Slashdot Mirror


Robots Compete In Navigating Simulation Of Japan's Fukushima Daiichi Plant

schwit1 writes: A new DARPA Robotics Challenge completed its final competition recently. 25 teams operated robots around a landscape designed to simulate the hazardous environment that aid workers found after the Fukushima Daiichi reactor in Japan melted down multiple times in 2011. Engineers tried to help, but disaster ensued, rendering a huge area around the plant uninhabitable after toxic steam was released into the skies. The radioactive leftovers are still emitting a million watts of heat. First prize is $2m, second prize is $1m, and third gets $500,000.

64 comments

  1. Or we could just deal with the problem cheaply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Send the most worthless and despicable members of society into deal with the problem.

    Politicians, lawyers, CEOs, Priests, Psychiatrists, priests, and the like.

     

    1. Re: Or we could just deal with the problem cheaply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mentioned priests twice.

    2. Re:Or we could just deal with the problem cheaply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      psychiatrists? What's the matter, he didn't renew your lithium?

    3. Re: Or we could just deal with the problem cheaply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget the priests.

    4. Re:Or we could just deal with the problem cheaply by Tetch · · Score: 2

      Send the most worthless and despicable members of society into deal with the problem

      Politicians, lawyers, CEOs, Priests, Psychiatrists, priests, and the like

      Excellent idea, no need to waste finely-engineered, highly valuable hi-tec robots - but your list forgot to include marketing morons, advertising "creatives", financial trader types, property speculators, environmental polluters, all other kinds of greedy, self-centered, planet-wrecking ignoramuses, and of course telephone sanitizers ......

      --
      If you don't pray in my school, I won't think in your church.
    5. Re: Or we could just deal with the problem cheaply by burne · · Score: 1

      And he forgot bankers. His psychologist (which he also forgot) knows what's going on.

    6. Re:Or we could just deal with the problem cheaply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      telephone sanitizers

      Those produce something useful.

      But the rest, sure.

    7. Re:Or we could just deal with the problem cheaply by Tetch · · Score: 3, Insightful

      telephone sanitizers

      Those produce something useful.

      Sorry - you are of course, quite right. I have indeed enjoyed having my telephone sanitized, by a specialist with the proper tools, on numerous occasions.

      But their inclusion on the list was obligatory really - it's a B-Ark thing :
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      If you don't pray in my school, I won't think in your church.
    8. Re:Or we could just deal with the problem cheaply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I feel you should be rewarded for your diligence in keeping subtle. Do you accept leaves?

    9. Re:Or we could just deal with the problem cheaply by Tetch · · Score: 1

      Thanks. I'll take your leaves if you take mine - so long, of course, as we're not required to burn down the forests to avoid inflation ...... aah, modern capitalism eh ? Such a giggle.

      --
      If you don't pray in my school, I won't think in your church.
  2. A million watts zig heat in Dec 2013 by trout007 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It went from 169 MW to 1 MW in 30 months. We are about 18 months past Dec 2013 so if the reduction is about the same we have approximately 10 kW of heat.

    --
    I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    1. Re:A million watts zig heat in Dec 2013 by khallow · · Score: 2

      The decay curve is not exponential. A live reactor has a mix of a large variety of isotopes with a wide range of decay rates. Some isotopes have a half life of seconds or minutes and some have a half life of 4.5 billion years.

      As I understand it, most of the current day heat is from isotopes that have half lives of a few decades. So the rate of decline should have slowed down a lot.

    2. Re:A million watts zig heat in Dec 2013 by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1
      A bit of perspective: my backyard gets about a megawatt of dumped onto it by the Sun (unless it's cloudy). It's not a big backyard (and no, we're not doing a sale)....

      IOW, a megawatt isn't really a big deal, people.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    3. Re:A million watts zig heat in Dec 2013 by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      It's not a big backyard.

      1600 square meters (40x40) sounds big to me. Either that or your back yard isn't getting a megawatt of sunshine.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    4. Re:A million watts zig heat in Dec 2013 by YoungHack · · Score: 1

      My "back yard" is a bit over 100,000 square meters. So?

    5. Re:A million watts zig heat in Dec 2013 by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      So? This stupid thread is not about your back yard.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
  3. A reactor can only melt down once. by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    after the Fukushima Daiichi reactor in Japan melted down multiple times

    Umm...no. Fukushima Daiichi was a station that had multiple reactors (six). Reactor units 1-3 suffered individual meltdowns, and unit 4 suffered a fire due to cooling water loss in the storage pond. Units 5 and 6 were damaged but were already in cold shutdown when the tsunami occurred.

    --

    Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

    Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    1. Re:A reactor can only melt down once. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ONE MILLION WATTS!

      Because 1MW wasn't sensational enough.

      Besides, "the radioactive leftovers" makes it sound like the reactors vomited their contents all around them like in Chernobyl, which was not the case.

    2. Re:A reactor can only melt down once. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are technically correct--the best kind of correct.

    3. Re: A reactor can only melt down once. by mspohr · · Score: 1

      Most of the cores just shat on the ground but there were a few explosions. Still lots of radioactivity to go around. Permanent dead zone.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    4. Re:A reactor can only melt down once. by MrL0G1C · · Score: 2

      Besides, "the radioactive leftovers" makes it sound like the reactors vomited their contents all around them like in Chernobyl, which was not the case.

      Wrong.

      Both suffered reactor meltdown, both suffered 'explosive loss'
      Comparison of Fukushima and Chernobyl nuclear accidents

      Fukushima got lucky, the wind was blowing out to sea and 80% of the radiation due to the explosions went out to sea.

      Tepco lied continually, it took years for real facts to come out.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    5. Re: A reactor can only melt down once. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Units 1 and 3 suffered explosions due to hydrogen gas created when zirconium alloys react with water at high temperature (i.e. during a meltdown). Unit 2's building was ventilated to prevent it exploding as well.

      Fukushima really is an ongoing disaster. The disposition of the cores is not clear because they are in heavily damaged containments that have insane hot zones in them. They really don't know if these cores are stable yet or not, of if they will remain stable once they get there. All they can do is keep dumping water on them and hope things don't get worse, and wait for someone to cook up some robots that can function in those environments without frying.

    6. Re:A reactor can only melt down once. by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Tepco lied continually, it took years for real facts to come out.

      The way you say this, I feel, is a bit mild. A more accurate thing to say was that Everything Tepco Said Was A Lie. They lied about radiation exposure and release every single time they said anything. They did not make one single statement in good faith. They did not operate the plant in good faith. All the Tepco execs should be up against the wall.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:A reactor can only melt down once. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. The major releases at Fukushima were from the more volatile fission products being carried by steam/dissolved in cooling water rather than an explosive ejection of the core as happened at Chernobyl.

    8. Re: A reactor can only melt down once. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The damaged reactors have been in cold shutdown for years.

      Your purported 'insane hot zones' can't even boil water.

    9. Re:A reactor can only melt down once. by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      Nonetheless, nobody died, nobody got even slightly sick (a few minor burns) and apart from the immediate vicinity of the reactors (as in, right up against the containment vessels) the area had lower background radioactivity than the Yorkshire Dales or Denver or downtown Helsinki even before the cleanup crews went in. The dangers of radioactivity are so vastly overblown it's difficult to have a sensible conversation about actual real world risk factors because everyone's terrified of it (yet they think nothing of jumping in an aircraft and flying for hours at an equivalent dose of at least a chest x-ray every hour).

      Tepco deserves a major reaming, but that's mostly down to the japanese sense of pride that would prevent them admitting they're out of their depth and asking for outside assistance even if Godzilla was razing Toyko (they actually refused assistance offers). The govt deserves an even bigger reaming for their inept regulatory controls, being too cozily in bed with the power companies and not forcing Tepco to accept outside assistance.

      The correct thing to do now is wait 35 years for the caesium compounds to die off then cleanup. That's exactly what's happening at Three Mile Island at the moment. Sending robots in now is a fundamentally bad idea because unless they're left in there they'll track nasty shit back out.

      The "highly radioactive" tanks full of water around the plant have about the same levels as you'd find if you dropped a radium watch in an olympic swimming pool and the remaining issue with radioactivity levels has much more to do with the japanese govt having slashed allowable levels by 90% overnight (resulting in fish which was perfectly safe before the accident being dangerously radioactive should you try to sell it now and that's put a lot of people out of business). Whilst you probably wouldn't want to drink from those tanks, it's only slightly more radioactive than seawater and it's safe enough to swim in that I'd feel comfortable doing so (many mineral springs and spas have much higher radioactivity levels, but people are perfectly willing to jump in or "take the waters" those because the radiation is "natural")

    10. Re:A reactor can only melt down once. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...yet they think nothing of jumping in an aircraft and flying for hours at an equivalent dose of at least a chest x-ray every hour

      Who thinks nothing of it??? I think about that every time I fly, which is why I will only fly once every 5 or 10 years. Then again, driving is hours of sun too. Trains derail. Buses are disgusting, smelly, and annoying. And, in contrast, Skype and Google Hangouts is free. So, unless there is really an absolute need to travel, I prefer to stay put. That said, it is not easy in academia, when you have to attend conferences in your field. Seems to me, this would be a pretty big incentive for the United States to build a high speed rail coast to coast, but... we have to deal with Republicans... who don't want government to do anything and Democrats who want to give everything to unions and poor people. There is literally nobody fighting for the average ordinary person.

  4. The Japanese seem excellent at robotics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure they will figure something out after the Fukushima disaster.

    Just take a look at this samurai robot

  5. Watch out when we invent artificial intelligence by jfdavis668 · · Score: 4, Funny

    You know things like cleaning up nuclear power plants is the first thing we will use it for. No wonder robots rebel in science fiction movies.

  6. It'd have been nice to know by spiritplumber · · Score: 1

    It'd have been nice to know, I would have participated. http://www.robots-everywhere.c... We recently did Battlebots, too.

    --
    Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
    1. Re:It'd have been nice to know by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Man, you did battlebots, and they still haven't contacted you? I mean, that totally proves your qualifications.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  7. Two thoughts about nuclear energy by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1
    While reading the link explaining the radioactive leftovers part, I remembered my feelings about nuclear energy, which I will summarise in the following two points:
    • - There is no practical way to replace nuclear power plants within the medium term (not even long term). The associated costs would be very high and no government would take that direction even under the most favourable conditions (e.g., all the population against nuclear energy because of a very important accident). On the other hand, it might be important to let people know more about the exact implications on nuclear energy; to, at least, bring into account their opinion before starting future projects. I think that most of population should be aware about some pretty relevant facts, like for example: nuclear waste will remain active for lots years (e.g., they have to be kept in containers for thousands of years because of being extremely dangerous for the health; on the other hand, in the nature, the radioactive materials are only slightly harmful). Another relevant issue can be extracted from the aforementioned link: you will never have full control on what happens inside a reactor after it has been started; and this is a very important issue to bear in mind while reading the next point. In my opinion, nuclear energy is pretty safe and represents an acceptable less-bad alternative (mainly now when going back would be quite difficult), but a big proportion of the population is not even half aware about its exact implications (i.e., potential dangers and nuclear waste) and this should be changed.
    • - My other thought refers to something about which I am not too knowledgeable: fusion energy. More specifically, to its last most relevant attempt: ITER (but also to any other future project on these lines). Although I don't know too much about this specific project, I do know something about one of our last adventures on the going-beyond front (fission energy). Even now, after more than 50 years and quite a few bad experiences, we cannot fully control nuclear fission; and, in fact, our learning on this field has outputted certainly horrible episodes. We know that atomic (fission) bombs are so bad, because we tested them; we know about the real consequences of nuclear accidents because they actually happened; how could we even know about the nuclear waste to remain active for thousands of years? All this might have been somehow assumed, but nobody could really tell without having passed through this bad experiences. Equivalently to what happens with kids who are told "don't do that", we only really learn after having made some mistakes. The question is: are we seriously thinking about going again in this direction? Are we seriously considering taking a step on the lines of "bringing the sun to the earth" (this was the ITER's self-promotion over 1 year ago)? To spend quite a few years and accept all the problems which might happen during our learning process? And all this just to boil water in a more efficient way (yes, all what you do with fission/fusion energy is finding a more efficient way to boil water)? As said, I don't know too much about this project and I will certainly improve my knowledge on it, but it seems way too risky (to not mention expensive).
    --
    Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    1. Re:Two thoughts about nuclear energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While reading your post, I remembered my feelings about walls of text, which I will summarise in the following two points:
      - Paragraphs.
      - Paragraphs.

    2. Re:Two thoughts about nuclear energy by Tetch · · Score: 1

      The reply about breaking walls of text into paragraphs is worth noting, especially in these days of soundbite culture and bloody tablet devices :-)

      But your basic point is sound IMO. We have a serious energy supply problem: we cannot continue burning fossil fuels. Quite apart from the putative impact on the global-warming problem, fossil fuels are a dead-end road - we don't have very much left. Coal takes 400 million years to form (IIRC), and oil even longer. It's not just boiling water - pretty much every activity in modern civilisation (and especially our beloved Internet) needs electricity.

      We need a way forward into the long-term future, and unfortunately (again, IMO) nuclear technology seems likely to be necessary.

      The second part of your point needs emphasizing: nuclear technology is highly dangerous, and utterly filthy (certainly for fission) - and this is not being properly brought home to the general public. As has been pointed out, Chernobyl and Fukushima are now dead zones, and we don't want any more of that. Furthermore, even without disasters, fission power stations are extremely difficult, verging on impossible, and hugely expensive, to decommission. And nobody knows what to do with the waste products. All we can do is bury the damn stuff somewhere.

      And at this point, it's time to refer the reader once again to the excellent analysis in the film Onkalo - Into Eternity

      "Onkalo must last 100,000 years. Nothing built by man has lasted even one tenth of that time"

      --
      If you don't pray in my school, I won't think in your church.
    3. Re:Two thoughts about nuclear energy by ColaMan · · Score: 1

      Coal in large quantities will likely never form again. White fungus evolved and now efficiently eats the huge amounts of plant matter required to make coal.

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    4. Re:Two thoughts about nuclear energy by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for your detailed answer and your nice comments (I am new in Slashdot and am trying to do my level best :)).

      Regarding what you say, fossil fuels are certainly not a solution; but neither nuclear energy. For me, nuclear energy is the door which we shouldn't ever have opened but which, once done, we cannot close. The nuclear plants cannot be replaced because they produce too much power (you would need at least 2 conventional power plans to replace just a nuclear one); at least, not in countries like the USA, France or Japan with many nuclear plants. This is the opened door which I am referring and which we cannot close (at least, not immediately): the existing plants.

      On the other hand, we should learn from this bad experience and not open more doors which might even be more difficult to be closed in the future. That is: more fission plants would provoke the nuclear waste problem to grow beyond acceptable (shall we force our grand-grand-grand-children to let the Earth as a nuclear waste storage and move to Mars?!). But fusion power might still be worse: we don't know what will be happening after this door is opened. Here some rough ideas: unlikely fission (which barely requires unstable-enough heavy elements to happen), fusion needs an extremely hot source of heat to happen even with the lightest atoms (that's why ITER was talking about bringing the sun to the Earth: these are the kind of temperatures we are talking about). Note that so high temperatures would immediately melt any material we know (ITER is working on a magnetic field to contain so crazily high temperatures!). We are talking about bringing all our knowledge beyond their current limits on quite a few fronts; what, according to quite a few recent experiences, is likely to provoke problems which we cannot even imagine yet.

      Two further clarifications:
      - With just boiling water, I am trying to remove some "magic-like" ideas which are usually associated with certain not-known-enough realities. The thermodynamic cycles defining most of the current power plants (and all the nuclear ones) are based on boiling water, that is: the thermal energy is transformed into the required kinetic one by converting water into steam. There is nothing bad about this fact (actually, it has been proven as a really good way to generate electricity); but I think that this clear enough idea would help some people to better understand what we are talking about: generating very dangerous materials which will last for thousands of years to accomplish something (boiling water) which might be accomplished in quite a few different ways.
      - I don't think that people is fully aware about the implications of nuclear energy; that we are activating very slow bombs which will (virtually) never be deactivated (by the way, I guess that this is what your video is about. Unfortunately, the link does not work). When you start a single nuclear power plan, you are triggering a set of consequences which the Earth and the future generations will be bearing no matter what during the next quite a few thousands of years.

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    5. Re:Two thoughts about nuclear energy by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      Ah, OK. Thanks for the input, anonymous coward. PS: sorry for the delay in replying. It hasn't been because of the tremendous stupidity you have written (unfortunately, I am used to deal with people saying lots of stupid things and even reply them, well... when feeling like laughing a bit). I am new in slashdot.org and didn't realise about this thing of the anonymous cowards' contributions being partially hidden.

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    6. Re:Two thoughts about nuclear energy by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      PS: I wasn't completely sure about what you meant with your first statement because I didn't see the AC comment (by the way, I know now what AC means; yesterday I read a reference which I couldn't understand). My reply to this comment reflects what I think about the way in which impolite, not-even-helpful, completely-unrelated-to-what-is-being-discussed and COWARD attitudes should be treated. That's why, I don't think that you should support these behaviours with a nice "is worth noting".

      PPS: In any case, bear in mind that I relied on the HTML list tags, which were expected to deliver a better result than simple new paragraph tags (b and r). Apparently slashdot.org does not work as I was expecting and I will certainly be using the new paragraph tags from now on. Actually, having said that (i.e., "better use a couple of HTML new paragraph tags to separate your paragraphs"; by bearing in mind that I am new and slashdot might not be supporting HTML in comments or might support something else like markup) would have been a more practical, useful and accurate (i.e., actually, I was using paragraphs too; but the default indentation/margin of the lists aren't apparently big enough) advise :)

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    7. Re:Two thoughts about nuclear energy by Tetch · · Score: 1

      we are activating very slow bombs which will (virtually) never be deactivated (by the way, I guess that this is what your video is about. Unfortunately, the link does not work).

      The film keeps being uploaded to Youtube, and then removed again by YT because of a copyright complaint. Many people feel strongly anough that the film should be seen that they keep re-uploading it, and so the silly battle goes on.

      When you start a single nuclear power plan, you are triggering a set of consequences which the Earth and the future generations will be bearing no matter what during the next quite a few thousands of years.

      Agreed.

      The film is superb, and will likely leave you quiet and thoughtfuil for days afterwards (though perhaps you already know about it). The Onkalo project is ongoing, and won't be completed till most of us are dead - it consists of the construction in Finland of an underground repository for nuclear waste, designed to keep the waste safely away from unsuspecting individuals until decay renders it "safe". That is, for so long that all knowledge of the creation of the repository may have been lost, and all languages that might be used for creating notices about the repository have changed utterly. The challenges involved are sobering.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Into_Eternity_%28film%29

      Search at Youtube for "Onkalo", and you will find a variety of video clips, full and partial, at any given time.

      --
      If you don't pray in my school, I won't think in your church.
    8. Re:Two thoughts about nuclear energy by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      It certainly sounds interesting. No, I didn't know anything about this video and will certainly watch it (might write here an update afterwards).

      In any case and just to support my point (i.e., try as hard as you can to fix it but by bearing in mind that we are talking about a really difficult problem which we are only starting to understand), a couple of ideas I extracted from the referred Wikipedia article:
      - "The Onkalo repository is expected to be large enough to accept canisters of spent fuel for around one hundred years" ("estimated cost of this project is about €818 million" + "has saved approximately €1.4 billion from charges for generated electricity") -> all this to take care of the nuclear waste generated by just one plant (and perhaps also by a couple of additional close-enough ones) . This kind of 100-years ahead plans are done in all the countries. For example, in Spain we have a main storage for the nuclear waste generated by all our plants (7, I think); and they are certainly accounting for an equivalent scenario to what this article says (also already thinking about what to do after having used all the available space; that is: what will happen will all the nuclear generated in Onkalo after 100 years?). But all this does not represent a final solution, just the only temporary one we can come up with, mainly by bearing in mind that...
      - "In 2012, a research group at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden, published research that suggests that the copper capsules are not as corrosion-proof as the companies planning the repositories claim" -> we actually don't know the real long term evolution. We just have suppositions, which might be proven wrong in 50 or in 500 years. In fact we have a very little control about what is happening at the atomic level (and below that). We know that by increasing the instability of unstable atoms (radioactive ones), the danger for the human health increases exponentially; we observed certain evolution in these negative effects and, from that, we assume what might be happening next... but we are not sure. What if after X years the evolution changes and the atoms start getting more unstable? We don't know that. And this is the true point of my comments: not trying to provoke paranoia, but just raising some awareness about what playing around with nuclear forces (or with any other potentially very dangerous phenomenon) might provoke: something about which we might not have either control or knowledge.

      PS:starting to use Slashdot, liking it pretty much and seriously not complaining at all... but it is not kind of weird that you cannot edit your posts/comments after publishing them?

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    9. Re:Two thoughts about nuclear energy by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "- There is no practical way to replace nuclear power plants within the medium term (not even long term)."

      Agreed, however there are practical replacements which are somewhat safer.

      Mixing high pressure (20-30 bar or more), high temperature (400-600C) borated water (ie, corrosive) and nuclear fuel rods is such a fundamentally bad idea that I'm still surprised anyone allowed it in the first place - or continues to allow it. Even Heath Robinson or Rube Goldberg would be speechless (fuel rods are routinely corroded through, resulting in unavoidable contamination of the cooling loop).

      Molten Salt systems are corrosive too, but not as much as the water-loop systems. They're not under high pressure and ready to spray steam containing dissolved radionuclieides everywhere if there's a pinhole, plus they can't go far if they do escape before they freeze solid. MSR systems are really good at being hot, but really bad at making Plutonium for bombs, which is why they were abandoned 40+ years ago.

    10. Re:Two thoughts about nuclear energy by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "nuclear technology is highly dangerous, and utterly filthy (certainly for fission) "

      Uranium-based nuclear technology is, on a number of levels - but Coal is several hundred thousand times _more_ dangerous, on a deaths per Terawatt/hr basis and burning coal releases at least as much radioactive material (mostly radium) into the atmosphere each year as several chernobyls, but noone cares about that like noone cares that they're several times more likely to die on the way to the airport than in a plane crash.

      There _are_ safer technologies available and the most promising was tested in the 1960s. They _are_ being developed for civil operation - and the good thing is that they'll eat most of that nasty "high level waste" as fuel whilst outputting less than 1% as much as current generation plants do, which will have a dangerous lifespan of ~300 years and then be composed of mostly useful substances. They'll also nail the "helium shortage" pretty much permanently

      Fusion power is 50 years away from practicality and a few decades past that for civil operation (it's been like that for the last 60 years). Fission is what we have until then. Carbon is easy but simply too dangerous to continue using.

    11. Re:Two thoughts about nuclear energy by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "nuclear energy is the door which we shouldn't ever have opened but which, once done, we cannot close."

      Really? Look up LFTRs sometime.

    12. Re:Two thoughts about nuclear energy by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      I briefly knew about them. Around 10 years were the cool-but-not-really-applicable alternative, like biodiesel (less CO2 on engines, which is highly compensated with the industrial processes required to generate it). Not sure now...

      But are you saying that all the existing reactors can be replaced? (what about the costs? and the differences in power?) And don't they generate any kind of waste (100% reutilisation)? If the answer to both questions is yes, then fission might certainly be the future.

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    13. Re:Two thoughts about nuclear energy by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      Are you part of the nuclear lobby? :) Because statements like "Coal is several hundred thousand times _more_ dangerous" sound, in the best scenario, not too objective. But well...

      One clarification: according to the ITER guys fusion will occur much sooner (in around 10 years?... I have checked their site since a while ago; but will certainly get fully involved in this project before its definitive start). In fact, if they can go ahead with their plans, your 50-year expectations would be wrong anyway: either fusion will happen before or all/most of us will die and/or nobody will feel like continue trying (because this thing of bringing the sun to the Earth sounds kind of dangerous).

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    14. Re:Two thoughts about nuclear energy by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      You agreed on something I wrote!!! Thanks!...

      Curiously, this time I don't fully disagree with you either. There are always alternatives. And, in any case, I was being over-pessimistic and over-alarmist to raise a bit of awareness (equivalently to what you were doing for your lobby ;)) about the underlying not-always-well-known facts, like: humankind having got involved in something which they weren't even close to understand (although we have understood a bit better bomb by bomb, accident by accident and waste by waste).

      In any case, I also said that I do consider nuclear energy pretty safe, what does not mean that we should continue going in this direction, unless being completely sure that there is a truly-clean and reliable alternative, that is: reactors which might safely reutilise nuclear waste, if not forever for long enough time. In any other case (i.e., generating radioactive waste over and over) the reliance on nuclear energy should be minimised and replaced as soon as possible.

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
  8. And 4th place.. by willworkforbeer · · Score: 1

    Gets their mutant Roomba blob returned, and a stern warning about future encounters with Godzirra.

    --
    Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
  9. Re:Swweeeeet Cherry Piiiieeee! Oh my! by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

    TL;DR

  10. Re: Or we could just deal with the problem cheapl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those fall under lawyers, CEOs, or the like.

  11. You can't send electronics into that environment by Karmashock · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Any system is going to have to be pneumatic and fiber optic in nature. Electronics fail in high radiation environments.

    Every robot we've sent in there breaks in minutes if not seconds.

    If your motors are all pneumatic actuators like what you see with big dog, then they won't fail when subjected to that kind of radiation.

    Your only issue will be getting information from the robot to your command station so you can see what is going on. And the solution there is to use fiber optics. The fiber optics will transmit light into the reactor from the robot and other fiber optics will put up the reflected light to be processed by the command station.

    Possibly SOME electronics that are VERY simple will work in a high radiation environment. But nothing complicated has survived. The whole push to miniaturize stuff is counter productive when dealing with radiation.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  12. Wanted: A Tentacle that goes up to 'Eleven' by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 1

    We don't need to gollump across the desert slinging a rifle Mad Max style. We don't need expressive faces. We don't need stair climber ballet dancers. We don't need batteries. We need not rely on radio controlled operation. We don't need autonomous operation. We just need to lean around corners, extend and hook onto things, retract to pull ourselves along and extend again to get a camera and radiation monitor on a swivel close enough to far corners to answer the most pressing questions. A tentacle with two to three stages, each stage consisting of three to six sections that uncurl and and curl back like flower petals controlled by a human operator practiced in this dynamic of movement. Because the apparatus unfolds to navigate yet is flexible in its collapsed form, when there is equipment failure or the mission is accomplished it need only be pulled back out by its umbilicus. By smart apelike hominids flexing their strong muscles. To replace components, refine the actuators or (if based on Nexus 5) harassing or whacking or replacing the flaky power button to keep it from constantly rebooting.

    Perhaps the Fukushima prize will be taken by a couple of bicycle mechanics from Kitty Hawk, NC with a design that uses no electronics whatsoever, aside from the payload.

    --
    <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
  13. A Korean team won by Smurf · · Score: 1

    By the time the submission got published here the competition was already over. A South Korean team won.

  14. jo dawg! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i hope they figure out a crack AI robot that can solve the fukunuke in 5 minutes so we can build more ...
    so the rich and powerful decision makers cup cake can grow up getting richer and eat non-radiaoctive food too

  15. Make FukiNuki waste into currency brickettes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Making waste into currency, the ONLY currency, would insure that it gets carried off and distributed. Greed would be limited by the toxicity.

    Overly contaminated humans would fuel the robots.
    Robot turds would be made into new Sony music players. Robots would take a swim off the California coast when they need a lube job,

    Speaking of Santa Barbara, we're coming up on the anniversary of the 133 degree heat burst of June 19, 1859, 3 solar rotations before the Carrington storm.

  16. Nuke it from orbit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's the only way to be sure.

  17. Re:You can't send electronics into that environmen by storkus · · Score: 1

    Absolutely, positively *NOT* true! If that WERE true, we wouldn't have satellites flying around in and through the Van Allen RADIATION Belts, surviving solar wind storms, and so on! What do you think the reactors rely on internally when they're operating? Radiation-hardened electronics feeding to non-hardened electronics on the outside, that's what.

    At the very worst, you can always go back to vacuum tubes (that's "valves" in the Queen's English) which, by definition, are rad-hard.

  18. Re:You can't send electronics into that environmen by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    I'm baffled as to why we've not as yet built a single robot that can do that and survive in one of these reactors. They've all broken.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  19. Re:You can't send electronics into that environmen by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

    "I'm baffled as to why we've not as yet built a single robot that can do that and survive in one of these reactors. They've all broken."

    Let me know when you have a robot that can handle Hot (60C+) wet (steam and water) acidic (did I mention the water is borated?) environments with lots of sharp edges (broken stuff, jagged metal, etc) and uneven surfaces full of things which just _love_ to snag trailing cables.

    Oh, and you're required to pick up what's essentially a powder (uranium and plutonium oxide for the most part) on the floor of the area you're investigating. (Meltdown refers to the zirconium fuel rods melting and the contents spilling out, not the bottom of the containment vessel being breached). That powder and other stuff will get into every sliding or rotating joint you can think of and grit it up.

    Uranium and plutonium aren't particularly radioactive. What's cooking off all those wonderful gamma rays and high neutron flux is primarily Caesium - which is a reactive metal even when you don't have radioactive isotopes.

    You really are better off leaving it alone for a few half lives and coming back in 35 years when it's safe to work on it.

  20. Re:You can't send electronics into that environmen by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

    bah: Zirconium fuel rod CLADDING. It's only a few 10ths of a millimeter thick at the best of times.

  21. Re:You can't send electronics into that environmen by MercTech · · Score: 1

    Vacuum tubes are more susceptible to radiation errors than solid state units. When you add additional ionization trails into the ions jumping from plate to plate the tube does not work as planned. You can test this yourself if you hold a decent gamma source up to the side of the photomultiplier tube in a scintillation detector. No, the sensing element in an alpha counter isn't effected by gama flux, but the gas in the photomultiplier sure is.

    I high gamma flux caused degradation in semiconductors. Satellites are hardened and shielded for gamma. The Van Allen Belts are a belt of high speed charged particles and not straight gamma. The semiconductor degradation over time is one of the reasons satellites wear out.

    When the circle bar W ranch hands (Westinghouse Nuclear Division if you prefer) wanted to automate eddy current testing of steam generators; one of the big problems was getting video cameras that would work in a 5-30 Rad/hr field. They tried all sorts of hardening but the end result was buying cheap CCD cameras, slapping in an easily decontaminated steel box, and just taking the hit of them burning out after a month of use.

    I know one health physicist that tells of trying to get the first pictures of the Elephant's foot at Chernobyl (Huge stalagmite of melted fuel)... then ended up dragging a cheap CCD camera mounted on a RC car from Radio Shack after all the high dollar custom robots failed short of mission from the radiation. I don't think the car made it back out but low tech worked long enough.

    --
    NRRPT/RCT
  22. Read the fineprint... by iq145 · · Score: 1

    Corporations are DIRTY and care for nothing but profit, so even reading the fineprint doesn't always work (if they even offer it): http://www.newser.com/story/18... https://www.youtube.com/watch?... https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  23. There are bigger problems!!! by iq145 · · Score: 1

    "A news report says Japan's tsunami-ravaged nuclear plant was so unprepared for the disaster that workers had to bring protective gear and instruction manuals from elsewhere and borrow equipment from a contractor. The report, released by operator Tokyo Electric Co, is based on interviews of workers and plant data. It portrays chaos in a desperate and ultimately unsuccessful battle to protect the Fukushima plant from meltdown, and shows that workers struggled with unfamiliar equipment." ap.org/ - "Scientists have found traces of radioactivity in fish off the California coast that migrated from the waters off of Japan, site of the Fukushima nuclear reactor disaster of 2011, the San Francisco Chronicle reports. The researchers say the evidence is unequivocal. The young tuna were found to be contaminated with two radioactive forms of the element cesium from Fukushima." http://content.usatoday.com/co... - "Japanese whalers caught 2 animals along the northern coast that had traces of radiation from leaks at a damaged nuclear power plant, officials said. 2 of 17 minke whales caught off the Pacific coast of Hokkaido showed traces of radioactive cesium, both about 1/20th of the legal limit, fisheries officials said. They are the first whales thought to have been affected by radiation leaked from the Fukushima nuclear plant since it was hit by a 3/11/11 earthquake and tsunami." nhjournal. com - http://www.newser.com/story/19... http://www.newser.com/story/20...

  24. Re: Or we could just deal with the problem cheapl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And the priests. We can't forget the priests. Oh, and don't forget the Priests. Did I mention the Priests???