A high speed rail link between Seattle and Savannah would link the two coasts in a new way and might overcome all the strange posturing which hurt single state projects during the recovery.
The ban is on reprocessing nuclear waste. We are building a MOX facility to be sourced with weapons grade plutonium stocks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
Putting all these specs out is a good way to waste money. On site waste treatment, for example, may change the requirements quite a lot. The correct approach to the waste is to not transport it until it is composed of stable isotopes. But even if we do store rather than transmute waste, would it not be best to make it unfailingly safe to transport? Lonsdaleite, while combustible, can be be formed by chemical vapor deposition, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... and might have the strength to solve some post vitrification isotope mobility issues as an inner casing protected from contact with the atmosphere. So, waste may end up as a much larger volume but much safer to transport and with much less stringent geological requirements so that it might be dumped in the Catskills or other less distant locations.
Let me tell you the story
Of a man named Charlie
On a tragic and fateful day
He put ten cents in his pocket,
Kissed his wife and family
Went to ride on the MTA
Charlie handed in his dime
At the Kendall Square Station
And he changed for Jamaica Plain
When he got there the conductor told him,
"One more nickel."
Charlie could not get off that train.
Did he ever return,
No he never returned
And his fate is still unlearn'd
He may ride forever
'neath the streets of Boston
He's the man who never returned. http://www.mit.edu/~jdreed/t/c...
There were 38 rectors cancelled during construction in the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... That is money spent that does not show up costs for power. Now-a-days, utilities are charging ahead of power production then cancelling. Nice scam if you can get the state regulators to go along with it. Federal loan guarantees are ripe for abuse as well.
Yucca became impossible when USGS scientists fabricated data. Now, we can never really know about any of the other science done there. The whole thing has to start over and it can't be Yucca because the temptation would be too strong to try to use some study or other that has already been done. Back to the drawing board. Mississippi says it does not want it. http://www.sunherald.com/2014/...
It seems pretty clear that the waste issue will be more, not less expensive. This is always the way with nuclear power. Fees should be quadrupled. It is not a gift at all. Operators have the public trust working with these materials, but their attitude hardly makes them seem to deserve that trust.
Nuclear seems unable to compete with natural gas and wind power. http://will.illinois.edu/nfs/R... So, the question is, will it be around to cover these costs at all? Waste is being generated without any fee being collected to clean it up now. Looks like it will be taxpayers footing the bill.
I thought about how much paperwork I usually had to get involved with when I deal with the government, so I laughed and said, "I'll be glad to
give the talk. There's only one condition on the whole thing"--I pulled a number out of a hat and continued--"that I don't have to sign my name more
than thirteen times, and that includes the check!" http://www.chem.fsu.edu/chemla...
OK, so shall we take it as written that we will use spallation for the transuranics leaving uranium alone, and we shall avoid target configurations that could lead to a meltdown? There is some work in that area already.
Well, I've tried to make clear that your claims about energy requirements and accelerator size are off, but you won't listen. It appears you don't know much about high energy physics and want to do giant things when something much smaller is required. So, really it is your mistakes that are the problem here. You can't see that the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider is much different from the BEVALAC. You want to use a 747 to drive to the store.
These kinds of studies tend to be pretty thorough. Perhaps you reject it because you'd have to learn you are mistaken as I did. http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/20... I thought we would need storage temporarily.
The BEVALAC, which I linked to, obviously could to the requires heavy ion acceleration in a compact configuration, So, it was your error, which you seem not to have realized, which is still misleading you.
Beam luminosity increases in response to detector capability. No big issue there. The Bevatron power draw has something to do with not using super conducting magnets as well. The main thing is that it is not big and can be run by a single graduate assistant on the night shift. Recall also that wind power sells for $0.025 per kWh and solar will come in below that soon. Don't forget also that the nuke nuts (oops fanbois) are always going on about how much the first step will reduce the mass of the waste. Don't be so worried.
Slashdot Mirror
Spent fuel pools can go critical. The waste has a high enough concentration.
A high speed rail link between Seattle and Savannah would link the two coasts in a new way and might overcome all the strange posturing which hurt single state projects during the recovery.
Pure fantasy.
The ban is on reprocessing nuclear waste. We are building a MOX facility to be sourced with weapons grade plutonium stocks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
Putting all these specs out is a good way to waste money. On site waste treatment, for example, may change the requirements quite a lot. The correct approach to the waste is to not transport it until it is composed of stable isotopes. But even if we do store rather than transmute waste, would it not be best to make it unfailingly safe to transport? Lonsdaleite, while combustible, can be be formed by chemical vapor deposition, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... and might have the strength to solve some post vitrification isotope mobility issues as an inner casing protected from contact with the atmosphere. So, waste may end up as a much larger volume but much safer to transport and with much less stringent geological requirements so that it might be dumped in the Catskills or other less distant locations.
Let me tell you the story Of a man named Charlie On a tragic and fateful day He put ten cents in his pocket, Kissed his wife and family Went to ride on the MTA
Charlie handed in his dime At the Kendall Square Station And he changed for Jamaica Plain When he got there the conductor told him, "One more nickel." Charlie could not get off that train.
Did he ever return, No he never returned And his fate is still unlearn'd He may ride forever 'neath the streets of Boston He's the man who never returned. http://www.mit.edu/~jdreed/t/c...
There were 38 rectors cancelled during construction in the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... That is money spent that does not show up costs for power. Now-a-days, utilities are charging ahead of power production then cancelling. Nice scam if you can get the state regulators to go along with it. Federal loan guarantees are ripe for abuse as well.
Yucca became impossible when USGS scientists fabricated data. Now, we can never really know about any of the other science done there. The whole thing has to start over and it can't be Yucca because the temptation would be too strong to try to use some study or other that has already been done. Back to the drawing board. Mississippi says it does not want it. http://www.sunherald.com/2014/...
It seems pretty clear that the waste issue will be more, not less expensive. This is always the way with nuclear power. Fees should be quadrupled. It is not a gift at all. Operators have the public trust working with these materials, but their attitude hardly makes them seem to deserve that trust.
Nuclear seems unable to compete with natural gas and wind power. http://will.illinois.edu/nfs/R... So, the question is, will it be around to cover these costs at all? Waste is being generated without any fee being collected to clean it up now. Looks like it will be taxpayers footing the bill.
I thought about how much paperwork I usually had to get involved with when I deal with the government, so I laughed and said, "I'll be glad to give the talk. There's only one condition on the whole thing"--I pulled a number out of a hat and continued--"that I don't have to sign my name more than thirteen times, and that includes the check!" http://www.chem.fsu.edu/chemla...
Feynman....
Some neutrino detectors are looking for muons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
Impressive series of images in the article showing how they get clear data after about four weeks.
Those who won't build on existing research are wedded to ignorance. We'll use what is already known freely. Agreed?
And we shall deal with the troublesome fission products but let the hot ones just decay?
OK, so shall we take it as written that we will use spallation for the transuranics leaving uranium alone, and we shall avoid target configurations that could lead to a meltdown? There is some work in that area already.
Well, I've tried to make clear that your claims about energy requirements and accelerator size are off, but you won't listen. It appears you don't know much about high energy physics and want to do giant things when something much smaller is required. So, really it is your mistakes that are the problem here. You can't see that the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider is much different from the BEVALAC. You want to use a 747 to drive to the store.
You can't build a reactor in California until the waste can be removed.
Pretty sure there is transmission in that mix.
These kinds of studies tend to be pretty thorough. Perhaps you reject it because you'd have to learn you are mistaken as I did. http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/20... I thought we would need storage temporarily.
Engineering degrees are usually masters and don't involve original work. The Chem PhD is a better qualification.
The BEVALAC, which I linked to, obviously could to the requires heavy ion acceleration in a compact configuration, So, it was your error, which you seem not to have realized, which is still misleading you.
Beam luminosity increases in response to detector capability. No big issue there. The Bevatron power draw has something to do with not using super conducting magnets as well. The main thing is that it is not big and can be run by a single graduate assistant on the night shift. Recall also that wind power sells for $0.025 per kWh and solar will come in below that soon. Don't forget also that the nuke nuts (oops fanbois) are always going on about how much the first step will reduce the mass of the waste. Don't be so worried.
Come on, the Bevatron could do this. You are getting all worked up over nothing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...