You can't increase the efficiency of nuclear power plants because the fuel can't be allowed to get too hot. Gas turbines are getting improved turbine blade materials and cooling systems so their efficiency can rise. But, a safety based regulator would close plants after a fixed time period, not let them become a collection of bailing twine and bandages. 'Lessons learned' and 'run-to-failure' are two sides of the same coin without that fixed time interval.
Though the NRC denies it at every turn, this is why it is basically a run-to-failure organization. Instead of replacing power plants before they degrade, the NRC expects maintenance to do what it can't.
Actually, when you 'see' a propagating shock wave from an explosion, you are seeing the change in index of refraction of the air as it is compressed and rarefied. It is similar to the mirage over a hot road. At that point, there is no fuel involved.
I submitted the story because I thought it was interesting, not because I thought is was true. It is interesting because no new sampling has occurred, just the published data were used. It is a nice effort. If it turns out to be true, it is too late to raise an alarm in any case.
I've looked through the paper this report is based on http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1105/1105.0242v1.pdf and I don't see much discussion of the amount of power generated by the proposed post-shutdown criticality. It seems to me that standard operating power is assumed but I don't see how that could work without other signs such as a glowing reactor building.
Dams that are there purely for hydro power are remote and generally don't fail since they can be emptied easily under stress. It is the flood control dams that are in the most critical positions and fill to capacity under stress. Same goes for levees, those low dams you desire.
I think you should read the report since you have certainly heard wrong concerning its contents. And, no, people die all the time in uncontrolled floods. Flood control saves lives overall.
Or it has warped or cracked in some way from thermal stress. Reactors are not designed to lose coolant so high temperature tolerance may not have been included in the specs.
Dams that fail are mainly built for flood control and may secondarily be used for power generation. It is entirely wrong to attribute deaths owing to their failure to hydro power. They usually fail because the flood is just too overwhelming but they may have preserved as many or more lives prior to failure as are lost upon failure. On the other hand, 30,000 to 60,000 is a reasonable estimate of the number of people that are being killed by Chernobyl. http://www.chernobylreport.org/?p=summary Since one cannot argue that the electricity from nuclear power has preserved any more lives than that from hydro power, nukes are clearly the more dangerous form of generation.
They started charging the $15 fee to me today. I used to subscribe to read Krugman and Dowd when they had that thing going but for less money I think. I'll keep going at this rate until it feels like I've paid what they are worth, probably not more than 10 months since a year's subscription to Science costs $150 and that is worth more than the NYT.
I find the web site you link to usually has trouble with veracity. Are you sure failed flood control efforts were not counted wrongly against power generation?
Slashdot Mirror
It is because nuclear power does fail on many many levels: http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html
The license to operate comes from the NRC.
You can't increase the efficiency of nuclear power plants because the fuel can't be allowed to get too hot. Gas turbines are getting improved turbine blade materials and cooling systems so their efficiency can rise. But, a safety based regulator would close plants after a fixed time period, not let them become a collection of bailing twine and bandages. 'Lessons learned' and 'run-to-failure' are two sides of the same coin without that fixed time interval.
Though the NRC denies it at every turn, this is why it is basically a run-to-failure organization. Instead of replacing power plants before they degrade, the NRC expects maintenance to do what it can't.
Here is a video that may help. Perhaps the shock is igniting fugitive hydrogen. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlS6535HBNk
Actually, when you 'see' a propagating shock wave from an explosion, you are seeing the change in index of refraction of the air as it is compressed and rarefied. It is similar to the mirage over a hot road. At that point, there is no fuel involved.
I submitted the story because I thought it was interesting, not because I thought is was true. It is interesting because no new sampling has occurred, just the published data were used. It is a nice effort. If it turns out to be true, it is too late to raise an alarm in any case.
According to the paper, that is where the highest ratio I/Cs was found so this is the strongest case for a reaction.
This seems like a stronger argument than the current paper.
I've looked through the paper this report is based on http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1105/1105.0242v1.pdf and I don't see much discussion of the amount of power generated by the proposed post-shutdown criticality. It seems to me that standard operating power is assumed but I don't see how that could work without other signs such as a glowing reactor building.
There is quite a lot of energy orbiting in the Oort Cloud which might be exploited so energy constraints may not be as severe as you think.
Yesss, yesss, Is it juicy my preciousss? Can we eatsss it?
No, those estimates are not worldwide.
Doesn't really work like that. Some people have yet to get cancer, for example. Here is a reasonable estimate: http://www.chernobylreport.org/?p=summary
Dams that are there purely for hydro power are remote and generally don't fail since they can be emptied easily under stress. It is the flood control dams that are in the most critical positions and fill to capacity under stress. Same goes for levees, those low dams you desire.
I think you should read the report since you have certainly heard wrong concerning its contents. And, no, people die all the time in uncontrolled floods. Flood control saves lives overall.
Or it has warped or cracked in some way from thermal stress. Reactors are not designed to lose coolant so high temperature tolerance may not have been included in the specs.
Dams that fail are mainly built for flood control and may secondarily be used for power generation. It is entirely wrong to attribute deaths owing to their failure to hydro power. They usually fail because the flood is just too overwhelming but they may have preserved as many or more lives prior to failure as are lost upon failure. On the other hand, 30,000 to 60,000 is a reasonable estimate of the number of people that are being killed by Chernobyl. http://www.chernobylreport.org/?p=summary Since one cannot argue that the electricity from nuclear power has preserved any more lives than that from hydro power, nukes are clearly the more dangerous form of generation.
Why is "April 19, 2011" the third most popular search term at the NYT? http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/22/modern-love-walks-beside-me-modern-love-walks-on-by/
Liquid nitrogen will do that too.
Don't want to sound smart in school for sure.
They started charging the $15 fee to me today. I used to subscribe to read Krugman and Dowd when they had that thing going but for less money I think. I'll keep going at this rate until it feels like I've paid what they are worth, probably not more than 10 months since a year's subscription to Science costs $150 and that is worth more than the NYT.
The most important show to watch is the Red Green Show owing to news about duct tape. http://www.redgreen.com/
To do this, duct tape a DB4 HDTV antenna mounted on a boom stick to the outside of your house so it aims at your PBS station and stay up late.
I find the web site you link to usually has trouble with veracity. Are you sure failed flood control efforts were not counted wrongly against power generation?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704004004576270424155464958.html
So all the victims can just suffer I guess owing to insufficient insurance.