The reviewer will still know who the authors are by the work described. Most of the work will already have been presented at conferences and the peer may well have reviewed the original grant proposal as well. Hiding who the authors are is impracticable if the reviewer is indeed a peer.
NASA, for example, does not allow grant funding to be used to write grants. So, this preliminary data thing sounds like a different model. Where did the money come from to obtain the preliminary data? With regard to NASA, grants can cover administrative overhead. And, most institutions have support for new grant writing efforts. Doubtless, some NASA grant money that goes to overhead ends up providing support for that kind of effort so new grants do get written. It is just murky.
In any case, all that work to find out if an idea is technically feasible enough to make a good grant proposal gets paid for somehow to persuade peers that a proposal is viable. So, really, the originality of new grant proposals has something to do with how well faculty are supported in exploring new ideas. That would seem to be the place to ensure that peer reviews get to see exciting and not just competent proposals. Are the institutions hiring the most creative postdocs, for example? Are junior faculty getting good seed money? Is there time set aside for use of laboratories for pursuit of hunches? So, if granting institutions want to see more creative proposals, they'll have to look at the institutional culture grant overhead supports.
I suspect that a slow subcritcal accelerator catalyzed reactor can be used for this and other transuranics. The subsequent fission products may in some cases be handled in the same reactor, in some cases using laser transmutation, and is some cases may be targeted with tritium to try to get past a low single neutron cross section.
I think stable isotopes can be moved safely enough. Otherwise, avoiding transportation is best. I looked up C22, and it is an alloy. Lonsdaletite is hexagonal diamond.
China's state-owned reactor builder said the start-up of the country's first advanced nuclear project based on designs by U.S.-based Westinghouse has been delayed further until at least end of 2015 due to tougher safety checks.
In an interview to official news agency Xinhua on Thursday, Guo Hongbo, a spokesman at China's State Nuclear Power Technology Corp (SNPTC), blamed the delayed start of the "third-generation" AP1000 reactor on stringent safety inspections after Japan's Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011.
Originally set to start by end-2013, the project in Sanmen in eastern Zhejiang province was already delayed until December 2014. It has now been pushed back at least another year, after design changes and problems with some components. http://uk.reuters.com/article/...
The basic answer on reprocessing is that it is a proliferation risk that should not be undertaken. Your issue about fissile content is a little mixed up since breeders have fertile blankets in some designs. Probably you'd want to reprocess to make those, but it isn't a fissile content issue.
I don't think a rail car design fixes a leaking cask so the effluent problem is a bit separate. Rail transport will lead to accidents that will probably lead to leaks unless the waste is really immobilized. So, I think we are still at the point "what" rather than "where." I'd just point out that on site transmutation is the most ethical approach to the waste issue. There may be cased where local hazards require transportation before that can be carried out, but short distances using very slow heavy hauling equipment might obviate the need for a train.
And, every effort put into nuclear power soaks up funds that could cut carbon emissions faster and deeper by other means. http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge-C...
The number of reactors peaked in 2002 http://www.worldnuclearreport.... but the power produced peaked in 2006 http://www.worldnuclearreport.... so a few decades may be too long to count for a decline. Market share has declined for a while now, but that does not influence the rate of uranium consumption.
Gen II Vermont Yankee is closing because it can't scare up a contract at $0.06/kWh. Gen III Hinkley C will charge $0.15/kWh, two and a half times as much. Going to Gen IV likely scales to $0.40/kWh. It is true that there is only about 85 years of uranium left at the current rate of use, but breeder reactors don't fix that.
All of these delays are teaching us how Gen III reactors work. At this point, a reactor can be built slowly if the buyer is willing to pay $0.15/kWh. http://www.westernmorningnews....
In a meltdown, "Recriticality also may be a concern if the control materials are left behind in the core and the relocated material breaks up in unborated water in the lower plenum." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N... Neutrons were detected so perhaps you should revise your views. http://news.slashdot.org/story...
That's not what the neutron detector at the Fukushima plant gate says. You wrote "the concentration of fissile material is far too low for it to go critical" which is incorrect.
The world blew up
in a thousand atomic fireballs.
The first blast was set off
by five terrorists.
It took two million years...
for some of the radioactive clouds
to allow some sun in.
By then, only a handful
of porcine survived.
The rest of the pigs had
changed into hideous mutants.
These mutant species
floundered in the bad areas...
radioactive lands that never allowed
them to become boars again...
and made each birth a new disaster. http://www.springfieldspringfi...
What sort of neutrons do you suppose are involved in a meltdown? Self-moderation of the fuel is always a danger. You don't know what you are writing about.
Slashdot Mirror
The reviewer will still know who the authors are by the work described. Most of the work will already have been presented at conferences and the peer may well have reviewed the original grant proposal as well. Hiding who the authors are is impracticable if the reviewer is indeed a peer.
NASA, for example, does not allow grant funding to be used to write grants. So, this preliminary data thing sounds like a different model. Where did the money come from to obtain the preliminary data? With regard to NASA, grants can cover administrative overhead. And, most institutions have support for new grant writing efforts. Doubtless, some NASA grant money that goes to overhead ends up providing support for that kind of effort so new grants do get written. It is just murky.
In any case, all that work to find out if an idea is technically feasible enough to make a good grant proposal gets paid for somehow to persuade peers that a proposal is viable. So, really, the originality of new grant proposals has something to do with how well faculty are supported in exploring new ideas. That would seem to be the place to ensure that peer reviews get to see exciting and not just competent proposals. Are the institutions hiring the most creative postdocs, for example? Are junior faculty getting good seed money? Is there time set aside for use of laboratories for pursuit of hunches? So, if granting institutions want to see more creative proposals, they'll have to look at the institutional culture grant overhead supports.
I suspect that a slow subcritcal accelerator catalyzed reactor can be used for this and other transuranics. The subsequent fission products may in some cases be handled in the same reactor, in some cases using laser transmutation, and is some cases may be targeted with tritium to try to get past a low single neutron cross section.
I think stable isotopes can be moved safely enough. Otherwise, avoiding transportation is best. I looked up C22, and it is an alloy. Lonsdaletite is hexagonal diamond.
If only the President would look deep into Putin's eyes and see his soul. Everything would be hunky.
Running out of fingers is not the same as running out of numbers. Starting in 2009, that is at least six years.
China's state-owned reactor builder said the start-up of the country's first advanced nuclear project based on designs by U.S.-based Westinghouse has been delayed further until at least end of 2015 due to tougher safety checks. In an interview to official news agency Xinhua on Thursday, Guo Hongbo, a spokesman at China's State Nuclear Power Technology Corp (SNPTC), blamed the delayed start of the "third-generation" AP1000 reactor on stringent safety inspections after Japan's Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011. Originally set to start by end-2013, the project in Sanmen in eastern Zhejiang province was already delayed until December 2014. It has now been pushed back at least another year, after design changes and problems with some components. http://uk.reuters.com/article/...
Elections have consequences.
The basic answer on reprocessing is that it is a proliferation risk that should not be undertaken. Your issue about fissile content is a little mixed up since breeders have fertile blankets in some designs. Probably you'd want to reprocess to make those, but it isn't a fissile content issue.
I don't think a rail car design fixes a leaking cask so the effluent problem is a bit separate. Rail transport will lead to accidents that will probably lead to leaks unless the waste is really immobilized. So, I think we are still at the point "what" rather than "where." I'd just point out that on site transmutation is the most ethical approach to the waste issue. There may be cased where local hazards require transportation before that can be carried out, but short distances using very slow heavy hauling equipment might obviate the need for a train.
And, every effort put into nuclear power soaks up funds that could cut carbon emissions faster and deeper by other means. http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge-C...
The number of reactors peaked in 2002 http://www.worldnuclearreport.... but the power produced peaked in 2006 http://www.worldnuclearreport.... so a few decades may be too long to count for a decline. Market share has declined for a while now, but that does not influence the rate of uranium consumption.
Gen II Vermont Yankee is closing because it can't scare up a contract at $0.06/kWh. Gen III Hinkley C will charge $0.15/kWh, two and a half times as much. Going to Gen IV likely scales to $0.40/kWh. It is true that there is only about 85 years of uranium left at the current rate of use, but breeder reactors don't fix that.
All of these delays are teaching us how Gen III reactors work. At this point, a reactor can be built slowly if the buyer is willing to pay $0.15/kWh. http://www.westernmorningnews....
In a meltdown, "Recriticality also may be a concern if the control materials are left behind in the core and the relocated material breaks up in unborated water in the lower plenum." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N... Neutrons were detected so perhaps you should revise your views. http://news.slashdot.org/story...
That's not what the neutron detector at the Fukushima plant gate says. You wrote "the concentration of fissile material is far too low for it to go critical" which is incorrect.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
Storage could be nice and also substitute for transmission but it may not be as large a market as they anticipate: http://www.engineering.com/Ele...
The world blew up in a thousand atomic fireballs. The first blast was set off by five terrorists. It took two million years... for some of the radioactive clouds to allow some sun in. By then, only a handful of porcine survived. The rest of the pigs had changed into hideous mutants. These mutant species floundered in the bad areas... radioactive lands that never allowed them to become boars again... and made each birth a new disaster. http://www.springfieldspringfi...
There has got to be a spam joke here someplace: In SOVIET Russia boars spam you.?.?
What sort of neutrons do you suppose are involved in a meltdown? Self-moderation of the fuel is always a danger. You don't know what you are writing about.
The siren and lights should be on whenever the computer is on.
The post has a mistake. The spent fuel can go critical.
Coal is one of the least radioactive minerals. It is mostly carbon and the carbon-14 is all decayed away.