than with big sized reactors."
  Hmmm, 225MW(electric) let's see, what other nuclear power plants are in the same output range.. Assuming 30% efficiency.. 225MWh(e) /3 *10 == 750MWh Thermal.
  Oh were did I see similar numbers recently?? FUKUSHIMA DAIICHI-2 760MWh thermal, FUKUSHIMA DAIICHI-3 760MWh thermal
  Ring a bell anyone?? There goes the safe size argument right out the window,.
68. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 17:44 · Score: 0
  
  Well I'm sure a nuclear submarine engineer could answer this question.
69. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by mhotchin · 2012-04-20 19:26 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The Japanese reactors are over 40 years old. Comparing modern designs to that is like saying my 2008 Lexus will have the same kind of failure rates as a 1968 .
  The two are not even comparable.
70. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by jamstar7 · 2012-04-20 20:09 · Score: 1
  
  Check out the history of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant in Perry, Ohio. Lotta lawsuits, lotta injunctions against putting various reactors online. They never did bring it all the way up.
  
  --
  Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
71. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by jamstar7 · 2012-04-20 20:12 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  A good portion of the 'high upfront cost' is that the company still has to keep the construction workers on the payroll while they grind the injunctions through the court system to get them lifted. Lawyers aren't cheap. Neither are construction crews. And when the injunction is lifted, they have to inspect 100% and repair any damage caused to the portions of the plant exposed to the elements while work is stopped waiting for the courts to dismiss those injunctions.
  
  --
  Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
72. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by HArchH · 2012-04-21 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  ... they're pulling more than their weight.
  
  AKA, California (like Denmark and many other governments) punches above its weight. :)
  I don't get the point of the argument going on here. The State of California is over $100B in debt. We have a non-sustainable union-driven government payroll and retirement system. The state is and has been controlled by one political party for the past 30 years. The state is, for all practical purposes, bankrupt. It doesn't matter that the businesses within it produce a GDP and pay taxes. The state government does not. It is the government that has caused the bankruptcy, and the people would be responsible if the government was actually controllable by the people instead of controlled by the unions. The State of California is in an irreversible decline, can't tax its way out of its problems, and doesn't have the political will to use other solutions.
  And the final proof: California is the home state of Pelosi, Boxer, and Waters and they really are representative of the districts from which they come. QED
73. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-22 00:56 · Score: 0
  
  California is the 8th largest economy in the world, or so. It is in no way Communist, perhaps it has some social programs but that is not communism. Communism is a real thing, not just some slur you use against people wealthier than you.
  China is the second largest economy in the world.
74. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-22 06:56 · Score: 0
  
  Consider that California, like New York, might be paying more more taxes because they have a large concentration of people and holding companies who own stock in (and profit from) companies whose operations are in the "red states".
  Who is producing ... and who is "dead weight" ... is not determined by the location of the cash register.
75. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by shmlco · 2012-04-22 16:02 · Score: 1
  
  NIMBYS are NIMBYS. No nukes. No incinerators. No windmills. No nothing.
  It has nothing to do with environmentalism. They just don't want anything built that: a) they would see; and b) would interfere with their property values.
  
  --
  Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
76. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-23 03:48 · Score: 0
  
  California is not fucking dead weight, Tennessee and other red states that take in more federal funding than they contribute are dead weight. Worse actually: they're a drain on the economy.
  How is that worse? Isn't the definition of dead weight that it costs more than it's value? Like carrying rocks in your backpack rather than water.
Details by RogueLeaderX · 2012-04-20 06:31 · Score: 1

Anyone have technical details for the reactors?
1. Re:Details by ColdWetDog · 2012-04-20 06:36 · Score: 2
  
  Look up Toshiba 4S. Then give a big 'hello' to Galena, Alaska (who has been trying to do this for a decade or so).
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
2. Re:Details by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 06:49 · Score: 0
  
  check out
  gen4energy.com used to be Hyperion Power Gereration
3. Re:Details by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 06:49 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Anyone have technical details for the reactors?
  Of course! Just let us know your location and we'll send a team to deliver them.
  
  Sincerely,
  The FBI
4. Re:Details by RogueLeaderX · 2012-04-20 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  So we're potentially looking at a couple of reactors we could ship "spent" fuel to burn it further?
5. Re:Details by RogueLeaderX · 2012-04-20 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  Anyone have technical details for the reactors?
  Of course! Just let us know your location and we'll send a team to deliver them. Sincerely, The FBI
  I wish I had mod points. Well played, sir, well played.
6. Re:Details by Chrisq · 2012-04-20 07:08 · Score: 2
  
  Anyone have technical details for the reactors?
  Hey, is that you Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
7. Re:Details by denis-The-menace · 2012-04-20 07:21 · Score: 2
  
  Sounds like old fashion Steam producing technology with the same safety issues of larger reactors: 300ÂC high-pressure steam that is begging to break stuff.
  We should be going LFTR all the way.
  
  --
  Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
8. Re:Details by Coren22 · 2012-04-20 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  Did you read about the 4S? It is sodium cooled, not water cooled. I don't even think there is a steam cycle involved with that reactor as it is listed as a sealed reactor. It is probably more like a sodium cooled RTG.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
9. Re:Details by Coren22 · 2012-04-20 08:50 · Score: 2
  
  Here is an article explaining the safety features of the 4S:
  http://www.roe.com/pdfs/technical/Galena/20070312_Containment_Whitepaper_Rev01.pdf
  Specifically interesting to me:
  
  Important features of the design of the 4S include:
  -fModular construction, which will reduce costs and construction time
  -Nuclear systems that are embedded below grade, resulting in safety and security
  benefits
  f-Liquid sodium coolant, which does not react with core internals or piping
  f-Coolant that is not highly pressurized, which minimizes stresses on the plant systems
  f-Passive safety systems that do not depend on emergency power to function
  f-Negative reactivity temperature coefficients that cause the reaction rate in the core to
  slow down as temperatures rise
  -Air-cooled reactor vessel, steam generator, and condenser, so that no coolant water or
  intake structures are required
  -30-year core life, which avoids the need to refuel, eliminates fuel storage, and
  minimizes fuel handling concerns
  -Capability of load following without mechanical operation of reactor control system
  f-Ease of decommissioning by containment of all radioactive materials within the
  reactor module throughout the life of the plant.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Re:Figures by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 06:40 · Score: 5, Funny

Soon you'll finally have electricity!
Running water won't be far behind!
Missouri? by sl4shd0rk · 2012-04-20 06:40 · Score: 0

Should be interesting. That place floods over and busts levees every year.

--
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
1. Re:Missouri? by who_stole_my_kidneys · 2012-04-20 06:46 · Score: 0
  
  Actually the army core of Engineers...blows them to save Illinois towns. http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-20059083.html Not sure why any one would want to save anything in that bankrupt shit hole state.
2. Re:Missouri? by skine · 2012-04-20 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  While the Mississippi and Missouri rivers often flood, that doesn't meant that the entire state is prone to flooding.
  And really, river floods are one of the easier natural disasters to account for.
3. Re:Missouri? by demonbug · 2012-04-20 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  While the Mississippi and Missouri rivers often flood, that doesn't meant that the entire state is prone to flooding.
  And really, river floods are one of the easier natural disasters to account for.
  Yeah, just ask the hard drive manufacturers.
4. Re:Missouri? by Jeng · 2012-04-20 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  They knew the risks.
  
  --
  Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
5. Re:Missouri? by spauldo · 2012-04-21 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  Ever been to Missouri?
  Yeah, it's got the Mississippi river on the east border, and the Missouri river running through it, but it's not hard at all to find land in Missouri that won't flood. A good chunk of the state is the Ozarks. The company mentioned is the article is based out of St. Louis, where there's certainly no lack of high ground.
  In fact, most of the larger cities in Missouri are in hilly areas. There's not a whole not of Missouri that isn't hilly.
  The flooding and busted levees you mention are all along rivers, which should be easy enough to avoid when you're looking for a place to put a reactor.
  
  --
  Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
6. Re:Missouri? by skine · 2012-04-22 11:16 · Score: 1
  
  I live near Binghamton, NY, which got flooded last year.
  Prior to the flood, the Lourdes Hospital had built a wall around their premises. While the rest of the houses near the Susquehanna flooded, Lourdes stayed high and dry. And this was despite the fact that the flood was the worst that the city has ever seen.
  Honestly, if you live near a river and don't anticipate a flood, you are an idiot.
  And if you have a business near a river and don't anticipate a flood that is worse than any you've ever seen, then you are an idiot.
NIMBY by chocapix · 2012-04-20 06:41 · Score: 1

At "about a fourth or less the capacity of full-size nuclear units", I'm sorry but it's still too large.
It just won't fit in my backyard, even if I try.
1. Re:NIMBY by CastrTroy · 2012-04-20 06:51 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  This is kind of my view of the future. Have very small nuclear reactors, the kind you find on Navy Submarines that can be used to power a very small area, maybe just a single subdivision. Mass producing small, self contained reactors would probably bring the costs and complexity down quite a bit. Plus distribution would be much cheaper, because you wouldn't have to have super high capacity lines going all over the place. Nuclear power isn't that scary. I see no reason that we allow people to have gas furnaces and water heaters in their houses, but do not allow them to have a small scale nuclear reactor.
  
  --
  
  Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
2. Re:NIMBY by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2012-04-20 07:00 · Score: 2
  
  It just won't fit in my backyard, even if I try.
  Put in the front yard. It will keep the kids off your lawn.
  Works for me.
  
  --
  Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
3. Re:NIMBY by Baloroth · 2012-04-20 07:09 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Because a gas furnace that blows up might leave the house uninhabitable for a few days. A nuclear reactor that melts down might leave a few square miles uninhabitable for a century. I love nuclear power, but unless we can produce some sort of pebble-bed like system where the probability of radioactive contamination is nearly zero, putting them under the control of the average citizen is a terrible idea.
  Plus, nuclear proliferation is still a very real problem.
  
  --
  "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
4. Re:NIMBY by zero0ne · 2012-04-20 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  How do you secure a reactor like this though?
  If I have a gun can I shoot at it and it goes BOOM?
  What if I have a grenade?
  Rocket?
  Large home-made bomb?
  Stolen Bunker buster missile?
  If you were able to get it to go BOOM or melt down, what are we talking about for containment? If it powers a suburban area 20sq miles, will the melt down only cause health issues for that 20sq miles or larger? If it impacts areas around it, do they get a say on how you deploy it and regulations you need to follow to secure it?
5. Re:NIMBY by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 07:41 · Score: 0
  
  Have very small nuclear reactors, the kind you find on Navy Submarines that can be used to power a very small area,
  
  The problem is naval reactors are designed for a specific application and are not suitable for commercial applications for a number of reasons. They use highly enriched uranium as fuel for example.
  But of course the idea of a system of distributed, inherently fail-safe small reactors is a good idea and this proof of concept is the first step.
6. Re:NIMBY by Waffle+Iron · 2012-04-20 07:43 · Score: 2
  
  Have very small nuclear reactors, the kind you find on Navy Submarines that can be used to power a very small area,
  
  Small reactors like those on submarines tend to require weapons-grade fuel.
  
  I see no reason that we allow people to have gas furnaces and water heaters in their houses, but do not allow them to have a small scale nuclear reactor.
  See above.
7. Re:NIMBY by h4rr4r · 2012-04-20 08:01 · Score: 0
  
  Only the last of those would do any damage, this will be buried. It will not go boom, nor meltdown, just spread waste around.
8. Re:NIMBY by WebCowboy · 2012-04-21 03:36 · Score: 2
  
  A nuclear reactor that melts down might leave a few square miles uninhabitable for a century.
  Except the type of nuclear "micro-reactor" that would fit within a city lot, typically within a facility the size of a typical substation at most, would be incapable of going into meltdown. Furthermore throium-based reactors produce much more "benign" waste products--certainly they are still toxic but disposal and site remediation would be not that far removed from something like decontaminating the site of an old gas station that once handled leaded fuel.
  Also, a gas furnace that blows up would in all likelihood leave the house permanently uninhabitable. Almost without exception, when a gas furnace explodes, even if the house is still standing the internal pressure of the exploion "puffs out" the structure and makes it permanently, structurally unsound. In the most optimistic cases repair would not taks days, but rather weeks and months as the uilding is gutted to the frame to repair the damage within. This would not be a problem with what is envisioned in the parent to your post as it would involve a reactor with the capacity to provide service to "maybe just a single subdivision". While that is small, it is not so small it would sit inside anyone's house. As I said, this is something that would sit withiin a substation facility where traditionally transmission lines connect to distribution (but in this case there would be no tie in to a transmission line, but instead directly to a generation unit). That is already not a residintial location.
9. Re:NIMBY by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-21 23:39 · Score: 0
  
  Being a luddite is no way to go though life, son.
These can be boons for small towns... by mlts · 2012-04-20 06:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

For a small town, a small (~220 MW) plant will come very handy. It helps ensure they will be up if the grid goes down, that businesses would have a utility power guarantee, and it also gives clean power without having to deal with a coal or other fossil fuel plant.
I keep seeing these pieces of a puzzle popping up on /. that would solve the core problems our culture faces. A wind turbine to pull water from the air here, small reactors there, isobutane from CO2, better batteries from IBM, and self driving cars. Putting these technologies together, and we have done a lot for the transportation infrastructure. The reactors would give reliable power, which can be used to charge batteries on electric vehicles or make usable fuel for IC engines. Road congestion and even the need for a vehicle (as opposed to just renting one for a trip) would be eased by self driving cars.
I just wish some of these cool potential ideas came into practical use. Self driving cars would allow for a lot of flexibility especially.
As energy availability improves, so do economies.
1. Re:These can be boons for small towns... by hjf · 2012-04-20 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  as i understand, nuclear (and hydro) are "base" supplies. they need to run 24/7. fossil fuel, especially liquid fuel and gas plants, can be turned on and off easily (can't close down a dam, or shutdown a reactor).
  So the plant will need to power the town constantly and use the grid as backup.
2. Re:These can be boons for small towns... by CastrTroy · 2012-04-20 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  Hydro can be turned off and on by simply closing the valve. The problem is that when you turn off the valve, the water starts to collect behind the dam, and if you leave it off for too long, it could overflow. However, it would be simple to create an overflow system in a hydro dam. Depending on how much power is needed at any one point, divert the water to the overflow system and just have it drain down the river instead of going through the turbines. You can also turn down nuclear by inserting those rods that slow down the nuclear reaction. There's also plenty of ways to use the excess power to our advantage. Have a smart grid that let people with battery units charge their batteries for super cheap when there is no demand for the excess power. Data centers, electric cars, even laptops could be programmed to draw and store more power when there is excess power on the grid. Maybe even fridges, freezers, and air conditioners could make more intelligent decisions about when to turn the compressor when it is more favorable for it to do so. Most air conditioners only run for part of the day anyways. If you synced up all the air conditioners in the neighbourhood so that they generated a smaller load instead of just when the temperature rose above a certain point (likely the same time for all houses in the same neighbourhood), you could releive quite a bit of stress on the grid.
  
  --
  
  Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
3. Re:These can be boons for small towns... by Bill+Dimm · 2012-04-20 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  However, it would be simple to create an overflow system in a hydro dam..Depending on how much power is needed at any one point, divert the water to the overflow system and just have it drain down the river instead of going through the turbines.
  Actually, you can use excess energy to pump the water up into a storage facility and let it roll back down later when you need the energy. See Muddy Run Pumped Storage Facility
4. Re:These can be boons for small towns... by nojayuk · 2012-04-20 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  It's difficult to swing the output of most older nuclear reactors, that is to run them at a reduced output from their rated 100% figure. Fission products like Xe-135, a neutron absorber which is usually at an equilibrium level at full power settings build up in the fuel rods at lower power settings "poisoning" the fission process and can prevent the reactor from operating at full power again until they die away. More modern reactor designs like the AP1400 can be swung to as low as 70% output without this poisoning effect causing problems but it does have to be carefully managed by the reactor operators.
  Given the very low cost of nuclear fuel per MWhr generated there's no real point in swinging a reactor even if there aren't any customers for the "excess" electricity being generated. Reactors are shut down on a scheduled basis for inspection and refuelling, not when the fuel is exhausted or even severely depleted so running them at 100% or nearly 100% during their uptime doesn't actually cost any more than swinging them to cope with decreased demand during the night or at weekends.
5. Re:These can be boons for small towns... by sdguero · 2012-04-20 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't 220MW enough electricity for something like 250,000 homes? That's a pretty big town...
6. Re:These can be boons for small towns... by ArsonSmith · 2012-04-20 09:31 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  These can be booms for small towns...
  FTFY
  
  --
  Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
7. Re:These can be boons for small towns... by hjf · 2012-04-20 10:36 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, you can (and do) divert power from the hydro turbines to the other...valves? And you can (and do) regulate the power from nuclear too. But the point is that you are wasting power. In the case of hydro, it's silly to turn it off (it's simply cheaper to run that power for thousands of miles if needed, than shutting it down and let all that water go to waste anyway).
  In the case of nuclear, it's only efficient if it's running at the design power.
  You also mention a "smart grid" that can turn off non-essential stuff at critical moments. That's fine and all, but Slashdot-paranoids are all against that for "privacy reasons".
  BTW: google for chilled water storage. Some buildings freeze water during the night, when power is cheaper, and use that as a source of cold during the day, instead of the AC compressor.
8. Re:These can be boons for small towns... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 11:58 · Score: 0
  
  We're not paranoid. The state and its central-planning folk have made it perfectly clear that they want to decide, for us, what is "essential" and when. Based on their track record, no thanks, I'll decide that for myself.
9. Re:These can be boons for small towns... by dbIII · 2012-04-20 12:19 · Score: 2
  
  Nuclear is typically base load due to being huge units producing vast amounts of steam so it takes quite a while to get enough steam for the turbines to spin up. Something smaller than the current huge reactors is likely to take less time to get going and could be used to cover peaks.
  Hydro on the other hand is used for base load because it's cheap to run once you have all the infrastructure - but it's used for peak load as well because it takes less than a minute to start up some very large hydro units. You can very easily turn units off and off and that's why hydro pump storage is used to cover peaks in places where there isn't the luxury of a very large dam.
10. Re:These can be boons for small towns... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 15:06 · Score: 0
  
  Fuck your battery whiz cars, fuck your self driving cars, and fuck YOU.
  I will have none of it.
11. Re:These can be boons for small towns... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 15:52 · Score: 0
  
  The problem is that when you turn off the valve, the water starts to collect behind the dam
  
  Well played.
12. Re:These can be boons for small towns... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-21 06:01 · Score: 0
  
  It's difficult to swing the output of most older nuclear reactors, that is to run them at a reduced output from their rated 100% figure. Fission products like Xe-135, a neutron absorber which is usually at an equilibrium level at full power settings build up in the fuel rods at lower power settings "poisoning" the fission process and can prevent the reactor from operating at full power again until they die away.
  That's not half the problem. The Xe135 poisoning doesn't "prevent the reactor from operating at full power" per se, it just means you have to withdraw the control rods further... then when you get the reaction going hot enough, the Xe135 burns off quickly, and the reactor suddenly starts developing much more power than you want, until you jam them back in. If you don't... bye-bye reactor! Of course, it's a problem we're aware of, which is why we have strict swing limits on old reactors, to prevent a problem where the control system isn't fast enough to handle it, but it also means when you shut a reactor down (or if, for whatever reason you have a power reduction below the swing limit), you have to keep it shut down for about a day, waiting till the Xe135 naturally decays before you can restart it.
Micro Nuclear Power Plants by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 06:49 · Score: 0

I have been saying for years they need to build small (Nuclear Carrier) sized power plants and put them inside a huge building and built over a pool with heavily leaded water if there is ever a problem hit the mayday switch and the whole thing drops through the floor into a pool with a cover and the whole thing is contained in a matter of a minute or two at the most. clean efficient and SAFE. And how many time have there been failures of nuclear power plants on ships?
1. Re:Micro Nuclear Power Plants by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  And I have been saying for years that they need to invent a tiny little thing like a letter but it looks like a dot and you could put it at the end of a sentence like this.
2. Re:Micro Nuclear Power Plants by Joce640k · 2012-04-20 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  And how many time have there been failures of nuclear power plants on ships?
  Statistics: There's not many nuclear ships. Given that nuclear reactors hardly ever fail on land you wouldn't expect a lot of failures on ships.
  
  --
  No sig today...
3. Re:Micro Nuclear Power Plants by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 07:05 · Score: 0
  
  That's a nice idea on paper, but a bad idea in the real world. One of the reasons those reactors are so small is that they are widely believed to use fuels that (due to proliferation risks) don't belong in places less secure than warships, and which cannot (for security reasons) be talked about in public.
  On a political level, the last thing the atomic energy industry needs is confusion between materials that are only useful as fuel for power generation and materials that pose proliferation risks.
  As a short-term emergency measure, pulling a submarine or aircraft carrier into a port and hooking up a couple of long power cords to it is a pretty nifty option for disaster relief in coastal areas, but that's as far as your idea is likely to go.
4. Re:Micro Nuclear Power Plants by RobertLTux · 2012-04-20 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  err the point here is that the list of US/USSR reactor accidents is very very short. since most of those are the result of suicide/sabotage/dumb luck it does show that given enough safe guards nuclear power is "safe".
  hint if you design things so that critical is rigged to a DEADMANs switch it has near zero chances of making a county "glow in the dark".
  
  --
  Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
5. Re:Micro Nuclear Power Plants by Frangible · 2012-04-20 07:25 · Score: 2
  
  "Proliferation risks"... no one makes weapons with uranium, it is a waste of uranium. Weapons are made with plutonium. That's a disingenuous assertion by those opposed to nuclear energy. The fact is, highly-enriched uranium is the only practical way to make most of the world's medical isotopes, amongst other things. I wonder how many arguing against HEU would be willing to give up effective medical imaging and cancer treatment for themselves and their families. Not many, I suspect.
  
  There are a number of civilian vessels with naval nuclear propulsion. There was the NS Savannah from the US (warning: epic pictures at that link). Security of the reactor did requite additional personnel on the ship, but these are issues that have been solved long ago. And there are a number of Russian nuclear-powered icebreakers today. In fact, you can book a cruise on one, if you're into riding around with a bunch of Russians in the arctic.
  
  And things like the A4W reactor and its fuel are declassified and common knowledge. There is no great secret here.
  
  There have been no failures to date of any reactors aboard US Navy vessels. This is hardly surprisingly given that Admiral Hyman G. Rickover ruled that program with an iron fist and was extremely anal about safety and protocol. Down to hand-picking the crew. There have been a few incidents with Russian naval reactors, but in all fairness Russia also pushed the design envelope more than we did, and there are risks in doing so.
6. Re:Micro Nuclear Power Plants by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 07:31 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe the Navy is less prone to lying on inspections, etc.?
7. Re:Micro Nuclear Power Plants by Waffle+Iron · 2012-04-20 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  Weapons are made with plutonium, it is a waste of uranium.
  Except when you either can't get your hands on any plutonium, or you can't figure out the difficult engineering required to implode plutonium.
  In those cases, they're made with uranium, wasteful or not. See: Hiroshima.
8. Re:Micro Nuclear Power Plants by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 09:27 · Score: 0
  
  Interestingly, they had already figured out how to engineer a plutonium bomb -- the first atomic detonation (Trinity) was an implosion-type plutonium device. They dropped a regular uranium atomic bomb on Hiroshima because they were confident that it had a high chance of not failing.
9. Re:Micro Nuclear Power Plants by dbIII · 2012-04-20 12:28 · Score: 1
  
  And how many time have there been failures of nuclear power plants on ships?
  I'd say if you have more than one reactor powering a ship then you can call anything that makes you worry a failure and shut it down for inspection and/or maintainance. Since they are all fairly experimental I'd say there have been quite a few but probably not many to actually worry about.
  Similarly you'd be amazed at how many coal fired units go offline due to failures with little or no disruption to the power grid.
Re:Figures by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 06:52 · Score: 0

So finally they'll stop shitting in their sheds?
Re:Figures by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 06:57 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Check out a federal income tax map one day,
I did, and I was smart enough to find a "per-capita" listing/map:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state
-- SmartAss Midwesterner pwning a East/West-Coaster
Re:Figures by tomhath · 2012-04-20 06:59 · Score: 1, Offtopic

Hmmm, trying to find Missouri on the per capita spending on welfare list. Oh, there it is at #37. No surprise the New England dominates the top of the list considering their political drift.
Odd Bit of State-ism Ya Got Yerself Der by eldavojohn · 2012-04-20 07:03 · Score: 2

Leave it to those of us in "flyover country" to actively move society forward, whilst the coastal elites bicker among themselves.
Just thought you might like to know that the company that is building it for Ameren Missouri is Westinghouse, headquartered in Pennsylvania. As in George Westinghouse's corporation from New York. And they are looking for $452 million of investment funds from the U.S. Department of Energy in order to start this project ... does your state solely fund the DoE?

Also, I might point out to you that recent data shows that in 2005 for every dollar Missouri paid to the federal government you got back $1.32.

whilst the coastal elites bicker among themselves
Could you describe what bickering is happening on the coasts that isn't happening in your own state?

I'm not saying anything bad about Missouri, I applaud this movement as I don't think Wind or Natural Gas or any single solution is going to save us moving forward so I'm happy to watch this piece of the puzzle be experimented with. Just don't go patting yourself on the back too hard or you'll get me started about the massive wind farms in my home state of Minnesota (that were set up by a largely Californian company selling it to almost anyone within cable laying distance).

Energy-wise, none of us are alone and we all share very similar problems.

--
My work here is dung.
1. Re:Odd Bit of State-ism Ya Got Yerself Der by CanHasDIY · 2012-04-20 07:18 · Score: 0
  
  This would be one of those exceedingly rare situation in which I am intentionally trolling.
  
  Judging from the responses thus far, I would consider it a successful outing...
  
  That's what you fuckers get for not keeping me busy! XD
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Logistics by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 07:03 · Score: 0

So will this be one of those Toshiba reactors made in Japan with Westinghouse IP? If so it would be shipped by sea and probably up the Mississippi River, then out toward Jackson. I hear they can't "melt down".
Alaska was scheduled to get one in/near Fairbanks IIRC and there were "funding issues", as Alaska is well in favor of nuclear, oil, and everything military and commercial.
http://www.toshiba.co.jp/nuclearenergy/english/
JJ
Re:Figures by h4rr4r · 2012-04-20 07:06 · Score: 1

Percapita my state still beats yours, so you just found another way to lose. Of the top 10 more than half are coastal and only 3 are in the midwest.
So you are poor and have a low population density, not anything to be proud of.
You should also look into federal spending in each state vs income taxes paid. Due to farm subsidies and unneeded military bases, also known as more red state subsidies, that also does not go well for you.
1. Delaware $19,493.95
2. Connecticut $15,485.74
3. Minnesota $15,141.03
4. New Jersey $14,008.70
5. New York $12,678.84
6. Massachusetts $11,594.60
7. Rhode Island $11,312.59
8. Nebraska $10,731.19
9. Illinois $10,539.40
10. Arkansas $9,644.48
Small Scale Nuclear Power Plants... by bjwest · 2012-04-20 07:08 · Score: 4, Interesting

have been in use by the U.S. Navy for decades. They've plenty of safety and failure rate data on them, they've got a high safety rating, and they're pretty small. Start mass producing them suckers and they'll be cheap as hell. Start peppering the power grid with them here and there, and soon we'll have clean, virtually unlimited power. Most counties in the country can get by with one, and still have plenty of power to spare which can be sold off to the larger cities that need would more than one.

--

--- Keep the choice with the user..
1. Re:Small Scale Nuclear Power Plants... by compro01 · 2012-04-20 07:32 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  have been in use by the U.S. Navy for decades. They've plenty of safety and failure rate data on them, they've got a high safety rating, and they're pretty small.
  They also require weapons-grade uranium for fuel, which kinda rules out their use in civilian applications.
  
  --
  upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
2. Re:Small Scale Nuclear Power Plants... by Jeng · 2012-04-20 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  Weapons grade or not there will be a ton of security.
  And even if there was not military base level of security it's not like you can just go in and pull out the fuel. This reactor will not be sitting in Iran or North Korea, it will be in Missouri.
  
  --
  Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
3. Re:Small Scale Nuclear Power Plants... by AmiMoJo · 2012-04-20 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  Weapons grade nuclear material. In portable enclosures. That need to be disposed of (hint: the military hasn't figured out a good way yet). There are reasons why it hasn't happened and never will.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
4. Re:Small Scale Nuclear Power Plants... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 08:57 · Score: 0
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository
5. Re:Small Scale Nuclear Power Plants... by DerekLyons · 2012-04-20 11:18 · Score: 1
  
  have been in use by the U.S. Navy for decades. They've plenty of safety and failure rate data on them, they've got a high safety rating, and they're pretty small.
  And they cost considerably more than a plant designed for civilian use does. Not just to build (because of the hardening for test depth) but to operate (the HEU they use is much more expensive than the LEU used in civilian plants). They also have engineering features (the ability to rapidly alter power levels) not needed for civilian plants.
  
  Even just taking the obvious 'simple' step (re-engineer them to remove HEU, both for expense and proliferation risk), and they're no longer economically feasible as their ouput is significantly decreased.
6. Re:Small Scale Nuclear Power Plants... by zyzko · 2012-04-20 19:40 · Score: 1
  
  Problem is not the reactor and where it is - as you said, you can't just walk in and steal the fuel.
  The problem is that if you have a large scale deployment of things that require weapons-grade fuel, you have to have the means to produce it in large quantities. And that is the problem - if you want to have AK-47s in the grey market you probably won't steal them one-by-one from existing end users (who have their own security in place) but do it somehow at manufacturing/distribution phase.
  There is a reason why alarm bells at IAEA go off instantly when they smell even a slightest possibility of production of weapons-grade uranium and "civilian" fuel (new and used) is not *that* hard guarded (yes, they also have pretty tight security measures because that thing can be used for quite bad purposes - but we are still talking massive differences in scale).
7. Re:Small Scale Nuclear Power Plants... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-21 01:47 · Score: 0
  
  They've plenty of safety and failure rate data on them, they've got a high safety rating,
  So somehow the Navy is immune to what the private sector does?
  Things like this:
  As a part of operational management of the nuclear power plant, we used to rewrite the daily operative reports. We used to access the computer to falsify the data when things werenâ(TM)t going our way.
  And somehow the well trained Navy staff will translate to the private sector? If one is going to project the Navy experience onto the private sector one needs to translate the staffing level. Does any sane person think corporations will do that?
  The failure problem of fission is so bad industry reps have replaced the bones of the dead with brromsticks to cover up the dangers. Or even fake reports. What assurence do you have that the public data on Navy experience actually reflects what happens? How about the data from the reactor that makes it to the Joint Chiefs is 100% what actually happened?
8. Re:Small Scale Nuclear Power Plants... by sjames · 2012-04-21 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't stay weapons grade for long.
Re:Figures by ThatsNotPudding · 2012-04-20 07:13 · Score: 3, Funny

Running water won't be far behind!

Just don't run a Gieger counter over it.
Re:Figures by RogueLeaderX · 2012-04-20 07:16 · Score: 1

Also a midwestern smartass; however, it appears the east coast still bests the midwest:
Rank State Revenue per capita
District of Columbia $34,665.63
35 Delaware $19,493.95
16 Connecticut $15,485.74
9 Minnesota $15,141.03
6 New Jersey $14,008.70
2 New York $12,678.84
12 Massachusetts$11,594.60
37 Rhode Island $11,312.59
33 Nebraska $10,731.19
5 Illinois $10,539.40
The Real Travestry by sycodon · 2012-04-20 07:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

"Ameren said the application process could cost $80 million to $100 million and take four years."

--
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
1. Re:The Real Travestry by ColdWetDog · 2012-04-20 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  Four years I can deal with - hell it takes that long to site a hydro plant these days.
  Eight to 100 million dollars sounds, shall we say, just a little bit fucking insane.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
2. Re:The Real Travestry by ColdWetDog · 2012-04-20 08:20 · Score: 2
  
  Err, 80, eighty.
  Although 8 million dollars (said with evil lisp) really should generate enough paper to act as a primary shield for the reactor itself.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
3. Re:The Real Travestry by CptNerd · 2012-04-20 08:44 · Score: 1
  
  100 million would just about pay the insurance premiums needed to pay for the nuisance lawsuits posted by NIMBYs and the green NukeFUD complex of organizations.
  
  --
  By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
4. Re:The Real Travestry by sycodon · 2012-04-20 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  If this number includes the manufacturer ramping up the design and all the engineers needed to fully test and QA the thing, I could understand.
  But if they have one completed and running and all this cost is just communicating information to the feds (generating paper work) then it is indeed infuckingsane.
  
  --
  When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
5. Re:The Real Travestry by AmiMoJo · 2012-04-20 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  I suppose you are implying that it should be cheaper to prove that the design is safe. Considering the potential cost of an accident (Fukushima is estimated to be in the hundreds of billions range) and the potential pay off for the developer it seems reasonable.
  Experts are needed to verify the design, and extensive destructive testing is also required. This is a new design, a new concept. The tests themselves need to be designed. Even things like safety regs need to be developed to take account of how it will be deployed and operated, and of course extensive monitoring of the first unit will be necessary.
  Come on, this is not some toy. $100m is cheap.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
6. Re:The Real Travestry by sycodon · 2012-04-20 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  $100m is cheap.
  This, is why we are 15 trillion dollars in debt.
  
  --
  When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
7. Re:The Real Travestry by MrKaos · 2012-04-20 13:46 · Score: 1
  
  $100m is cheap.
  This, is why we are 15 trillion dollars in debt.
  This is what an insightful comment looks like.
  
  --
  My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Re:Figures by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 07:28 · Score: 0

actually, you need to look at revenue - spending by state, you jackaninnie
Re:Figures by CompMD · 2012-04-20 07:31 · Score: 0

I always like to remind the "coastal elites" that when they fly over us in the midwest, its in an airplane that was engineered and manufactured in Kansas. That usually shuts them up.
There is some history behind this by Luckyo · 2012-04-20 07:32 · Score: 2

As I understand, this comes after russians started to do the same thing making many people realise that this is actually doable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_floating_nuclear_power_station
Basically a small reactor on a floating platform that you pull to the shore, connect to a local prepared transformer station and you have power. It makes a very good alternative to constructing power plants in remote regions for example. I believe the suggestion in OP was mirrored by other nations with capability of building naval nuclear reactors.
Not quite true... by DerekLyons · 2012-04-20 07:34 · Score: 4, Interesting

The small reactors, about a fourth or less the capacity of full-size nuclear units, are appealing to the nuclear industry because they could be manufactured at a central plant and shipped around the world. By contrast, building nuclear reactors today is a more cumbersome process that must be done largely on site and takes years.
That's an editorial addition by the submitter - and not part of TFA. And it's not quite right either.

Regardless of the size of the plant, the major machinery is built off-site and shipped to the construction site for installation. What's time consuming and expensive on site (and it's not clear that small reactors escape this) is the labor intensive work of hooking up all the piping, wiring, and ancillary systems for the plant.

What saves time and money in this kind of construction is eliminating building major machinery only on demand, and instead building it at a slow but steady and predictable pace. I.E. if you can negotiate to buy April's production in February of the previous year, you have less capital tied up (and thus pay less interest) than if you had to order your machinery two, three, or four years in advance. Though standardized serial production isn't quite the same as mass production, it has the same benefits to a lesser degree.
1. Re:Not quite true... by hackertourist · 2012-04-20 20:33 · Score: 1
  
  It seems to me that reactors at the scale TFA talks about become small enough that items like the reactor vessel can be road-transported in one piece instead of having to be assembled on-site.
Re:this is absurd. by hjf · 2012-04-20 07:49 · Score: 1

silly poster, nuclear bombs are for islam terrists.
Re:Figures by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 07:54 · Score: 0

That's funny because the Boeing 747, 767, 777, and 787s are built in Washington state. You know, just the major planes that make up the bulk of most airlines' fleets. With the 747-400 being the most common plane in service, your claim seems a bit weak.
Re:Figures by h4rr4r · 2012-04-20 07:54 · Score: 1

So in places where it is more expensive to live welfare pays more for people to live?
This also ignores federal spending.
You had better alert the press.
Re:Figures by h4rr4r · 2012-04-20 08:00 · Score: 1

When did they start designing Airbuses in the USA?
When did Boeing leave Washington?
Re:Figures by Lunix+Nutcase · 2012-04-20 08:01 · Score: 1

You mean the same Cessna that has laid off half of its workforce since 2009 and continues to push more manufacturing to China? Wow, what an impressive story.
think about tornadoes by sribe · 2012-04-20 08:03 · Score: 2

I mean seriously, what we're talking about here is literally "the mobile home of nuclear reactors" ;-)
1. Re:think about tornadoes by holmstar · 2012-04-20 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  Most of these small reactor designs are mostly underground, with only a small building on the surface.
Re:Figures by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 08:04 · Score: 0

He's trying to crow over Cessna being in Kansas.
The way this could be made to work by ShooterNeo · 2012-04-20 08:06 · Score: 0

Problem : Private utility companies (and government agencies, honestly) each operating their independent nuclear fiefdoms can bribe, lawyer, and lie their way out of running a reactor responsibly. As you may be aware, they are not liable if a catastrophe actually happens, and each reactor is again, unique so unless you are an expert on a particular plant a regulator cannot know if it is ACTUALLY safe. The reactors in Fukishima had numerous containment failures that the party line from General Electric said was impossible (but other engineers showed could happen 20 years ago)
Guess who the Japanese regulators chose to believe?
Well, if the modular reactors are built in such a way that no matter what, the module cannot leak the hot fuel into the environment (by using much lower density reactor cores so they cannot melt through containment), buried in the ground, the modules are located in an unpopulated area, and the factory that makes the modules is watched by government regulators like a hawk...
Just MAYBE nuclear could be a viable option and we wouldn't have any more nasty incidents.
Then again, who am I kidding. How can you engineer something to work for 50+ years, contain metric tons of extremely energetic fission fuel, never break no matter what maintenance steps are skipped, and never fail even in completely unforseeable ways (like a huge wall of water slamming into the plant, or terrorists planting a truck bomb right next to the reactor, etc)
You can't. And, for every dollar of actual economic or health damages, you have a million dollars of psychological damage in the minds of the general public.
This is why when I hear about Fukishima, I asked all the engineering students at my school if they planned to switch majors.
1. Re:The way this could be made to work by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 08:19 · Score: 0
  
  Let me guess...you are also against Wind (kills the birds), Solar (Toxic chemicals and chills the turtles), Sea based of any kind(Kills fish, robs the shoreline of needed current, etc), Coal of course, Natural Gas (Fracking, Ahhhh!), Oil goes without saying and Hydro cause the salmon can't get to their booty call.
  In short, Humans are the scourge of the earth and should just live in caves in warm climates (cause you can't have us burning wood for warmth, ya know).
2. Re:The way this could be made to work by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 08:55 · Score: 0
  
  So basically you know little to nothing about engineering, yet somehow feel qualified to give blatantly idiotic specs for what you feel would be a safe reactor?
  what a joke... oh wait he's serious?
3. Re:The way this could be made to work by dbIII · 2012-04-20 12:36 · Score: 1
  
  never break no matter what maintenance steps are skipped
  That's an interesting crown on the strawman there.
4. Re:The way this could be made to work by ShooterNeo · 2012-04-20 15:30 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  None of those methods can contaminate massive areas of land all at once. You can clean up a broken windfarm with ordinary equipment, not specialized robotics, and it's a lot cheaper.
  Burning natural gas, while it does have a negative long term consequence for the entire planet, is far cheaper than nuclear, and can provide base-load generation just fine. Natural gas is ideal to use in conjunction with renewable energy because you can easily start up and shut down gas turbines as the wind/solar etc fluctuate.
Navy by Translation+Error · 2012-04-20 08:09 · Score: 2

That's true, but let's keep in mind that it won't be the U.S. Navy operating these new reactors. I trust the Navy to run a reactor properly a hell of a lot more than I trust a power company.

--
When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
Re:this is absurd. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 08:11 · Score: 0

Nehemiah Scudder 2012!
Don't forget Fukushima by spacefight · 2012-04-20 08:12 · Score: 1

While you're there, discussing new reactor designs. Thanks.

http://akiomatsumura.com/2012/04/682.html
1. Re:Don't forget Fukushima by greg_barton · 2012-04-20 09:34 · Score: 2
  
  I think it's unlikely a tsunami will hit Missouri.
Re:Figures by ColdWetDog · 2012-04-20 08:14 · Score: 1

Boeing has been in Wichita, KS for generations (since WWII). In 2005, they were Wichita's largest employer. They've pulled back over the past couple of years, but still maintain a significant presence, as does Airbus, Cessna and a couple of other aeronautical companies.
You're all correct....

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:Figures by Desler · 2012-04-20 08:18 · Score: 1

Boeing.may have a presence there but it's Everett plant in Washington is where its commercial planes are built. Not Kansas. So if he's trying to jump Boeing in he is quite misinformed.
Re:Figures by Desler · 2012-04-20 08:21 · Score: 1

And let's not forget Boeing's announcement of closing it's facilities in Wichita and laying off all the people by 2014.
Re:Figures by CompMD · 2012-04-20 08:31 · Score: 1

Try again, AC. Final assembly is done in Washington state. An enormous amount of the aircraft you mentioned are engineered and manufactured by Spirit Aerosystems in Wichita, and then those parts are sent to Washington. The entire 737 fuselage is built in Wichita and put on a train car. The 787 forward fuselage sections are made and shipped two at a time on a special aircraft, the Dreamlifter.

Don't believe me? Read their product list.
Low Bid by gooner666 · 2012-04-20 08:34 · Score: 1

There is no such thing as safety in the low bid construction world.

--
Lets get this over with... Fuck Off
Re:Figures by CompMD · 2012-04-20 08:36 · Score: 1

You are quite misinformed. Final assembly is performed in Washington. Spirit Aerosystems in Wichita manufactures most of the structures that are shipped to Washington for assembly.
Re:Figures by CompMD · 2012-04-20 08:41 · Score: 1

Since Airbus has had an office in downtown Wichita, has parts of the A320, A330XWB, and A380 engineered and built in south Wichita down at 43rd and MacArthur...
Boeing never left Washington, but that doesn't mean they can't have massive facilities in other places.
Weapons grade fuel not a good idea ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 10:03 · Score: 0, Interesting

Actually, there's no reason at all someone can't just go in, pull out the fuel, and pass it on. That person will die, rather unpleasantly, shortly thereafter, but that's a small price to pay for kilograms of weapons grade uranium. E.g. "You WILL enter the reactor, remove the fuel, and deposit the fuel in this lead box. In return, we will NOT kill all your descendants." Last I heard, weapons grade uranium sold for about US$10,000 per gram, and you only need a few kg to build an atomic bomb. Please think these things through.
The US Navy keeps armed Guards on their reactors 24x7, AND the reactors are inside active duty naval vessels, all of which makes them a fairly hard target. A civilian reactor would be an easy and soft target, and the high black market value of weapons grade uranium would make it a very tempting target. Nope, civilian reactors need to use non-weapons grade fuel, with Thorium preferable to Uranium.
Incidentally, since the topic has come 'round to US Navy Nuclear Reactors, readers should know about Admiral Hyman Rickover, the 'Father of the Nuclear Navy', who personally built the first US Navy Reactors.
Re:Figures by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 10:58 · Score: 0

So how does that support your original comment that Midwesterners are getting a disproportionate amount of welfare? Hint: it doesn't.
and then Mayhem showed up by jsepeta · 2012-04-20 12:15 · Score: 2

MO earthquakes
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ie=UTF-8&ion=1#hl=en&gs_nf=1&tok=0SB6aB3DK2yfA3N-gB-wgw&cp=20&gs_id=d&xhr=t&q=missouri+earthquakes&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=missouri+earthquakes&aq=0&aqi=g4&aql=&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=e790b5a8625b1eb2&ion=1
MO tornadoes
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ie=UTF-8&ion=1#hl=en&pwst=1&sa=X&ei=G_yRT9qiBMjiggel7tXdDw&ved=0CCUQvwUoAQ&q=missouri+tornadoes&spell=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=e790b5a8625b1eb2&ion=1

--
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
2005 Energy Act by MrKaos · 2012-04-20 13:43 · Score: 2

I'll probably get modded down, but this is exactly the scenario the disassembly of PUCHA in the 2005 Energy act allowed.
The vendor doesn't *have* to build the reactor to get the funding or the tax credits, it just has to be proposed. Can we see the design of the reactor, where it is going to be sited etc.
If five are proposed that's a tidy return on the investment of the license fee. Of course more of these will be proposed for funding remember; Obtaining the license would not require Ameren to add the reactors. Which is a similar scenario that led to the depression and the passing of PUCHA, Why provide the funding if they don't *have* to build the utility? But that's what the act allows. Would you seriously pay money for *anything* up front if you weren't guaranteed that you were getting what you chip in for?
Lame Car analogy: Hey Fred lets go halves in a car. Ok Jack here is half the money. Thanks for that money Fred but I've changed my mind.
"The fact that we are speeding so quickly into the whole small modular nuclear reactor is so frightening," Smith said. Of course - but not because these things will ever be built. It's because it's a con. Pro Nuke or Nuke Free, it doesn't matter. This is a scheme to plunder rate and tax payers money into the coffers of the large business,,, again.
I guess bubbles aren't just limited to the tech sector.

--
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Nuclear waste? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 13:51 · Score: 0

Nuclear waste? Nuclear waste. Nuclear waste. Nuclear waste!
Nuclear waste, waste, waste, nuclear. Nuclear! Waste!!!
Nuuccleeearr! Waaaaassstte!!
not pebble beds by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 16:40 · Score: 0

please stop using pebble bed reactors as supposedly a highly safe reactor only nobody is building them for political reasons! the germans tried now the site is the most one of the most contaminated places on earth and decommissioning cant even begin for hundreds of years. how many times do you think they want to trial that within your own country before you start running out of land. how many times can japan afford to repeat fukushima before theyre confined to some subpar corner of the islands while the premium parts of the country are uninhabitable for many generations.
Re:this is absurd. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 19:24 · Score: 0

Really, I want to make up some bumper stickers...

Don't blame me, I voted for
S C U D D E R - 2 0 1 2
It'll be applicable whether Obama wins or (with reference to the primary) if Romney wins, and I think the 0.5% of people who get it will laugh their asses off.
LFTR by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 22:28 · Score: 1

No matter how much it makes sense, LFTR technology will never be adopted for land use due to nuclear hysteria. Until it has been vetted for 50 years via offshore, seabed nukes. And seabed nukes won't happen until we have a major energy emergency where the Feds have a mandate to force a 'Manhattan' project, overriding all localities in the guise of National Security.