Slashdot Mirror
US Congress Passes Bill To Help Advanced Nuclear Power (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Last week, the House passed a bipartisan bill that originated in the Senate called the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act (S. 97), which will allow the private sector to partner with U.S. National Laboratories to vet advanced nuclear technologies. The bill also directs the Department of Energy (DOE) to lay the ground work for establishing "a versatile, reactor-based fast neutron source." The Senate also introduced a second bill called the Nuclear Energy Leadership Act (S. 3422) last Thursday, which would direct the DOE to actually establish that fast neutron reactor. That bill also directs the DOE to "make available high-assay, low-enriched uranium" for research purposes. The Nuclear Energy Leadership Act has not yet made it past a Senate vote. The report also mentions a recent U.S. Court of Appeals ruling to keep older reactors online. "The court said that subsidies for nuclear energy proposed by Illinois don't cause any interference with federal control over interstate power markets, which is prohibited," reports Ars.
"In 2017 the state of Illinois agreed to offer a Zero Emissions Credit that included nuclear energy (PDF). The credit was opposed by fossil fuel generators and by the Electric Power Supply Association, who sued the director of the Illinois Power Agency. But the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Department of Justice filed a joint brief in the case several months ago, saying those federal agencies had no problem with Illinois' credit system, according to Utility Dive."
"In 2017 the state of Illinois agreed to offer a Zero Emissions Credit that included nuclear energy (PDF). The credit was opposed by fossil fuel generators and by the Electric Power Supply Association, who sued the director of the Illinois Power Agency. But the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Department of Justice filed a joint brief in the case several months ago, saying those federal agencies had no problem with Illinois' credit system, according to Utility Dive."
It's ironic that Trump is derided for leaving the Paris accord, when he's the only one taking actions to significantly improve the climate.
The end game for truly low emissions is solar + nuclear. No way you can get there with solar alone - and Trump's government is helping to push nuclear in ways that Obama (being of that old green school) simply would not allow, no matter how much of the planet dies as a result.
Eventually the world will come back around to nuclear once they see more modern nuclear designs in action and stop having freak-outs just because something has "nuclear" in the name. A lot of the older "environmentalists" will be passing away and the more pragmatic real environmentalists will finally allow nuclear power to hold the proper respect it deserves for helping the Earth.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It's been something like 40 years since Jimmy Carter stopped this dead. Long over due that we pursue power technologies that are here and actually work.
Oh and prediction, there will be lots of cheesed off solar zealots that aren't engineers couldn't tell you a thing about electricity or even properly identify the metals used in transmission lines coming on thread bitching and moaning, because they thought solar was magic that would let them stick it to the man.
There is nothing in this story that mentions or involves Donald Trump in any way. And none of the "incentives" to nuclear power discussed in this bill are new.
You are welcome on my lawn.
It's ironic that Trump is derided for leaving the Paris accord, when he's the only one taking actions to significantly improve the climate.
You mean like rolling back pollution rules to help coal plants? https://abcnews.go.com/Health/...
I'm all for advancing nuclear power technology, but I wouldn't give Trump any credit for it. The bill was passed by Congress. The Trump administration was only mentioned once in the article and even that was about nuclear being bundled with his attempts to save the coal plants.
If the rest of the EU is like the UK, nuclear produces more power than solar and wind combined. And ends up being lower cost over 60 years, too...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The White House wants to push advanced nuclear, and supports nuclear power legislation - unlike the previous Administration. That's all that's really needed here - Congress will actually pass nuclear power bills now there is a President who understands the benefits of nuclear power.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
So what you are looking for is a Small Modular Reactor. These are relatively small reactors that can be produced on an assembly line and shipped to the installation site, so they are cheaper than conventional nuclear designs. Most don't require active cooling, which means you don't get meltdowns. Also, you can bury them in a vault for protection from attack or sabotage. They require no maintenance. You run them until their fuel is spent, then you pull one out of service and recycle it. You end up with a few pounds of waste material per unit over the course of it's lifespan, which is a couple of decades.
Russia has been actively developing these things for decades, and are piloting several models.
NuScale has an interesting design ready for licensing, and TerraPower has a design that uses liquid sodium cooling and depleted uranium fuel, which makes it essentially impossible to melt down.
Think of it this way. The expensive part of old water-cooled nuclear reactors is maintaining the elaborate water cooling system. It's also the primary point of failure. Getting rid of active cooling makes reactors cheaper to build and maintain, AND makes them safer.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
It's no coincidence that Greenpeace has that name, Green Peace. The early environmental movement was very much intertwined with the anti-war, anti-military movement, at a time with nuclear weapons were one of the major issues of the day. The Peace side of Greenpeace was churning out information / propagada against nuclear research and facilities because of nuclear weapons. You couldn't have Greenpeace both promoting nuclear energy and using scare tactics about nuclear research such as creating confusion between the slow, long-lived elements vs the fast ones that release enough energy to be dangerous. That legacy lasted a long time.
A lot of leading environmentalists are coming around, though, such as one of the founders of Greenpeace:
http://ecosense.me/2017/01/17/...
http://ecosense.me/2017/01/18/...
As the parent mentioned, solar and wind compliment nuclear very nicely. Both solar and wind are great - when the weather is right at the moment. When the weather isn't right, at night for example, nuclear is the very best, cleanest way to have your base.
For 70 years now we've been trying to find ways solar electric work on a nationwide scale, particularly working on the storage problem. All the while we've been running
oal burning plants while hoping for a revolutionary discovery in energy storage. It can work fine for a hunting cabin (just a little expensive), but after seventy years of burning coal while waiting for solar, we're still nowhere near the kind of revolutionary discoveries needed for something on the scale of powering the United States or Japan. The amount of energy is just so vast. As an example, pumped hydro storage sufficient to get the US through a large winter storm system would require flooding from the Rocky Mountains to the Appalachians, nearly half the country.
If we want to not only replace the existing uses of electricity, but also power all of our cars and trucks from electricity, and industry such as steel and aluminum, we're going to need a lot more electricity. Dependable power for transportation can come from either fossil fuels or nuclear, because you can't have the entire state shut down due it's cloudy this week. You can use solar electric during sunny weeks, but food needs to be delivered to stores during storm season too, and Seattle's cloudy season.
People are starting to come around. I don't think we'll have to keep using mostly fossil fuels for another seventy years while hoping fot a miracle. We can wait for the miracle while drastically cutting CO2 emissions with nuclear.
PS -
Before you reply, be warned I know the gimmicks of dividing *electricity* usage (not vehicles or any other use of energy) by energy usage. Apple divided by orange is a useless number. I'll call you out on it, so don't bother trying to post a BS stat that conflates energy and electricity.
I'll also call you out on it if you try the propaganda of conflating long half-life elements which release energy slowly, over a long time, like a candle, vs short half-life elements that release it quickly like a firecracker. Energy released quickly is dangerous - for a short time, then it's done.
I was going to list two more propaganda techniques I'll call you out on, but let's just summarize with this:
I've studied for 30 years. I've written a comprehensive energy plan for the United States. I know the tricks, and I'll call you put if you try to use them.
Trump is pushing coal, not nuclear. Energy policy is a contentious subject, but the one policy that all activists agree on is that coal sucks the most.
When it comes to advanced nuclear, our nose is flattened on China's store window. Nothing will happen here until factory-built nukes start rolling off Chinese assembly lines. Then we will accuse them of stealing.
Ever been to France ? The entire electric grid is nuke and they have the lowest rates in the EU.
Nuclear is soo expensive due to the greenies throwing up ridiculous rules and regulations that paradoxically make nuclear energy less safe. Reactors use 1950s technology because the compasionate greens make it so hard to innovate. You can design reactors to be much much safer than they are now, but we dont ironically due to all the safety rules. If Solar and wind had to deal with the same requirments as nuclear it would cost 100 usd per KW h. Society is supposed to advance, but we are regressing. Rather than using more energy dense sources of power we are going back to using windmills like they did in the 1600s.
If Trump were serious about promoting nuclear, he would open Yucca Mountain.
He is president, not dictator. YM is blocked by congress. Harry Reid is gone, so there is hope, but Donald can't do anything until congress acts.
Explain that a fuel recycling facility fed from this storage buffer would provide high-quality jobs for Nevadans.
That is logical, but nuclear policy isn't about logic.
Anyway, continuing to store waste on-site is good enough for several more decades. YM is not a critical path problem.
How is defunding Government oversight of a high risk industry and replacing it with for-profit rubber stamping by private companies "taking actions to significantly improve the climate"?
I thought he was going to drain the swamp, instead all I am seeing is increased opportunities for politically connected individuals to profit off the system.
The only bright spot on the coal industry in the US is that natural gas and other competing technologies are so cheap that coal just cannot compete. The only way that Trump can MCGA is by literally paying plants to burn it.
And it's going to get worse for the coal industry as time goes by due to solar and wind power getting cheap enough that they don't require subsidies to compete.
Ever been to France ? The entire electric grid is nuke and they have the lowest rates in the EU.
... but still much higher than American electricity rates. Also, most French reactors were built many years ago, back when they were much cheaper than modern reactors. For the cost of a modern reactor, look at Hinkley Point, in the UK, but built by the French. After all the delays and cost overruns, the power produced will cost three times the UK average.
Sorry, your source talks about the occasional spike. Check the data - for 2017 overall, nuclear out-produced solar, onshore, and offshore wind. It's clear, though, you like the quick blurb rather than the in-depth data so - go ahead, believe what you want. But you don't get your own facts.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The previous administration struggled to push legislation, because the GOP openly had a policy of "We wont allow any bill that comes from the democrats" regardless of its merits. Even if it was completely apolitical (in the left/right sense) or whatever, it was blocked because a democrat raised it, or Obama proposed it (ESPECIALLY if Obama proposed it).
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
With gargantuan subsidies from taxpayers to construct, run, insure and then decommission that just aren't counted by nuke fans. Same as every other nuclear power plant in existence.
For 70 years now we've been trying to find ways solar electric work on a nationwide scale, particularly working on the storage problem.
No, we have been waiting for the cost to fall to where widespread solar and storage solutions make economic sense. We are at that point now.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Um.. Not true... Where he has the concurrence of Congress, he's gone that route. We got the tax cuts and the removal of Obamacare's mandate out of Congress you recall. Congress has a low low approval rating for a reason and their inability to actually do anything, right or wrong, is chief among them. This is not something the president has any power over.
So 45 was left with E/O's and executive branch activities to push his agenda, and that's what he's doing. Further, one has to wonder where you where with "I have a phone and an pen" used by the last oval office occupant? Do understand that a LOT of the E/O's from 45 have been undoing 44's E/O's, which 46 will have the option of reversing again. Don't bash 45 for acting the dictator when he's only undoing and doing stuff like 44 did..
If you want to bash somebody, bash Congress for doing nothing..
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Reprocessing is where this will eventually go. It simply has to. Dumping "waste" that is 80-90% usable fuel is about as stupid as it gets. Reprocessing will create new, usable fuel, reduce the volume of the high level nuclear waste and make the problem much more manageable. Burying spent fuel assemblies in some mountain is absolutely stupid.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
As the parent mentioned, solar and wind compliment nuclear very nicely. Both solar and wind are great - when the weather is right at the moment. When the weather isn't right, at night for example, nuclear is the very best, cleanest way to have your base.
Nuclear, solar, and wind are all zero-marginal-cost technologies. If you decide not to use the power they make, you save approximately nothing -- a little wear and tear on the wind turbines, a bit of essentially free nuclear fuel for nuclear. Therefore they complement each other atrociously. If you have enough nuclear power to handle peak demand, any build-out of solar and wind is throwing money away for no gain, and if you don't have enough nuclear, you are scuppered on a cloudy quiet day.
If you have energy storage, you can obviously use that to solve the problem. But if you have energy storage, you build renewables instead of nuclear because they are half the cost.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
How much are you being paid by the nuclear energy industry? Neither solar nor wind power can render an entire state too dangerous to live for the next 10 thousand years.
What are you talking about? The absolute worst accident we've had, where a stupidly designed reactor was literally blown apart and burned for days didn't produce such a unlivable place for 10 thousand years, and certainly not a state sized portion of real estate. Even in Japan, where we blew apart multiple reactors, the situation isn't going to leave the ground uninhabitable that long nor is it the size you want to think.
I'm not going to tell you there are not risks, but I am going to insist on being reasonable about assessing those risks.
There are new reactor designs which are NOT going to catch fire and burn, won't suffer meltdowns and containment breaches even in the worst case dooms day scenarios you can imagine. But because you want to believe the fiction "China Syndrome" Hollywood depictions of what happened at TMI, we are stuck running rickety old 50 year old facilities (Even then with a safety record that is pretty darned good, with only ONE serious accident in the USA's commercial operating history, and that one being of nearly zero effect on the public, with the only negative effect being the hysteria.)
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
And Obamacare was the rightwing ideal, it started off the same as Romneycare, and STILL the republicans demanded more pro-corp BS.
And STILL we get to hear this lie repeated. This was NOT a rightwing idea. As Romney plainly said, multiple times during his failed presidential campaign, if a STATE wants universal healthcare, they are free to try it. The problem is the federal government is NOT the proper place for such social experiments. But your side passed it anyway.
Democrats simply want to share the blame for this disaster of a law. Well, it was good enough for your side to pass it over the objections of the Republicans, it's your law to defend and your mess to own, not ours. It's not our fault that you guys passed the lemon of a law, that you didn't even read it or accept ANY input from the other side of the isle.
I know who lied about this, it wasn't the Republicans. Remember "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan!" and "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor!" and my personal favorite "It will save a family of 4 $2,500!" Well, My plan changed, my doctor changed and my costs went UP.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Dumping "waste" that is 80-90% usable fuel is about as stupid as it gets.
Depending on reactor technology (and that focuses on the reactors currently used in the US), waste has less than 1% useable fuel. That is actually why it is called "waste".
Sure, you could get the uranium out of it and "burn" it in a CANDU reactor, but such the US don't have. So: it is waste ...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Hell, the first steam engine wasn't invented until 300 years ago. ... the first steam engine was invented 2000 years ago. And with first in this case: "the oldest we now about". I would not wonder if someone invented it before that time repeatedly over again.
Just to nitpick
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
They did not know hat to do with it, so the only thing where it was used was "opening huge temple doors by magic".
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assess...
Lifetime emissions of a nuclear plant are around 100g/kWh. Better than coal but considerably worse than wind/solar+battery.
Every once in a while I see a citation and a fact that challenges what I know. I follow the source. 9 times out of 10 the "fact" is a misleading representation of the citation. This is one of those misleading representations. The document has a table that provides the assessed minimum/median/maximum carbon emissions for a power source. This table gives following values for nuclear (in gCO2eq/kWh):
minimum: 3.7
median: 12
maximum: 110
Suffice it to say that the parent post, by approximately citing the maximum number, is quite misleading.
In comparison, here are a few other sources (in terms of min/median/max gCO2eq/kWh):
Nuclear: 3.7/12/110
Coal: 740/820/910
Gas (Combined Cycle): 410/490/650
Geothermal: 6.0/38/79
Hydropower: 1.0/24/2200
Concentrated Solar Power: 8.8/27/63
Solar PV—utility: 18/48/180
Wind onshore: 7.0/11/56
Based on these numbers (purely considering lifetime CO2 emissions--from your source), nuclear appears to be pretty competitive with wind/solar, etc.
Please help keep /. factual. Mod parent down or this post up. Thank you.
Dumping "waste" that is 80-90% usable fuel is about as stupid as it gets. Depending on reactor technology (and that focuses on the reactors currently used in the US), waste has less than 1% useable fuel. That is actually why it is called "waste".
Sure, you could get the uranium out of it and "burn" it in a CANDU reactor, but such the US don't have. So: it is waste ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_nuclear_fuel
You are being misleading. Of the original U238 which constituted a small fraction of the total unspent fuel, over half still exists when the fuel is no longer usable. Also, additional fuel was created in the form of Pu 239 and Pu 240 which is not useable in Uranium reactors, but can be used in reactors designed to use it. So the U238 part of the fuel is about 1%, but it was only about 5% to start with and other parts of the spent fuel make up a considerable resource of nuclear fuel which can be reprocessed, reused and recycled many times to produce usable energy.
Reprocessing is the only solution that really makes sense. It allows the separation of the really nasty and long term radio active stuff from the majority of the mass, so we have less volume of stuff to get rid of making it easier to isolate and contain long term, produces useable fuel for more energy production and reduces the danger of having spent fuel distributed all over the country in long term storage pools.
I would tell you that your two best arguments here are about two things. 1. The risks of transportation of spent fuel to the reprocessing site and 2. The non-proliferation concerns of nuclear material from the Pu produced from reprocessing, as Pu is the bomb making material of choice. I would argue that the transportation risks are "one time" while the long term storage risks are on going for the first part. Second, I would argue that the Pu produced from power reactors is poor bomb making material, being the wrong mix of Pu isotopes, but it's great fuel for power production.
So please be reasonable and not misleading with your information if you wish for me to take you seriously.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
With gargantuan subsidies from taxpayers to construct, run, insure and then decommission that just aren't counted by nuke fans.
Nice try, but France standardised reactor designs massivly driving down const of construction. Insurance is not as insane. ... stupid... arse backwards.... I'm trying to find words for the American process of insuring any risk but really the english languge doesn't quite have the necessary expressiveness. Decommissioning in general is only an issue if you expect on doing so. Why would you be crazy enough to actually attempt to completely dismantle something on site other than because law makers want to make it expensive.
As for the tax payers paying .... GOOD. Guess what, not paying money has never in history worked out well for the environment. Call it socialism if you want but if you paid externalised costs for your energy you'd be begging for the tax rates and "socialism" of countries like France.
The Chernobyl exclusion zone will not remain dangerous for 10 thousand years, only a few hundred. In fact, it's quite habitable now if you are older and avoid specific hot spots where radiation doses might get too high. They used the second reactor on site for decades more after the accident, meaning human occupation is perfectly acceptable. The issue around Chernobyl is that the hot spots are hard to know and avoid, so it's easier and cheaper just to keep people out for now. Eventually, it will make economic sense to finish the clean up and when it does, they will.
But do get my point about that accident. It was the WORST conceivable scenario. Such accidents where never possible outside of the Russian sphere of influence as such dangerous designs would NEVER be put into industrial operation. Even so, the accident wasn't responsible for laying waste to the land for even a thousand years. In fact, BOTH cities where atomic bombs where used are inhabited and it's been less than 100 years since the end of WW2. Plus the WORST accident in the western world was in Japan where multiple containment structures where destroyed. The exclusion zone from that will be cleaned up before I die and is currently more about an abundance of caution and avoidance of liability than anything else. It's just cheaper to toss everybody out and raze the whole thing than play the creeping liability and punitive damages game in the courts. They will clean up that land, but it's going to take a bit of time to get around to it as they are concentrating on decommissioning the damaged plants first.
In the USA, the *worst* accident we have was TMI, which was a nothing burger for the general public, though it caused financial issues for the operator. We literally had a partial meltdown in the middle of a highly populated area, but even after decades of looking we cannot find where anybody was harmed, had a latent cancer or any other kind of issue caused by the accident. We had like two onsite excessive radiation exposures for plant workers during the clean up, but zero evidence of anything for the general public.
So, you are scare mongering with the "Laying waste to a state for 10,000 years" thing. Yes there are risks, but nothing as dire as you claim.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
The problem is the federal government is NOT the proper place for such social experiments.
Yeah because screw treating Americans equally.
No.. Because the US Constitution CLEARLY states that the principle that the Federal government is a limited one, leaving the majority of power to the people and to the States. So the States can do a LOT more than the federal government can.... At least in principle.
Not that we are apparently all that concerned about our founding principles.... How Obamacare ever was considered an acceptable idea by our founding principles is beyond me. But we do have folks uttering the "Healthcare is a right" nonsense too, as if that right was enumerated in the constitution as the 11th amendment in the Bill of Rights.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
You guys haven't started construction of new nuclear power plants since the 1980s, so saying this is somehow a partisan issue that's entirely to be blamed on one side or the other is completely nonsensical.
Fact is, even though Chernobyl was the result of both defective reactor design as well as incredibly bad oversight (the plant was undergoing testing prior to the operation and some safety-measures were disabled etc, overall mismanagement), the accident (together with three mile island which was small in scale) ruined nuclear power's reputation in many western countries, even though to date (even including Fukushima victims) nuclear power is the safest energy source per amount of electricity produced and also far superior for the climate. But because of the association with Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and nuclear explosions, people are scared because they don't understand it.
This is why neither side has really wanted to push nuclear power in the States. Because the majority of the voterbase is misinformed about nuclear safety it's been easier to just avoid the topic. Add to this the fact that Democrats are heavily for reneweables, while the republicans tend to come from oil/coal producing areas, and it's not hard to see why nuclear power has not been an attractive topic for either side from an optics perspective.
But sure, it's always the other guys right?
From an outsiders perspective rhe red team vs. blue team BS is getting rather comedic these days on Slashdot.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
The Chernobyl exclusion zone will not remain dangerous for 10 thousand years, only a few hundred.
It's expected to remain unlivable for longer than the USA has been in existence. When we are talking about time scales longer than anyone reading this will be alive it's a distinction without much of a difference.
But do get my point about that accident. It was the WORST conceivable scenario.
No it was not the worst conceivable scenario. Very bad yes but it's trivial to conceive of a worse one. Imagine an accident similar to Chernobyl had happened at Indian Point just 25 miles from New York City. If the wind happened to be blowing the right way it could render the city uninhabitable under the right conditions. Unlikely I'll grant but the probability is not zero.
In fact, BOTH cities where atomic bombs where used are inhabited and it's been less than 100 years since the end of WW2.
Chernobyl put 400X more radioactive material into the atmosphere than Hiroshima. Furthermore the types of radiation released from Chernobyl were much longer lasting than those from the two bombs dropped on Japan. You are comparing apples to oranges.
So, you are scare mongering with the "Laying waste to a state for 10,000 years" thing.
Read what I wrote. Did you see me write anything about 10,000 years? No you did not. You are responding to your own strawman. I said it "Nobody is going to be living in that 'state sized portion of real estate' for a very long time to come." which is 100% true. Stop trying to put words in my mouth that I did not say.
Yes there are risks, but nothing as dire as you claim.
The risks are absolutely that serious and we ignore them at our peril. The probability of catastrophic failure of a fission plant regardless of design is low but is not zero. Denial of that fact is dangerous. I think nuclear power is important and should be used but I'm not about to pretend it doesn't carry some serious dangers.
Resettlement of areas from which people were relocated is ongoing. In 2011 Chernobyl was officially declared a tourist attraction.
Meaning it was about 25 years, not the 10,000 years originally claimed. So IF you have people stupid enough to purposefully shut off all safety systems, run it hard, and then blow up a "reactor [that] is unique and in that respect the accident is thus of little relevance to the rest of the nuclear industry outside the then Eastern Bloc", and then it is safe enough to repopulate after 25 years, then yes - it can be an issue. Pretty different from the original claim, eh?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!