The local authorities (where you physically are) can throw you in jail (or worse), possibly beat you with the xkcd wrench, and keep your laptop for as long as they like. Hell they can torture it out of you if they like and you have little to no legal rights. Nation states aren't really accountable to anyone if they don't want to be.
It's also not entirely clear how much your own government will care about you if you get held by the local authorities.
This is the great thing about living in a first world democracy, how we have the human rights we deserve because of how we protected them.
And maybe you should stop fabricating things;
https://slashdot.org/comments....
I am still waiting for you to admit you completely made this up. But you seem to be avoiding that.
And maybe you should just stop being an asshole by trying to minimize the actuality of the situation.
The particulate matter in question is Plutonium Oxide, which is an inhalant. Once anyone breathes that into their lungs, isn't getting it out. An alpha emitter lodged in the lungs would be a factor in lung cancer however no one has really considered it from either the toxicity stand point where it may increase the incidents of pneumonia.
"Non-related issue" sounds a lot like Nuclear Industry propaganda to me. You're minimizing the death of this man for political purposes, it is pretty disgusting. You should have more respect for the people who have to work there and the risk they take doing the necessary work of cleaning up after TEPCO's criminal negligence.
If anyone is likely to be unlucky enough to breathe Plutonium oxide into their lungs it is going to be someone who works there. More so if the person breaths in enough of it close enough together to start bouncing neutrons around with the reaction moderated by their lungs.
We are just the beginning of this tragic act of criminal negligence, we have decades, hundreds of years to go. All the while the Nuclear Industry's propaganda elements cover up the reality of their complacent incompetence so that people like you can claim the moral high-ground to argue about something you demonstrate you cannot comprehend, will not comprehend.
Your willful ignorance, still harping on external whilst ignoring internal radiation exposure. Willfully ignoring the difference between radiation and the radio-isotope that emits it.
People like you will be forgotten as the dithering bumbling idiocrats who helped prevent the people of the world figuring out what is going on at Fukushima and doing something about it as an international community.
The opportunity to effectively mitigate the disaster slips further into the past as we let the same incompetence who caused the disaster manage the recovery.
While you play the role of the useful idiot lapping up all the Nuclear Industry PR so you can get your hit of "Being Right".
As l like to point out to our friends who pop a gasket every time someone dares to mention a non-metric unit of measure, The official metre id defined as the length of the path traveled by light in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 second
You maybe interested to know that there is an indirect relationship between the metre and the foot.
This relationship moderated by the cubit. More specifically the Egyptian Royal Cubit (ERC). If you set unity as one foot then the relationship between a foot to a cubit is expressed in the ratio of 1:(e-1) (Euler-1).
Interestingly the relationship doesn't end there. If you take a one metre pendulum and swing it 15 degrees from the resting point (i.e through 30 degrees - but no more because the amplitude changes), the pendulum has a frequency of one second. The base of the triangle it forms at the metre mark equals 1 ERC. This is interesting because 1 ERC=0.523 metres which is pi/6=0.523 radian=30 degrees. So pi/6 metres = 1.717 feet = e-1 = 1 ERC. Something else that is interesting is that 1km*phi = 1 mile (+-10metres).
There is much more than this and to really bring the relationship between these measures together 1 metre + 1 ERC = 5 feet, +1 foot = 6 feet. I think that what these numbers tell us is that the unit of measure we are using are constants (of measure perhaps) and maybe not as arbitrary as we may think. Obviously these are things you can test yourself quite easily.
Bringing us back to the topic 1:pi/6 is the two dimensional relationship of a hexagon in a circle.
You maybe interested to know that there is an indirect relationship between the metre and the foot.
This relationship moderated by the cubit. More specifically the Egyptian Royal Cubit (ERC). If you set unity as one foot then the relationship between a foot to a cubit is expressed in the ratio of 1:(e-1) (Euler-1).
Interestingly the relationship doesn't end there. If you take a one metre pendulum and swing it 15 degrees from the resting point (i.e through 30 degrees - but no more because the amplitude changes), the pendulum has a frequency of one second. The base of the triangle it forms at the metre mark equals 1 ERC. This is interesting because 1 ERC=0.523 metres which is pi/6=0.523 radian=30 degrees. So pi/6 metres = 1.717 feet = e-1 = 1 ERC. Something else that is interesting is that 1km*phi = 1 mile (+-10metres).
There is much more than this and to really bring the relationship between these measures together 1 metre + 1 ERC = 5 feet, +1 foot = 6 feet. I think that what these numbers tell us is that the unit of measure we are using are constants (of measure perhaps) and maybe not as arbitrary as we may think. Obviously these are things you can test yourself quite easily.
Bringing us back to the topic 1:pi/6 is the two dimensional relationship of a hexagon in a circle.
The issue is not the fuel, it is the disposal of the reactor at the end of its service life. You have to think of the entire Industrial nuclear process from end to end to design the nuclear industry properly.
>Measurements for seismic tolerance of Nuclear Reactors is expressed in Ground Acceleration, or Gal. Since you are unable to even communicate on this subject using appropriate measures it is unlikely that you have based your opinion on fact.
And measurements for entirety of the system are in magnitudes.
No.
According to the NRC "Regulatory Guide for Reviewing Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Reactor Facilities" design basis earthquakes and operating basis earthquakes are measured in ground acceleration (Gal), ground velocity and ground displacement. In addition, the entirety of the system is not measured, different parts of the Reactor called S, B and C class facilities are weighted differently and certain ones must have higher tolerances for Ground Acceleration.
It's an understandable mistake you are making as you become familiar with the anti-seismic design characteristics of nuclear reactors, however, you are wrong.
If you can't read, and decide to be a mindless pedant on others noting that your pedantry is pointless, that's on you.
The NRC seems to think details are important or they wouldn't have three different classes of facilities engineered to handle different levels of ground acceleration.
Hint: there's a whole lot to the system in addition to pressure vessel. Much of it is not even near the reactor. And no one gives a fuck if you reactor lives through something that its entire backup power system doesn't. Citation: the very event we're talking about.
You mean like S,B and C grade facilities? And how Fukushima's "backup power system" meant one of these classes were in contravention of the design criteria. Which class was it and why is it important? Can you tell me? No.
>You are drawing a somewhat pedantic distinction between the reactor exploding and the reactor facility exploding, however I can agree it is a correct distinction to make.
Reactor is that pressure vessel and its immediate support systems that when they fail, you get actual nuclear event where nuclear materiel is ejected from the core. I.e. Chernobyl.
Material was ejected from the pressure vessel, through the bottom of the reactor. It was a known issue with that generation reactor, which is why the criteria existed, which is why Fukushima was an INES 7, which is why you are stating the obvious and trying to covertly claim that Fukushima didn't eject radio-isotopes, which it did. Most of it is still going into the ocean.
Not making this distinction shows lack of understanding of what nuclear power plants are and how they function. This is not pedantry in any way, because differential is highly relevant to the discussion of "dying from radiation related causes". Pedantry would be your pretending that tolerances for pressure vessel are somehow relevant to tolerances for the entire system, which is what was actually relevant in actual catastrophic event.
If you actually understood what you were talking about you would know that the entire disaster was predictable, the exact internal presssure of these reactors before failure and leaking is well known. As is the result of the failure and Fukushima failed *exactly* how it was predicted those plants would fail if design criteria wasn't adhered to. Even the explosion was predicted, though the energy of it suggests there may have been illegal activity occuring wrt fuel storage. Can you tell me the pressure or who established those criteria? No. The reason you don't know is because it was the pressure vessel *itself* exceeding its design basis as found by the American Society for Mechanical Engineers. The reactor was producing Hydrogen however there are a few other distinctions I understand that I don't think you do.
I understand that a General Electric Nuclear reactor of that design requires a constant supply of power due to the nature of th
He also killed funding for what was to be the next generation of breeder reactors.
If you want to say that didn't shut down investment from the private sector, while there was little to nothing from the public sector your just lying and it makes no sense wasting breath talking to you.
Got a link to what you're talking about. IFR was initiated *after* Carter left office and ran until 1994. A next generation burner reactor was designed and built less than 3 years after Carter left office, so what you're saying doesn't make much sense.
Thank you for the link, I'd have been happy to read it, but I was unable to get the article to load in two different browsers. Most numbers I googled hovered around 60-70,000 metric tons. I feel like a world spanning freight train would hold more than that...
70,000 metric tons are the current plutonium stocks. 700,000 tons is the stock of DU. Add other radio-effluents (i.e. emitters) and this number continues to climb.
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.
3600 SqKms around Chernobyl.
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.
May I borrow your crystal ball and see for myself?
I'm not going to tell you there are not risks, but I am going to insist on being reasonable about assessing those risks.
Specifically which risks do you think are the most important that should be addressed? Specifically which have the greatest impact.
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
You have no idea which basis design issues will arise from deploying a new reactor technology. That's why scaling slowly and gaining reactor experience is essential to operating larger versions safely.
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.)
Well those rickety old reactors have a Service life of 40-50 years so what would you expect? TMI happened a little after three months of operations.
And No, the Nuclear Industry so far has been a disaster spread out over decades of grandiose promises - that people are apparently still falling for.
Ok here is the breakdown of this bill, I'm feeling positive about the wording it contains as it is specific about a few things, there are quite a few things here I've wanted to see for some time. First it extends and modifies sections of the 2005 US Energy Policy act and it seems to me that the Nuclear lobby is finally listening to concerns people have about nuclear power.
So in SEC.951 (a) establishes the mission then defines the characteristics: SEC.951(a)(2)(A)Providing research infrastructure to....materials science engineering. It's almost as if congress has been reading my posts as this is exactly what I've proposed is an issue with developing advanced reactors programs. SEC.951(a)(2)(C)Providing the technical means to reduce the likelihood of nuclear proliferation. Finally encoded into law the requirement to reduce weapons grade materials by using them as fuel. Let's hope that DU is included in this. SEC.951(a)(2)(D)Increasing confidence margins for public safety of nuclear energy systems. Let's hope this forces the nuclear industry to design better safety systems. SEC.951(a)(2)(E)Reducing the environmental impact of activities relating to nuclear energy. I never though I would live to see the day where this *requirement* was designed into law. This means Nuclear waste mitigation strategies can also be funded under this bill - Let's hope that becomes more real and produces more expertise in this area. SEC.951(b)(1)Defines what an Advanced Nuclear reactor IS. So the term "ADVANCED NUCLEAR REACTOR" now has a legal meaning which has a highly specific goals: SEC.951(b)(1)(A)(ii)lower waste yields SEC.951(b)(1)(A)(iii)greater fuel utilization SEC.951(b)(1)(A)(v)resistance to proliferation SEC.951(b)(1)(A)(vi)increased thermal efficiency
This is describing burner reactor technology, with very little doubt. Breeder reactors are in conflict with clauses i, iii, v. Boiling Water Reactors are in conflict with ii, iii, vi. SEC.951(b)(1)(A)(vii)the ability to integrate into electric and nonelectric applications. Wow! So much meaning for one sentence. Electric means Coal and nonelectric means Oil, i.e. Hydrogen production - which is one of the goals in the original act. The purpose of this is to keep the existing US vehicle fleet intact. SEC.951(b)(1)(B)is a Fusion Reactor SEC.957. allocates funding for High performance computation and provides a new funding resource for nuclear power initiatives in SEC.988.. It would be good to see similar funding allocations for Solar, Wind and Geothermal.
Bottom line here is this bill is about burner reactors so either molten salt or metal, like lead, as a coolant in the primary loop. It also implies reprocessing so the smart way would be in integrate the reprocessing facility with a reactor set to eliminate transport of highly radioactive fuel to and from the reactors as there is no way you ever want that stuff to leave the facility.
This is a little more than just more money for nuclear and very little in the way of requirements to get it. If these initiatives are executed, a very careful scaling of these technologies to reach Gw capacity would be the best way for ADVANCED NUCLEAR REACTORs to not repeat the foolish mistakes the original nuclear industry did.
Certainly most of the things I've suggested here are in this bill, which I'm happy to say is the direction I hoped the nuclear industry would go. How this plays out in terms of cut corners remains to be seen.
For once it looks like good news for folks on both sides of this debate.
I was watching some show about waste disposal, and I think they said something like "All the waste put together would fill a FOOTBALL FIELD!!!!1!!11!!!1one"
Yucca mountain, a facility totally inappropriate to contain nuclear waste because it is pumice.
What's wrong with pumice?
It's porous and it might, just might, rain to much in Utah to contain the nuclear waste for long enough. I think the least of our worries will by one radioactive mountain.
Groundwater contamination doesn't imply that it is raining, it implies that there is water in the ground, that's why it is called groundwater.
*ANY* groundwater contamination implies a breach of the containment. The DOE's original specification for the facility was Defense in depth which means the geology of the mountain itself acts as a filter. Given that rock will also have cracks in it that leak groundwater it is backed up by using bentonite clays which expand when exposed to water and making a tighter seal in the rocks.
It's not perfect but it's what we've got until someone perfects a way to store spent fuel in Uranacite crystals much the same way Uranium crystals are being perfected to create a new way to fuel reactors. Whilst rare, uranium crystals form naturally in granite, which is why I suspect the DOE originally specified the facility be designed this way.
So there are plenty of good reasons not to use Yucca mountain for anything to do with radio isotopes. The Swiss have built such a facility in granite so I'm not sure why the U.is unable to complete such an engineering task.
Slashdot Mirror
The local authorities (where you physically are) can throw you in jail (or worse), possibly beat you with the xkcd wrench, and keep your laptop for as long as they like. Hell they can torture it out of you if they like and you have little to no legal rights. Nation states aren't really accountable to anyone if they don't want to be.
It's also not entirely clear how much your own government will care about you if you get held by the local authorities.
This is the great thing about living in a first world democracy, how we have the human rights we deserve because of how we protected them.
Thank you, MrKaos ...
Much appreciated Thomst.
It's called pepper spray.
lols!
For example if someone is being a bit of a dick, you just spray some of this on them and they become cooler?
You'd be the life of the party.
These are very nice puff pieces claiming a lot of good intentions, but how does it work?
I found some some documentation: The getting started, Introduction to the specification.
There are some other things that look interesting Introduction to Linked Data, Expressing ID and, Manipulating linked data.
It looks interesting enough to check out when I'm not so tired.
Hey, did they also not make Zyklon Bee?
ba dum.....tish!!!
You've clearly been going to the wrong Alternative News sites.
Which one would you recommend?
Could it bee?
I think Bayer might make it a career limiting move for any scientist brave enough to attempt to find out.
Why doesn't Google just come out and say it. They're sucking up every bit of your information to sell to someone.
They don't want to wake the sheeple.
It's got to be a cliche by now.
This was supposed to be in the Cody Wilson story.
Though there are strange similarities.
It's got to be a cliche by now.
And maybe you should stop fabricating things; https://slashdot.org/comments.... I am still waiting for you to admit you completely made this up. But you seem to be avoiding that.
And maybe you should just stop being an asshole by trying to minimize the actuality of the situation.
The particulate matter in question is Plutonium Oxide, which is an inhalant. Once anyone breathes that into their lungs, isn't getting it out. An alpha emitter lodged in the lungs would be a factor in lung cancer however no one has really considered it from either the toxicity stand point where it may increase the incidents of pneumonia.
"Non-related issue" sounds a lot like Nuclear Industry propaganda to me. You're minimizing the death of this man for political purposes, it is pretty disgusting. You should have more respect for the people who have to work there and the risk they take doing the necessary work of cleaning up after TEPCO's criminal negligence.
If anyone is likely to be unlucky enough to breathe Plutonium oxide into their lungs it is going to be someone who works there. More so if the person breaths in enough of it close enough together to start bouncing neutrons around with the reaction moderated by their lungs.
We are just the beginning of this tragic act of criminal negligence, we have decades, hundreds of years to go. All the while the Nuclear Industry's propaganda elements cover up the reality of their complacent incompetence so that people like you can claim the moral high-ground to argue about something you demonstrate you cannot comprehend, will not comprehend.
Your willful ignorance, still harping on external whilst ignoring internal radiation exposure. Willfully ignoring the difference between radiation and the radio-isotope that emits it.
People like you will be forgotten as the dithering bumbling idiocrats who helped prevent the people of the world figuring out what is going on at Fukushima and doing something about it as an international community. The opportunity to effectively mitigate the disaster slips further into the past as we let the same incompetence who caused the disaster manage the recovery.
While you play the role of the useful idiot lapping up all the Nuclear Industry PR so you can get your hit of "Being Right".
Such a cheap shill you are.
As l like to point out to our friends who pop a gasket every time someone dares to mention a non-metric unit of measure, The official metre id defined as the length of the path traveled by light in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 second
You maybe interested to know that there is an indirect relationship between the metre and the foot.
This relationship moderated by the cubit. More specifically the Egyptian Royal Cubit (ERC). If you set unity as one foot then the relationship between a foot to a cubit is expressed in the ratio of 1:(e-1) (Euler-1).
Interestingly the relationship doesn't end there. If you take a one metre pendulum and swing it 15 degrees from the resting point (i.e through 30 degrees - but no more because the amplitude changes), the pendulum has a frequency of one second. The base of the triangle it forms at the metre mark equals 1 ERC. This is interesting because 1 ERC=0.523 metres which is pi/6=0.523 radian=30 degrees. So pi/6 metres = 1.717 feet = e-1 = 1 ERC. Something else that is interesting is that 1km*phi = 1 mile (+-10metres).
There is much more than this and to really bring the relationship between these measures together 1 metre + 1 ERC = 5 feet, +1 foot = 6 feet. I think that what these numbers tell us is that the unit of measure we are using are constants (of measure perhaps) and maybe not as arbitrary as we may think. Obviously these are things you can test yourself quite easily.
Bringing us back to the topic 1:pi/6 is the two dimensional relationship of a hexagon in a circle.
You maybe interested to know that there is an indirect relationship between the metre and the foot.
This relationship moderated by the cubit. More specifically the Egyptian Royal Cubit (ERC). If you set unity as one foot then the relationship between a foot to a cubit is expressed in the ratio of 1:(e-1) (Euler-1).
Interestingly the relationship doesn't end there. If you take a one metre pendulum and swing it 15 degrees from the resting point (i.e through 30 degrees - but no more because the amplitude changes), the pendulum has a frequency of one second. The base of the triangle it forms at the metre mark equals 1 ERC. This is interesting because 1 ERC=0.523 metres which is pi/6=0.523 radian=30 degrees. So pi/6 metres = 1.717 feet = e-1 = 1 ERC. Something else that is interesting is that 1km*phi = 1 mile (+-10metres).
There is much more than this and to really bring the relationship between these measures together 1 metre + 1 ERC = 5 feet, +1 foot = 6 feet. I think that what these numbers tell us is that the unit of measure we are using are constants (of measure perhaps) and maybe not as arbitrary as we may think. Obviously these are things you can test yourself quite easily.
Bringing us back to the topic 1:pi/6 is the two dimensional relationship of a hexagon in a circle.
It forms when the spin rates between the inner and outer fluid hit a certain ratio. height.
1:pi/6 is the two dimensional relationship of a hexagon in a circle, I wonder if it is the same ratio?
The issue is not the fuel, it is the disposal of the reactor at the end of its service life. You have to think of the entire Industrial nuclear process from end to end to design the nuclear industry properly.
>Measurements for seismic tolerance of Nuclear Reactors is expressed in Ground Acceleration, or Gal. Since you are unable to even communicate on this subject using appropriate measures it is unlikely that you have based your opinion on fact.
And measurements for entirety of the system are in magnitudes.
No.
According to the NRC "Regulatory Guide for Reviewing Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Reactor Facilities" design basis earthquakes and operating basis earthquakes are measured in ground acceleration (Gal), ground velocity and ground displacement. In addition, the entirety of the system is not measured, different parts of the Reactor called S, B and C class facilities are weighted differently and certain ones must have higher tolerances for Ground Acceleration.
It's an understandable mistake you are making as you become familiar with the anti-seismic design characteristics of nuclear reactors, however, you are wrong.
If you can't read, and decide to be a mindless pedant on others noting that your pedantry is pointless, that's on you.
The NRC seems to think details are important or they wouldn't have three different classes of facilities engineered to handle different levels of ground acceleration.
Hint: there's a whole lot to the system in addition to pressure vessel. Much of it is not even near the reactor. And no one gives a fuck if you reactor lives through something that its entire backup power system doesn't. Citation: the very event we're talking about.
You mean like S,B and C grade facilities? And how Fukushima's "backup power system" meant one of these classes were in contravention of the design criteria. Which class was it and why is it important? Can you tell me? No.
>You are drawing a somewhat pedantic distinction between the reactor exploding and the reactor facility exploding, however I can agree it is a correct distinction to make.
Reactor is that pressure vessel and its immediate support systems that when they fail, you get actual nuclear event where nuclear materiel is ejected from the core. I.e. Chernobyl.
Material was ejected from the pressure vessel, through the bottom of the reactor. It was a known issue with that generation reactor, which is why the criteria existed, which is why Fukushima was an INES 7, which is why you are stating the obvious and trying to covertly claim that Fukushima didn't eject radio-isotopes, which it did. Most of it is still going into the ocean.
Not making this distinction shows lack of understanding of what nuclear power plants are and how they function. This is not pedantry in any way, because differential is highly relevant to the discussion of "dying from radiation related causes". Pedantry would be your pretending that tolerances for pressure vessel are somehow relevant to tolerances for the entire system, which is what was actually relevant in actual catastrophic event.
If you actually understood what you were talking about you would know that the entire disaster was predictable, the exact internal presssure of these reactors before failure and leaking is well known. As is the result of the failure and Fukushima failed *exactly* how it was predicted those plants would fail if design criteria wasn't adhered to. Even the explosion was predicted, though the energy of it suggests there may have been illegal activity occuring wrt fuel storage. Can you tell me the pressure or who established those criteria? No. The reason you don't know is because it was the pressure vessel *itself* exceeding its design basis as found by the American Society for Mechanical Engineers. The reactor was producing Hydrogen however there are a few other distinctions I understand that I don't think you do.
I understand that a General Electric Nuclear reactor of that design requires a constant supply of power due to the nature of th
He also killed funding for what was to be the next generation of breeder reactors.
If you want to say that didn't shut down investment from the private sector, while there was little to nothing from the public sector your just lying and it makes no sense wasting breath talking to you.
Got a link to what you're talking about. IFR was initiated *after* Carter left office and ran until 1994. A next generation burner reactor was designed and built less than 3 years after Carter left office, so what you're saying doesn't make much sense.
Thank you for the link, I'd have been happy to read it, but I was unable to get the article to load in two different browsers. Most numbers I googled hovered around 60-70,000 metric tons. I feel like a world spanning freight train would hold more than that...
70,000 metric tons are the current plutonium stocks. 700,000 tons is the stock of DU. Add other radio-effluents (i.e. emitters) and this number continues to climb.
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.
3600 SqKms around Chernobyl.
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.
May I borrow your crystal ball and see for myself?
I'm not going to tell you there are not risks, but I am going to insist on being reasonable about assessing those risks.
Specifically which risks do you think are the most important that should be addressed? Specifically which have the greatest impact.
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
You have no idea which basis design issues will arise from deploying a new reactor technology. That's why scaling slowly and gaining reactor experience is essential to operating larger versions safely.
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.)
Well those rickety old reactors have a Service life of 40-50 years so what would you expect? TMI happened a little after three months of operations. And No, the Nuclear Industry so far has been a disaster spread out over decades of grandiose promises - that people are apparently still falling for.
I don't think the Swiss are thinking this fully through....
If you have a specific criticism, you should make it. So far they have the best facility.
So in SEC.951 (a) establishes the mission then defines the characteristics:
SEC.951(a)(2)(A) Providing research infrastructure to....materials science engineering. It's almost as if congress has been reading my posts as this is exactly what I've proposed is an issue with developing advanced reactors programs.
SEC.951(a)(2)(C) Providing the technical means to reduce the likelihood of nuclear proliferation. Finally encoded into law the requirement to reduce weapons grade materials by using them as fuel. Let's hope that DU is included in this.
SEC.951(a)(2)(D) Increasing confidence margins for public safety of nuclear energy systems. Let's hope this forces the nuclear industry to design better safety systems.
SEC.951(a)(2)(E) Reducing the environmental impact of activities relating to nuclear energy. I never though I would live to see the day where this *requirement* was designed into law. This means Nuclear waste mitigation strategies can also be funded under this bill - Let's hope that becomes more real and produces more expertise in this area.
SEC.951(b)(1) Defines what an Advanced Nuclear reactor IS. So the term "ADVANCED NUCLEAR REACTOR" now has a legal meaning which has a highly specific goals:
SEC.951(b)(1)(A)(ii) lower waste yields
SEC.951(b)(1)(A)(iii) greater fuel utilization
SEC.951(b)(1)(A)(v) resistance to proliferation
SEC.951(b)(1)(A)(vi) increased thermal efficiency
This is describing burner reactor technology, with very little doubt. Breeder reactors are in conflict with clauses i, iii, v. Boiling Water Reactors are in conflict with ii, iii, vi.
SEC.951(b)(1)(A)(vii) the ability to integrate into electric and nonelectric applications. Wow! So much meaning for one sentence. Electric means Coal and nonelectric means Oil, i.e. Hydrogen production - which is one of the goals in the original act. The purpose of this is to keep the existing US vehicle fleet intact.
SEC.951(b)(1)(B) is a Fusion Reactor
SEC.957. allocates funding for High performance computation and provides a new funding resource for nuclear power initiatives in SEC.988.. It would be good to see similar funding allocations for Solar, Wind and Geothermal.
Bottom line here is this bill is about burner reactors so either molten salt or metal, like lead, as a coolant in the primary loop. It also implies reprocessing so the smart way would be in integrate the reprocessing facility with a reactor set to eliminate transport of highly radioactive fuel to and from the reactors as there is no way you ever want that stuff to leave the facility.
This is a little more than just more money for nuclear and very little in the way of requirements to get it. If these initiatives are executed, a very careful scaling of these technologies to reach Gw capacity would be the best way for ADVANCED NUCLEAR REACTORs to not repeat the foolish mistakes the original nuclear industry did.
Certainly most of the things I've suggested here are in this bill, which I'm happy to say is the direction I hoped the nuclear industry would go. How this plays out in terms of cut corners remains to be seen.
For once it looks like good news for folks on both sides of this debate.
I was watching some show about waste disposal, and I think they said something like "All the waste put together would fill a FOOTBALL FIELD!!!!1!!11!!!1one"
A freight train 1 and 1/2 times the circumference of the Earths equator.
Yucca mountain, a facility totally inappropriate to contain nuclear waste because it is pumice.
What's wrong with pumice?
It's porous and it might, just might, rain to much in Utah to contain the nuclear waste for long enough. I think the least of our worries will by one radioactive mountain.
Groundwater contamination doesn't imply that it is raining, it implies that there is water in the ground, that's why it is called groundwater.
*ANY* groundwater contamination implies a breach of the containment. The DOE's original specification for the facility was Defense in depth which means the geology of the mountain itself acts as a filter. Given that rock will also have cracks in it that leak groundwater it is backed up by using bentonite clays which expand when exposed to water and making a tighter seal in the rocks.
It's not perfect but it's what we've got until someone perfects a way to store spent fuel in Uranacite crystals much the same way Uranium crystals are being perfected to create a new way to fuel reactors. Whilst rare, uranium crystals form naturally in granite, which is why I suspect the DOE originally specified the facility be designed this way.
So there are plenty of good reasons not to use Yucca mountain for anything to do with radio isotopes. The Swiss have built such a facility in granite so I'm not sure why the U.is unable to complete such an engineering task.