Read the thread. It's been established several times - mean sea level is the standard unit of measurement for level used by the plants, the NRC, and the Army Corps of Engineers. It's purpose is to supply an easily understandable common ground for technical use of the information. This doesn't mean just water level - internal floors in the plants are also designated by height above sea level.
Just because it's not his particular niche, that doesn't make him wrong. I see a lot of low priced indie games available on Steam and if they're even vaguely interesting I'm much more likely to pick one of them up for $10-20 than if they were $50-60. If I'm going to pick up a game for the higher price it had better be damn good.
Speaking of which, Steam is an excellent method of content delivery for bargain bin type games. Easy access and low overhead.
I will however grant that there is a difference between the Liquid Sodium experiment, using Sodium as a coolant only, and the Molten Salt Reactor concept (which sadly does not use sodium salts) wherein Molten salts are used as coolant with the fuel dissolved in it.
You kinda lose the humour that way though.
I'm well aware of the difference between Sodium Chloride and elemental Sodium, thank you. While Sodium is indeed a metal, it is also one of the common salt-forming cations and thus may be considered a salt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_(chemistry)
Sodium reacts with water energetically, not air. In air it tends to produce a protective oxide layer. Sodium cooling in shutdown is actually kinda useful since it automatically limits the extent of a Loss of Coolant Accident (LoCA).
If the plutonium were coming out of a smoke stack, I'd agree with you on the danger. But it's not. It's either going right back into the reactor to be split for energy or sent into a pool for long term storage. If you somehow manage to get it into your body, I'll have to quote the meme and tell you, you're doing it wrong.
With a breeder reactor, anything with a short enough half-life to be dangerous from irradiation (as opposed to simply heavy metal poisoning) is going to be reused in the reactor, not sent into storage. Unfortunately, any thoughts of the reuse of nuclear fuel was stopped back in the 70s. Thank you so very much, Ford and Carter.
Unquestioningly. Especially if the alternative is coal. The only thing leaving the nuc plant is steam, where as there's tons of crap coming out of the smokestacks fo the coal plant.
Also, you could easily design a system so the waste heat from the secondary side of a nuc plant could be used to provide heat to nearby homes, which could up efficiency and lower costs on both sides.
You could just make the method of execution the operation that harvests the useful organs for transplant. No worries about contaminated organs and I guess you could call it humane - they get anaesthetized and just never wake up.
Not my idea - Larry Niven thought of it first (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organlegging)
I apologise; I did not mean to imply that our site safety is dependent solely on offsite power. Under normal operating conditions, they use offsite power. In the event of a LOSP, we have two separate emergency diesel generators with enough fuel for a week stored onsite. If THOSE fail, we have back-up batteries capable of supplying power for up to 24 hours. After that, we're pissing in the steam generators.
We of nuclear power turn a profit just fine, thank you.
As for new plants - yeah, the capital costs are rather expensive but given the otherwise extremely low cost per kilowatt-hour they're still very much worth it over the 40-year-plus life of the plant (40 years is the initial license of the plant I currently work at - we've applied for an additional 20 year license extension). Capital investments, yes, put also capital returns. If this weren't true, why would so many places be applying to build new plants?
While we're on the topic of capital investments, I'll note this new solar CSP plant they want to build in Arizona. It's noted here that this will cost somewhere in the 4 billion range and generate 280 megawatts, with a ground footprint of 1900 acres. Compare this to my plants, which generates nearly 2,000 megawatts with a ground footprint of maybe 20 acres. Also, this plant (as stated in the article) depends completely on the renewal of the clean energy tax credit.
Call me prejudiced, but I'll stick to nuclear thanks.
Most everything's been covered here, but I'll put my two cents in as a Nuclear Engineer (albeit in PA).
Nuclear power plants run all safety systems on offsite power. This is a perfectly understandable setup, because if something goes wrong and we need to scram the reactor, the safety systems need to keep running. At my plant, we have two completely separate backup diesel generators to supply power in the event of loss of offsite power, but shutdown is nevertheless the automatic response, both because the diesels won't run forever and because a sudden loss of load messes with a very delicate balance of turbine power, reactor power, and load.
Nuclear power is a popular black sheep for these kinds of events because people are afraid of it, and the news media profits from sensationalist broadcasting. Whatever garners the greatest response, they'll run with it.
As for the grid as a whole, it is not a Florida problem. The same issue came up with that massive northeast blackout in what was it, 2003? The whole system is ancient, but it's too expensive to completely overhaul it, not to mention people wouldn't stand for the loss of power as systems were replaced and/or updated. In terms of power distribution, there's a delicate balance as plants come on and offline and demand goes up and down. Any significant transients (like this undervoltage line) just causes a complete mess. This is a problem that's only going to get worse as power demands continue to rise, especially if we don't build enough plants to keep a healthy amount of excess capacity.
Slashdot Mirror
Read the thread. It's been established several times - mean sea level is the standard unit of measurement for level used by the plants, the NRC, and the Army Corps of Engineers. It's purpose is to supply an easily understandable common ground for technical use of the information. This doesn't mean just water level - internal floors in the plants are also designated by height above sea level.
Just because it's not his particular niche, that doesn't make him wrong. I see a lot of low priced indie games available on Steam and if they're even vaguely interesting I'm much more likely to pick one of them up for $10-20 than if they were $50-60. If I'm going to pick up a game for the higher price it had better be damn good. Speaking of which, Steam is an excellent method of content delivery for bargain bin type games. Easy access and low overhead.
I will however grant that there is a difference between the Liquid Sodium experiment, using Sodium as a coolant only, and the Molten Salt Reactor concept (which sadly does not use sodium salts) wherein Molten salts are used as coolant with the fuel dissolved in it. You kinda lose the humour that way though.
I'm well aware of the difference between Sodium Chloride and elemental Sodium, thank you. While Sodium is indeed a metal, it is also one of the common salt-forming cations and thus may be considered a salt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_(chemistry)
Sodium reacts with water energetically, not air. In air it tends to produce a protective oxide layer. Sodium cooling in shutdown is actually kinda useful since it automatically limits the extent of a Loss of Coolant Accident (LoCA).
Liquid Sodium IS a molten salt...?
On the other hand, car heaters work very well using the waste heat from the engine.
If the plutonium were coming out of a smoke stack, I'd agree with you on the danger. But it's not. It's either going right back into the reactor to be split for energy or sent into a pool for long term storage. If you somehow manage to get it into your body, I'll have to quote the meme and tell you, you're doing it wrong.
With a breeder reactor, anything with a short enough half-life to be dangerous from irradiation (as opposed to simply heavy metal poisoning) is going to be reused in the reactor, not sent into storage. Unfortunately, any thoughts of the reuse of nuclear fuel was stopped back in the 70s. Thank you so very much, Ford and Carter.
Unquestioningly. Especially if the alternative is coal. The only thing leaving the nuc plant is steam, where as there's tons of crap coming out of the smokestacks fo the coal plant. Also, you could easily design a system so the waste heat from the secondary side of a nuc plant could be used to provide heat to nearby homes, which could up efficiency and lower costs on both sides.
You could just make the method of execution the operation that harvests the useful organs for transplant. No worries about contaminated organs and I guess you could call it humane - they get anaesthetized and just never wake up. Not my idea - Larry Niven thought of it first (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organlegging)
I have a time machine, of course it only goes forwards (to avoid paradoxes) and sadly it only goes at regular speed.
Does it also go over water?
I apologise; I did not mean to imply that our site safety is dependent solely on offsite power. Under normal operating conditions, they use offsite power. In the event of a LOSP, we have two separate emergency diesel generators with enough fuel for a week stored onsite. If THOSE fail, we have back-up batteries capable of supplying power for up to 24 hours. After that, we're pissing in the steam generators.
Coal gets more subsidies than we of nuclear power do, not to mention "clean energy" initiatives.
Nuclear Subsidies "Myth"
We of nuclear power turn a profit just fine, thank you.
As for new plants - yeah, the capital costs are rather expensive but given the otherwise extremely low cost per kilowatt-hour they're still very much worth it over the 40-year-plus life of the plant (40 years is the initial license of the plant I currently work at - we've applied for an additional 20 year license extension). Capital investments, yes, put also capital returns. If this weren't true, why would so many places be applying to build new plants?
While we're on the topic of capital investments, I'll note this new solar CSP plant they want to build in Arizona. It's noted here that this will cost somewhere in the 4 billion range and generate 280 megawatts, with a ground footprint of 1900 acres. Compare this to my plants, which generates nearly 2,000 megawatts with a ground footprint of maybe 20 acres. Also, this plant (as stated in the article) depends completely on the renewal of the clean energy tax credit.
Call me prejudiced, but I'll stick to nuclear thanks.
That's not even possible. Nothing remotely attached to any equipment is computerized; everything is analog. Safe, reliable, and a relic of the 60s.
Most everything's been covered here, but I'll put my two cents in as a Nuclear Engineer (albeit in PA). Nuclear power plants run all safety systems on offsite power. This is a perfectly understandable setup, because if something goes wrong and we need to scram the reactor, the safety systems need to keep running. At my plant, we have two completely separate backup diesel generators to supply power in the event of loss of offsite power, but shutdown is nevertheless the automatic response, both because the diesels won't run forever and because a sudden loss of load messes with a very delicate balance of turbine power, reactor power, and load. Nuclear power is a popular black sheep for these kinds of events because people are afraid of it, and the news media profits from sensationalist broadcasting. Whatever garners the greatest response, they'll run with it. As for the grid as a whole, it is not a Florida problem. The same issue came up with that massive northeast blackout in what was it, 2003? The whole system is ancient, but it's too expensive to completely overhaul it, not to mention people wouldn't stand for the loss of power as systems were replaced and/or updated. In terms of power distribution, there's a delicate balance as plants come on and offline and demand goes up and down. Any significant transients (like this undervoltage line) just causes a complete mess. This is a problem that's only going to get worse as power demands continue to rise, especially if we don't build enough plants to keep a healthy amount of excess capacity.