Fauntusy Island
Tattoo: Boss!! DE PLAN, DE PLANE
Tattoo: Boss!!!!! DE PLAN, DE PLANE!!!!
Roarke: Do you know why they call you Tattoo?
Tattoo: But Boss!! DE PLAN DE PLANE
Roarke: It is because you are an annoying little priiick
4) Your radiation "release" when the accident began was from the a pressure relief valve on the primary coolant loop - except this was WITHIN the containment vessel. Furthermore, the coolant (water!) only remains radioactive for a short time outside the core. That's why evaporating it was considered safe during cleanup.
Right, so it will only be a problem when they try to demolish the containment building and it's released then, say 10, 20 years from now, and of course your sure that that building is completely sealed, for now.
Triated water remains radioactive for 248 years, so I suppose your right, it's only radioactive for a short time, short enough for it to be radioactive till our great-great-great grand children are born. It's a beta emitter, so I suppose if ovairian tumours, testicular atrophy, shrunken ovaries, decreased brain weight, mental retardation and brain tumours are ok with you then it's safe. I'll save the discussion about what happens when it combines with DNA for another day.
3) All the released elements - how about stating quantities and isotopes? Yes, there was a significant release of krypton but Kr-85 in a beta emitter so presents very little danger outside the body. Also, being a nobel gas, is highly unlikely to combine to form any elements nor does your body naturally update krypton. But it's much more scary to say "oh noes, radioactive release" isn't it? Tritium is more of a concern, but again, quantity? Keep in mind tritium is also naturally occurring and your stated 'findings' are barely above the accepted safe level of 20,000 pCi/L.
Did you actually read what I said? here it is again Dr Carl Johnson, an expert in radiation related diseases asked the NRC and DOE to do a survey to look for some of these elements in the respirable dust around TMI after the accident and they refused. So, pray tell, how the fuck am I supposed to know if the authorities *refused* to take measurements.
Kyrypton-85 is also a gamma emitter so your assertion of how little danger it presents outside the body is pretty weak. It is scary, especially knowing that they are potent carcinogens and that noble gasses, like krypton, decay into more dangerous isotopes. i.e The daughter product is *more* dangerous.
barely above the accepted safe level of 20,000 pCi/L. of *water* not *milk*.
2) Radioactive elements accumulate in the food chain - true. Coal releases radioactive *particles* - bits of things like uranium - into the air. These can accumulate. A nuclear reactor releases heat. A small amount of radiation (less than you get when sun tanning) too, perhaps, but understand that radiation itself does not accumulate in the food chain. Two different things.
Right, so let me get this straight. A coal fired power station, powered by burning fossilised trees, releases radioactive isotopes - true. A nuclear power station, powered by heavily concentrated radioactive elements, release radioactive elements - false.
I think you have been drinking to much Nuclear Industry Kool Aid made with triated water, dood. All reactors leak radioactive effluent, usually via their cooling systems. But even if it comes from mining, enrichment or the power stations themselves, it ends up in the food chain, more and more, e.v.e.r.y.d.a.y.
squawk less than you get from sun tanning squaaaaaaawk.Wow you have swallowed the nuclear industry propaganda hook, line and sinker. Even the nuclear industry doesn't actually know how much radioactive elements they are releasing, it's based on mathematical models. The last *actual* study was done in 1978 when the reactors were in peak operating condition thirty years ago. Is there actually any link to objectivity or even reality in any of your statements? What actual research have you do
Except pebble-bed reactors are designed to be naturally self-limiting,
In theory. But there is only one operating, in Germany, and it's not commercial.
The issues
How do you manufacture the millions of fuel kernels to be consistently in the tolerances and parameters required for the reactor.
As it's gas cooled and the fuel kernels are covered in a graphite moderator, as the reactor ages how do you stop air leaking into the system and creating an environment where the graphite catches fire? goodbye moderator!
These two serious design flaws prevent the PBMR being a serious competitor to existing PWR designs (for all their flaws). As the design has no containment structure, to make the reactor more affordable, the consequence of the reactor's failure modes would be serious indeed.
Why, exactly, must we wait 100 years (heck, even 10) after a reactor is shut down to decommission it?
Yankee Rowe, a controlled shutdown of a functioning reactor, cost half a billion dollars to clean-up and it was only 137 Megawatts, less than a quarter of the size of TMI-2. You have to wait to allow the *really* radioactive elements to decay. This is because new and highly radioactive elements are created in the reactor core. It's still not something that has been addressed in an industrially proficient way yet that makes the sites safe or 'greenfeild'. Considering the 104 reactor sites around America are multi-core the United States will be looking at a conservative estimate of a quarter of a *Trillion* dollars, at todays prices, on reactor decommissioning alone.
They removed the *damaged* core, fuel, and radioactive material from 3MI and were DONE with the work in under 15 years. No, it's not a full decomm - they're waiting do to that with reactor #1 when it's license expires - but they've already removed the gutts. FUD
Why do you think they are waiting, is TMI-1 going to become *more* profitable for the owners once it is shut down? Do you have even a rudimentary understanding of how extreme the radioactive elements are still contained within that building, as opposed to a functional reactor that was shut down in a controlled manner? TMI was a forced clean-up and it took 11 years. But let me address your accusation of FUD.
Fear - what is there to fear? Dr. Michio Kaku, professor of Nuclear Physics at the City University of New York, was quoted to say of TMI
"It appears that every few months, since 1990, a new estimate is made of core debris, often with little relationship to the previous estimate. Estimates range form 608.8 kg to 1,322 kg... This is rather unsettling....," he concluded. "The still unanswered questions are therefore: precisely how much uranium is left in the core, and how much uranium can collect in the bottom of the reactor to initiate re-criticality." Do you understand what that means?
Uncertainty - It means the containment building contains enough radioactive elements to still be capable of releasing *extremely* radioactive elements into the environment? Do you think that elements that will last 10's of thousands of years will just disappear? Do you think the containment structure itself was built to last that long? do you think that the containment structure is leak proof? Are you prepared to go in there yourself and do a full "decomm"? No-one has done a 'full-decomm', am I getting through yet, do you understand?
Doubt - What's the plan to clean up the rest of the plant? who will actually do it since there is no profit in it. TMI-1 has cost 1 billion dollars to clean up *so-far* "and it's not even 'a full decomm'". Where is the profit for AmerGen or Excelon, the current owners, to do anything to clean-up the site? Who is going to spend another, who knows how many hundreds of millions, probably billions of dollars to actually completely 'safe' the site.
The FUD, as you say, is completely justified, in fact, in this situation it is completely appropriate once you do anything more than the superficial examination you have done. It's cool though, just make it another generations problem, eh?
THEN - once a plant is decommed somehow you need to maintain cooling systems? Are you serious?
I'm dead serious pal. Do you think those spent fuel rods are just gonna 'decide' not to obey the laws of physics and go critical if the cooling isn't maintained. I mean, isn't that the point, the fuel...goes...critical. What you think that just because it's outside a reactor core, it just stops? There is more 'mass' in those cooling pools than in the core, and now they are running the fuel rods for longer they're 'hotter...n...h.e..l..l'. YAFTKNANP
If terrorists can, or do, operate on that sort of small scale anywhere, then we're already screwed.
Ummm, newsflash, they have already mounted *large* scale attacks, have you been asleep for the last 8 years. So you think it takes more effort to mount a *small* scale attack.
You think being downwind of a burning petrol storage facility is fun?
Well actually I've been evacuated from the vicinity of a burning refinery, I'll take that over a nuclear accident any day.
Remember the Oklahoma city bombing? Using readily available farm fertilizers? What if those idiots had seeded their truck with a lot of commonly available carcinogenic chemicals that were readily oxidized?
Yeah, so what if they had access to radioactive elements, it would make a nice dirty nuke too eh?
Your argument is a strawman.
Do you even know what a strawman argument is? My argument is completely the opposite of what is presented, evidence is mounting that you are a fanboi.
You are conflating access with potential damage, and the potential is already there, on much larger scales than what you suggest. The effort required to pull off what you suggest would be a lot more than what is already necessary to create havoc with our existing infrastructure.
But none of those present the capability to do long term damage and renders an area inhabitable. More effort than to put to jet liners into the biggest building in America's largest city? I don't think so some how. And saying 'conflating' just makes you look like one of the infinite monkeys trying to come up with Shakespeare's works.
I suggest you take a step back, do some reading, and try to drop your paranoia about anything "nuclear".
So what reading have you done? Based on your non-existent argument I'm quite confident that you have not informed yourself at all. I'd suggest you start at the USC. Such a condescending remark adds weight to the evidence that you are a nuclear fanboi.
Oh? Do you have some proposed method as to how to do this? Because if you do, then you should go and apply to Hyperion or some of the other companies building these things, and suggest this to them, so they can learn how to defend against it.
Actually I have two, the first is 'don't deploy this dumb idea' and the second you can read about.
If you don't then shut the fuck up, and pull your head out of your ass.
So since I do, you can shove your head up your ass, open your mouth and eat shit - fanboi.
Don't you think that the engineers who build these things haven't already considered that? Especially considering that these power facilities have to be approved by our nuclear and power facility regulatory agencies?
The evidence presented is that they have reduced or non existent containment when compared to an *actual* TRIGA reactor. They have what is referred to as 'confinement', and I am yet to see an argument that evidences otherwise. But you don't understand what that means do you fanboi.
I'm sorry
And so you should be.
you are exactly the sort of person who is completely counter-productive in any discussion about this sort of technology, because you have little or no idea what you are talking about.
No, you're sorry because I do know what I'm talking about. From the amount of rock crushed to produce a kilo of uranium to the amount of mine tailings left behind to the enrichment process how energy intensive it is and the waste products and effect on the environment to the operat
I don't see why different sizes of nuclear reactors with different operating characteristics is a bad thing, and this is the "small end" of the scale.
because a monolithic solution centralises the containment risk, generation and reprocessing in one place. It also eliminates logistics as a target.
Much of what you have written in the particular post I am responding to seems to hinge on the idea that there is no acceptable solution except a means for generating power that has no waste product.
I didn't say 'no waste product' I said 'chomps up Pu-239' or converts transuranics (with a 25000 year half life) to actinides (with a 600 year half life) and stores them in the same site. That's a perfectly reasonable, well thought out technological solution. What you consistently fail to recognise is it's nuclear advocacy in it most pragmatic form that is trying to deal with the *reality* of the industry.
That is unreasonable, irrational, and unfair when couched in a debate where nuclear energy is constantly compared with the waste output of other means of power generation using misleading and false information.
What 'false or misleading information'? Frankly this statement reeks of desperation, typical, because you have no argument and you cannot refute the facts you attack them by saying they are false with no means to back up that assertion. I really expected better of you than this. The guilling thing about your statement is that the Nuclear Industry has constantly lied to try and maintain it's image, whilst all the fanboi's just lap it up without any objective analysis, how fucking lame.
Coal gets criticism for it's carbon output, and even for it's radioactive output. Why shouldn't Nuclear get criticised for it's externalities, they exist, they don't just 'magically disappear with the fairies'. It's entirely fair to make these criticisms because the real return on investment, energy or otherwise, can be realistically assessed. Wind, Solar Geothermal have a tiny fraction of the externalities of either coal or nuclear and a greater *potential* to produce energy.
I don't have the time or inclination to write the volumes necessary to respond to all of your points. You can claim that as some kind of victory if you want to.
Because Brian_Ischo you can't argue with the *facts* presented or the strength of the argument. We all lose from the way nuclear power is now, no one wins, and these reactors make a bad situation worse.
So your logic is that because a first generation nuclear power plant, from the 1950's, with terrible design properties, failed catastrophically when every operational safety procedure was violated at once - therefore a nuclear battery design being proposed in the 2000's must be equally dangerous?
Now you just ignoring the facts and argument presented. Look further up the thread, to find your answer.
QED, you have no argument, you have nothing constructive to add, you have no valid point to or make other than 'cause Chandon_Sheldon says so'. If you are intent on ignoring the assessment of scientists then all you are demonstrating is your pig-headedness and any further discussion with you is a waste of time.
Nuclear batteries aren't bombs. Nuclear power plants aren't bombs. They aren't even potential bombs.
No, they're not, that's the irony they're far *worse* when they fail. Chernobyl fall-out area 2640 Square kilometres of farmland, 1900 sqkm of forest and an uninhabitable city.
Making a nuclear bomb is very difficult. Engineers have worked very hard to make sure that nuclear power devices are nothing like bombs.
That's right, you want to kill the population and make sure that you can still utilize the area a few weeks/ months later. After all how many people are living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki now? The thing you fail to grasp is a bomb releases all it's energy at once. A nuclear reactor, used as a weapon will release radioactive elements that will continue to be emitters of radioactivity. Further the range of radioactive elements released from a hot reactor makes a bomb look benign in comparison.
This is like saying that every solar power installation is dangerous because it's a potential death ray, or that every coal plant is hugely dangerous because it will transform into a giant steampunk robot death machine. It's not just silly, it's crazy paranoid Luddite delusion.
Well it's your delusion;-) but if it makes you feel better I've never heard of a city being blown up by a coal bomb, or a solar plant going critical.
The fact is Nuclear power will never be benign, because it isn't. Not that I'm an advocate of coal, but the worst case scenario I can expect from a coal power station is a fire, the worst case scenario from a nuclear power plant demonstrated to date is the rendering of 3000 Sqkms of land uninhabitable and nuclear fallout over an entire continent. That is the reality of a nuclear power plant, terror strike, design failure, operator error or whatever.
Thanks Chandon_Seldon, you really helped me make my point there.
Perhaps, but tell me why it would cost thousands of dollars in administrative fees to *repair a broken faucet*.
How should I know Trahloc? Why don't you ask your friend for information based on the specific NRC ruling and let me know what you discover. There are certainly more pressing issues.
MrKaos, you have posted numerous times to this thread trying to convince everyone that these small reactors would be some kind of serious terrorist target.
And in that thread I was answering the assertion that Nuclear reactors could sustain an attack by a passenger aircraft and the assertion that these smaller reactors could sustain an attack - which is false. This is evidenced by the work done by the USC on current Nuclear facilities. wrt these "nuclear mousetraps" the evidence presented is that they have reduced or non existent containment when compared to an *actual* TRIGA reactor. They have what is referred to as 'confinement', and I am yet to see an argument that evidences otherwise.
But your arguments are entirely unconvincing and your time would really be better spent elsewhere.
Well if you want to resort to dogmatic scepticism and ignore the facts and science it demonstrates you are not actually prepared to gather as much information as you can and make a pragmatic assessment. I have and I have also uncovered the factual errors in the post I responded to. People say 'this is a great idea' but ignore the logistics in actually doing it or as an attack vector.
Further, you have no answer to any of the other facts or lines of argument presented above and focused on the terrorist and security aspects to attack this line of argument. Whilst I find this reaction to my arguments fairly typical, if you would like to continue this conversation based on the terrorist aspects of this device, I'd suggest you read the comments I've posted and direct related replies within the confines of that argument.
However as you have given me an opportunity to present my main objection I will. It scales in the wrong way.
You might be surprised to find that I actually support the development of a reactor that addresses the issue of 70,000 tons of Pu-239 currently stored in reactor sites around America, simply because it's irresponsible for our generation to foist this issue onto later generations.
Unfortunately, because there is no geologically sound Nuclear waste dump in operation it's totally inappropriate to discuss building a new reactor facility until a proper containment facility is available. Yucca mountain is not a suitable site because it is made of pumice and geologically active evidenced by recent aftershocks of 5.6 within ten miles of a repository that is supposed to be geologically stable for at least 500000 years. The DOE's own 1982 Nuclear Waste policy Act reported that the Yucca Mountain's geology is inappropriate to contain nuclear waste, and long term corrosion data on C22 (the material to contain the Pu-239 and mitigate the ingress of water - yet another Yucca problem) is just not available.
We need something made of granite. The only human made structure with the potential to last 10000 years is Mt Rushmore, so it has to be an engineering project of that scale, because the logistical problems of transferring the 70000 odd tons of Pu239 to the "waste repository" (in reality - containment facility) are so involved that you want to get it right the first time and only do it once.
Even doing that will probably take 30 years to complete, but there is more to it than that.
I was a big fan of the Integral Fast Reactor, and in a way I still am. But the reality is 3rd and 4th generation reactors are a pipe dream because our material science is not advanced enough yet to produce a reactor design that will last thousands of years. If you are going to build reactors then do it properly and build a Terra-watt scale nuclear reactor facility the belly of a massive granite mountain with an attached waste facility that chomps up all your remaining plutonium or end al
If they want to do that, there are perfectly good chemical plants near densely populated areas they could bomb. Some of them have really big tanks of highly toxic and blatantly carcinogenic stuff. Full size nuclear power plants might be an especially juicy target. Little nuclear batteries aren't.
You compare three high value targets and then say the lower value of the three targets isn't a target.
If you compared the 'Little nuclear batteries' to a field of wind generators or a solar power station which is the higher value target now? Both have similar functionalities but it's obviously the 'Little nuclear batteries' because hitting it will cause more effect. Another thing you haven't considered is if someone figures out a way to mount a non-invasive attack on the reactor and cause a run-away reaction. Once you are able to do that you have hundreds if not thousands of juicy little targets.
The reality is that deploying reactors in this manner just increases the available target count and presents enormous infrastructure issues in terms of constant monitoring to keep them safe, transport, refuelling issues and so on. Any one of these points in the chain are a terrorist target.
Whose to say a terrorist attack couldn't be mounted *after* the reactor is dug up and put on a truck when it contains the most radioactive elements, provoked into a run-away reaction and simply driven into a large city. It's readily portable size makes it a very juicy target indeed.
What about a lobe on a flywheel bumping the cable at the desired frequency, change the speed of the flywheel to adjust the frequency or move it closer to change the amplitude.
Well that depends on the terrorist object doesn't it? maybe they would just want to render the area un-inhabitable for the next 10000 years and increase cancer rates causing ongoing casualties for the next hundred years.
No reason for people to die straight away now is there?
Slashdot Mirror
Just nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.
best feature.
I would love to read your post but, without white space, gak!!! please repost!!
Hey, if the shoe fits...
I need to get out more.
Fauntusy Island Tattoo: Boss!! DE PLAN, DE PLANE Tattoo: Boss!!!!! DE PLAN, DE PLANE!!!! Roarke: Do you know why they call you Tattoo? Tattoo: But Boss!! DE PLAN DE PLANE Roarke: It is because you are an annoying little priiick
all fixed :-)
Right, so it will only be a problem when they try to demolish the containment building and it's released then, say 10, 20 years from now, and of course your sure that that building is completely sealed, for now.
Triated water remains radioactive for 248 years, so I suppose your right, it's only radioactive for a short time, short enough for it to be radioactive till our great-great-great grand children are born. It's a beta emitter, so I suppose if ovairian tumours, testicular atrophy, shrunken ovaries, decreased brain weight, mental retardation and brain tumours are ok with you then it's safe. I'll save the discussion about what happens when it combines with DNA for another day.
Did you actually read what I said? here it is again Dr Carl Johnson, an expert in radiation related diseases asked the NRC and DOE to do a survey to look for some of these elements in the respirable dust around TMI after the accident and they refused. So, pray tell, how the fuck am I supposed to know if the authorities *refused* to take measurements.
Kyrypton-85 is also a gamma emitter so your assertion of how little danger it presents outside the body is pretty weak. It is scary, especially knowing that they are potent carcinogens and that noble gasses, like krypton, decay into more dangerous isotopes. i.e The daughter product is *more* dangerous.
barely above the accepted safe level of 20,000 pCi/L. of *water* not *milk*.
Right, so let me get this straight. A coal fired power station, powered by burning fossilised trees, releases radioactive isotopes - true. A nuclear power station, powered by heavily concentrated radioactive elements, release radioactive elements - false.
I think you have been drinking to much Nuclear Industry Kool Aid made with triated water, dood. All reactors leak radioactive effluent, usually via their cooling systems. But even if it comes from mining, enrichment or the power stations themselves, it ends up in the food chain, more and more, e.v.e.r.y.d.a.y.
squawk less than you get from sun tanning squaaaaaaawk.Wow you have swallowed the nuclear industry propaganda hook, line and sinker. Even the nuclear industry doesn't actually know how much radioactive elements they are releasing, it's based on mathematical models. The last *actual* study was done in 1978 when the reactors were in peak operating condition thirty years ago. Is there actually any link to objectivity or even reality in any of your statements? What actual research have you do
In theory. But there is only one operating, in Germany, and it's not commercial.
The issues
How do you manufacture the millions of fuel kernels to be consistently in the tolerances and parameters required for the reactor. As it's gas cooled and the fuel kernels are covered in a graphite moderator, as the reactor ages how do you stop air leaking into the system and creating an environment where the graphite catches fire? goodbye moderator!These two serious design flaws prevent the PBMR being a serious competitor to existing PWR designs (for all their flaws). As the design has no containment structure, to make the reactor more affordable, the consequence of the reactor's failure modes would be serious indeed.
Yankee Rowe, a controlled shutdown of a functioning reactor, cost half a billion dollars to clean-up and it was only 137 Megawatts, less than a quarter of the size of TMI-2. You have to wait to allow the *really* radioactive elements to decay. This is because new and highly radioactive elements are created in the reactor core. It's still not something that has been addressed in an industrially proficient way yet that makes the sites safe or 'greenfeild'. Considering the 104 reactor sites around America are multi-core the United States will be looking at a conservative estimate of a quarter of a *Trillion* dollars, at todays prices, on reactor decommissioning alone.
Why do you think they are waiting, is TMI-1 going to become *more* profitable for the owners once it is shut down? Do you have even a rudimentary understanding of how extreme the radioactive elements are still contained within that building, as opposed to a functional reactor that was shut down in a controlled manner? TMI was a forced clean-up and it took 11 years. But let me address your accusation of FUD.
Fear - what is there to fear? Dr. Michio Kaku, professor of Nuclear Physics at the City University of New York, was quoted to say of TMI "It appears that every few months, since 1990, a new estimate is made of core debris, often with little relationship to the previous estimate. Estimates range form 608.8 kg to 1,322 kg... This is rather unsettling....," he concluded. "The still unanswered questions are therefore: precisely how much uranium is left in the core, and how much uranium can collect in the bottom of the reactor to initiate re-criticality." Do you understand what that means?
Uncertainty - It means the containment building contains enough radioactive elements to still be capable of releasing *extremely* radioactive elements into the environment? Do you think that elements that will last 10's of thousands of years will just disappear? Do you think the containment structure itself was built to last that long? do you think that the containment structure is leak proof? Are you prepared to go in there yourself and do a full "decomm"? No-one has done a 'full-decomm', am I getting through yet, do you understand?
Doubt - What's the plan to clean up the rest of the plant? who will actually do it since there is no profit in it. TMI-1 has cost 1 billion dollars to clean up *so-far* "and it's not even 'a full decomm'". Where is the profit for AmerGen or Excelon, the current owners, to do anything to clean-up the site? Who is going to spend another, who knows how many hundreds of millions, probably billions of dollars to actually completely 'safe' the site.
The FUD, as you say, is completely justified, in fact, in this situation it is completely appropriate once you do anything more than the superficial examination you have done. It's cool though, just make it another generations problem, eh?
I'm dead serious pal. Do you think those spent fuel rods are just gonna 'decide' not to obey the laws of physics and go critical if the cooling isn't maintained. I mean, isn't that the point, the fuel...goes...critical. What you think that just because it's outside a reactor core, it just stops? There is more 'mass' in those cooling pools than in the core, and now they are running the fuel rods for longer they're 'hotter...n...h.e..l..l'. YAFTKNANP
Ummm, newsflash, they have already mounted *large* scale attacks, have you been asleep for the last 8 years. So you think it takes more effort to mount a *small* scale attack.
Well actually I've been evacuated from the vicinity of a burning refinery, I'll take that over a nuclear accident any day.
Yeah, so what if they had access to radioactive elements, it would make a nice dirty nuke too eh?
Do you even know what a strawman argument is? My argument is completely the opposite of what is presented, evidence is mounting that you are a fanboi.
But none of those present the capability to do long term damage and renders an area inhabitable. More effort than to put to jet liners into the biggest building in America's largest city? I don't think so some how. And saying 'conflating' just makes you look like one of the infinite monkeys trying to come up with Shakespeare's works.
So what reading have you done? Based on your non-existent argument I'm quite confident that you have not informed yourself at all. I'd suggest you start at the USC. Such a condescending remark adds weight to the evidence that you are a nuclear fanboi.
Actually I have two, the first is 'don't deploy this dumb idea' and the second you can read about.
So since I do, you can shove your head up your ass, open your mouth and eat shit - fanboi.
The evidence presented is that they have reduced or non existent containment when compared to an *actual* TRIGA reactor. They have what is referred to as 'confinement', and I am yet to see an argument that evidences otherwise. But you don't understand what that means do you fanboi.
And so you should be.
No, you're sorry because I do know what I'm talking about. From the amount of rock crushed to produce a kilo of uranium to the amount of mine tailings left behind to the enrichment process how energy intensive it is and the waste products and effect on the environment to the operat
because a monolithic solution centralises the containment risk, generation and reprocessing in one place. It also eliminates logistics as a target.
I didn't say 'no waste product' I said 'chomps up Pu-239' or converts transuranics (with a 25000 year half life) to actinides (with a 600 year half life) and stores them in the same site. That's a perfectly reasonable, well thought out technological solution. What you consistently fail to recognise is it's nuclear advocacy in it most pragmatic form that is trying to deal with the *reality* of the industry.
What 'false or misleading information'? Frankly this statement reeks of desperation, typical, because you have no argument and you cannot refute the facts you attack them by saying they are false with no means to back up that assertion. I really expected better of you than this. The guilling thing about your statement is that the Nuclear Industry has constantly lied to try and maintain it's image, whilst all the fanboi's just lap it up without any objective analysis, how fucking lame.
Coal gets criticism for it's carbon output, and even for it's radioactive output. Why shouldn't Nuclear get criticised for it's externalities, they exist, they don't just 'magically disappear with the fairies'. It's entirely fair to make these criticisms because the real return on investment, energy or otherwise, can be realistically assessed. Wind, Solar Geothermal have a tiny fraction of the externalities of either coal or nuclear and a greater *potential* to produce energy.
Because Brian_Ischo you can't argue with the *facts* presented or the strength of the argument. We all lose from the way nuclear power is now, no one wins, and these reactors make a bad situation worse.
Now you just ignoring the facts and argument presented. Look further up the thread, to find your answer.
QED, you have no argument, you have nothing constructive to add, you have no valid point to or make other than 'cause Chandon_Sheldon says so'. If you are intent on ignoring the assessment of scientists then all you are demonstrating is your pig-headedness and any further discussion with you is a waste of time.
You haven't demonstrated an argument.
No, they're not, that's the irony they're far *worse* when they fail. Chernobyl fall-out area 2640 Square kilometres of farmland, 1900 sqkm of forest and an uninhabitable city.
That's right, you want to kill the population and make sure that you can still utilize the area a few weeks/ months later. After all how many people are living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki now? The thing you fail to grasp is a bomb releases all it's energy at once. A nuclear reactor, used as a weapon will release radioactive elements that will continue to be emitters of radioactivity. Further the range of radioactive elements released from a hot reactor makes a bomb look benign in comparison.
Well it's your delusion ;-) but if it makes you feel better I've never heard of a city being blown up by a coal bomb, or a solar plant going critical.
The fact is Nuclear power will never be benign, because it isn't. Not that I'm an advocate of coal, but the worst case scenario I can expect from a coal power station is a fire, the worst case scenario from a nuclear power plant demonstrated to date is the rendering of 3000 Sqkms of land uninhabitable and nuclear fallout over an entire continent. That is the reality of a nuclear power plant, terror strike, design failure, operator error or whatever.
Thanks Chandon_Seldon, you really helped me make my point there.
Gas stations don't contain radioactive elements, the way a reactor core does. Do you actually have a valid argument to make?
How should I know Trahloc? Why don't you ask your friend for information based on the specific NRC ruling and let me know what you discover. There are certainly more pressing issues.
And in that thread I was answering the assertion that Nuclear reactors could sustain an attack by a passenger aircraft and the assertion that these smaller reactors could sustain an attack - which is false. This is evidenced by the work done by the USC on current Nuclear facilities. wrt these "nuclear mousetraps" the evidence presented is that they have reduced or non existent containment when compared to an *actual* TRIGA reactor. They have what is referred to as 'confinement', and I am yet to see an argument that evidences otherwise.
Well if you want to resort to dogmatic scepticism and ignore the facts and science it demonstrates you are not actually prepared to gather as much information as you can and make a pragmatic assessment. I have and I have also uncovered the factual errors in the post I responded to. People say 'this is a great idea' but ignore the logistics in actually doing it or as an attack vector.
Further, you have no answer to any of the other facts or lines of argument presented above and focused on the terrorist and security aspects to attack this line of argument. Whilst I find this reaction to my arguments fairly typical, if you would like to continue this conversation based on the terrorist aspects of this device, I'd suggest you read the comments I've posted and direct related replies within the confines of that argument.
However as you have given me an opportunity to present my main objection I will. It scales in the wrong way.
You might be surprised to find that I actually support the development of a reactor that addresses the issue of 70,000 tons of Pu-239 currently stored in reactor sites around America, simply because it's irresponsible for our generation to foist this issue onto later generations.
Unfortunately, because there is no geologically sound Nuclear waste dump in operation it's totally inappropriate to discuss building a new reactor facility until a proper containment facility is available. Yucca mountain is not a suitable site because it is made of pumice and geologically active evidenced by recent aftershocks of 5.6 within ten miles of a repository that is supposed to be geologically stable for at least 500000 years. The DOE's own 1982 Nuclear Waste policy Act reported that the Yucca Mountain's geology is inappropriate to contain nuclear waste, and long term corrosion data on C22 (the material to contain the Pu-239 and mitigate the ingress of water - yet another Yucca problem) is just not available.
We need something made of granite. The only human made structure with the potential to last 10000 years is Mt Rushmore, so it has to be an engineering project of that scale, because the logistical problems of transferring the 70000 odd tons of Pu239 to the "waste repository" (in reality - containment facility) are so involved that you want to get it right the first time and only do it once.
Even doing that will probably take 30 years to complete, but there is more to it than that.
I was a big fan of the Integral Fast Reactor, and in a way I still am. But the reality is 3rd and 4th generation reactors are a pipe dream because our material science is not advanced enough yet to produce a reactor design that will last thousands of years. If you are going to build reactors then do it properly and build a Terra-watt scale nuclear reactor facility the belly of a massive granite mountain with an attached waste facility that chomps up all your remaining plutonium or end al
You compare three high value targets and then say the lower value of the three targets isn't a target.
If you compared the 'Little nuclear batteries' to a field of wind generators or a solar power station which is the higher value target now? Both have similar functionalities but it's obviously the 'Little nuclear batteries' because hitting it will cause more effect. Another thing you haven't considered is if someone figures out a way to mount a non-invasive attack on the reactor and cause a run-away reaction. Once you are able to do that you have hundreds if not thousands of juicy little targets.
The reality is that deploying reactors in this manner just increases the available target count and presents enormous infrastructure issues in terms of constant monitoring to keep them safe, transport, refuelling issues and so on. Any one of these points in the chain are a terrorist target.
Whose to say a terrorist attack couldn't be mounted *after* the reactor is dug up and put on a truck when it contains the most radioactive elements, provoked into a run-away reaction and simply driven into a large city. It's readily portable size makes it a very juicy target indeed.
Could this be the first palindromic 'In Soviet Russia Joke'?
What about a lobe on a flywheel bumping the cable at the desired frequency, change the speed of the flywheel to adjust the frequency or move it closer to change the amplitude.
I mentioned this in a previous post,,, perhaps we could convert the wave motion from the ocean into oscillations at the correct wavelength?
What about the anchor in the ocean, maybe there is a way to convert the wave energy from the ocean into the desired wavelength to oscillate the cable.
They've discovered the secret of comedy.
Well that depends on the terrorist object doesn't it? maybe they would just want to render the area un-inhabitable for the next 10000 years and increase cancer rates causing ongoing casualties for the next hundred years.
No reason for people to die straight away now is there?