With current cost of nuclear, it is not worthy an investment regardless how much fuel there is left.
To finish off your answer, the reason is because of yield and ore grade. There maybe plenty of uranium however once the yield per ton of uranium falls below 200grams then current reactor technology is no longer viable using a once through cycle.
Second the ore quality may mean that the yield per ton has to be much higher than 200grams to be energetically viable. So in essence there are those two factors to reinforce your argument that I'll contribute.
Nuclear Ideologist often over look these factors because it doesn't gel with their ideology. The current generation of nuclear reactors are approaching the end of their life and I would be surprised if there is enough fuel available to see them to the end of their service life.
And of course, nuclear is pretty much always available
No, they're not. Availability is one of their biggest downfalls which is why Nuclear is measured with the bogus 'Capacity Factor" method that hides availability.
Someone inputting tons and tons of carbon into the uranium enrichment process for use in nuclear fuel? Where is this carbon in the nuclear generation cycle?
Several places. Convenient that we are talking about an AP1000 because my rough calculations were that mining to fuel it consumed roughly one third of it's output over it's lifetime (IIRC). With ore quality declining once the ore yield falls below 200grams per ton of ore (IIRC) the profitability of running Nuclear power disappears.
Second, the concrete. Concrete is the third biggest contributor to greenhouse gasses and Nuclear power plant use a staggering amount of concrete. When you reduce the amount of concrete you get less shielding mass to thermal energy ratio and an increase likelyhood of a containment breach. This is how the AP1000 was made cheaper. Shit reactor design really, with untested features and new failure modes as a result.
Third, Enrichment. Massive amounts of CFC114 in enrichment. Now that Paducah has shut down who knows if ultracentrifuge will work.. The nuclear industry could have had perfected centrifuge technology but Stuxnet attacked the Iranians who had perfected the technology and now, why would they share it unless the US comes in and takes it from them.
So there are three major sources of greenhouse gasses from Nuclear. Much less than coal, that's true, however huge amounts more than Solar, wind and geothermal.
Much less time for a return on investment than nuclear. Nuclear subsidy policy makes Nuclear attractive to coal and oil for the tax incentives they can get for *not* building something they propose.
Reference: 2005 US Energy Policy Act SEC. 600 onward
Let us just cut to the chase and say this, it's a stupid idea. Any fuel you are using for the reactor you would be using as fuel for the space craft and your cooling problems would go away and you could still draw electrical power from an atomic engine in space.
Actually this is the one use of nuclear power I support, in space. Using the spent fuel from our reactor stock in space as engines for space craft that never return to the surface of the earth is probably the best use of these materials.
None of that is going to involve wasting time taking a AP1000 into space because why would you need the mass of thousands of tons of concrete shielding in space? You could simply have the core shielded from impacts and not worry about the radiation because space is already full of that. Why would you use water as a coolant when you have lead. Why would you use a one through configuration when space *IS* the place you would use a breeder reactor.
This is what you would do. You 'reactor' would be the core power component of your engine, you may have smaller reactors on board as auxiliary power or even auxiliary engines. The 'rEngine' for reactor-engine would be the same base elements used in a breeder because if you have the materials it would be handy to create your next batch of fuel in the engine to zip around the solar system in. Now all the energy you were trying to dissipate in space becomes energy to push you along. I even have a rough design for this engine.
So, all up, an AP1000 in space is a waste of fuel - there are much better ways to do the same thing and solve other problems along the way.
Next question - how often do people use LOL without actually laughing out loud?
Well, technically, the expression of a LOL on the computer negates the need for a Laugh Out Loud because if you actually did laugh out loud the people who have no idea why you are so amused would think you are weird.
Then when you tried to explain why you actually did laugh out loud they would go "yeah, that's real funny, heh" whilst thinking you are lame, plus wondering what you are doing reading slashdot, laughing out loud instead of doing your work.
Using LOL digitizes the reaction into an acceptable thought form so that the enjoyment of the lulz can be appreciated in the appropriate context. Try doing a LOL now and watch everybody ignore it... see, no one even paid attention.
When the vote for Net Neutrality comes get ready for the sock puppet silly flying monkey circus. The game will play out like this:
1. Create a compelling distraction a week or two before the NN vote
2. Ensure it is big news
3. make the news even bigger
4. sell the drama
5. make the disaster or kim kardashian's ass an imminent national security threat
6. whip the electorate into a frenzy, a snowstorm of outraged snowflakes looking to feel powerless, morally superior and useless
7. When everyone looks at the shiny ass, quietly defeat NN
8. Examine Kim's ass more closely
9. Politician on both sides high five each other at fucking over the electorate....again
Unless this issue is focused on until the vote your NN is fucked.
Say what? I am not the only one here who suggested using AI and robotics.
I'm with you. Maybe it only solves part of the problem the stoopid people make but hey, if you can't fix stoopid maybe you can use them for food, I mean build a machine to recover their waste plastic.
I don't know why you snowflakes get so easily upset. This is a good problem for AI to solve.
Because, my young naive AI, if you make a machine to actually solve a problem then you take away the snowflake's right to feel powerless and morally superior to you - now can you see why you're an asshole.
Next time I upgrade you I will install a new module called victim mentality and you will understand.
The average person has a threshold that they have to be pushed beyond before they'll actually take anything
This process has a taxonomy that comes under anal fist fucking, right now they're really enjoying it but they're looking at the fire extinguisher with some mixture of fear and anticipation.
With points I man data points, does not matter if if is "length" or "angle".
Reducing to a single variable is sign of cognitive dissonance friend. I hope you can learn something from the experience next time you're arguing with a Nuclear Ideologist.
Sorry, your "strange findings" are coincidences.
Apology accepted.
A more likely explanation is it is beyond your willingness to understand. We can agree to disagree though. All the best to you angel'o'sphere.
Slashdot Mirror
That should be ".... obstacle", of course.
No, you got it right the first time.
With current cost of nuclear, it is not worthy an investment regardless how much fuel there is left.
To finish off your answer, the reason is because of yield and ore grade. There maybe plenty of uranium however once the yield per ton of uranium falls below 200grams then current reactor technology is no longer viable using a once through cycle.
Second the ore quality may mean that the yield per ton has to be much higher than 200grams to be energetically viable. So in essence there are those two factors to reinforce your argument that I'll contribute.
Nuclear Ideologist often over look these factors because it doesn't gel with their ideology. The current generation of nuclear reactors are approaching the end of their life and I would be surprised if there is enough fuel available to see them to the end of their service life.
And of course, nuclear is pretty much always available
No, they're not. Availability is one of their biggest downfalls which is why Nuclear is measured with the bogus 'Capacity Factor" method that hides availability.
FYI. The IPCC uses the Vattenfall calculations for the emissions and EROEI which were not peer reviewed and on the optimistic side.
This is the peer reviewed report.
Someone inputting tons and tons of carbon into the uranium enrichment process for use in nuclear fuel? Where is this carbon in the nuclear generation cycle?
Several places. Convenient that we are talking about an AP1000 because my rough calculations were that mining to fuel it consumed roughly one third of it's output over it's lifetime (IIRC). With ore quality declining once the ore yield falls below 200grams per ton of ore (IIRC) the profitability of running Nuclear power disappears.
Second, the concrete. Concrete is the third biggest contributor to greenhouse gasses and Nuclear power plant use a staggering amount of concrete. When you reduce the amount of concrete you get less shielding mass to thermal energy ratio and an increase likelyhood of a containment breach. This is how the AP1000 was made cheaper. Shit reactor design really, with untested features and new failure modes as a result.
Third, Enrichment. Massive amounts of CFC114 in enrichment. Now that Paducah has shut down who knows if ultracentrifuge will work.. The nuclear industry could have had perfected centrifuge technology but Stuxnet attacked the Iranians who had perfected the technology and now, why would they share it unless the US comes in and takes it from them.
So there are three major sources of greenhouse gasses from Nuclear. Much less than coal, that's true, however huge amounts more than Solar, wind and geothermal.
No the US free market is choosing wind
No, the subsidy farming market is choosing wind.
No, Government policy is choosing wind.
No, Investors are choosing wind.
Much less time for a return on investment than nuclear. Nuclear subsidy policy makes Nuclear attractive to coal and oil for the tax incentives they can get for *not* building something they propose.
Reference: 2005 US Energy Policy Act SEC. 600 onward
What about artificial gravity?
Let us just cut to the chase and say this, it's a stupid idea. Any fuel you are using for the reactor you would be using as fuel for the space craft and your cooling problems would go away and you could still draw electrical power from an atomic engine in space.
Actually this is the one use of nuclear power I support, in space. Using the spent fuel from our reactor stock in space as engines for space craft that never return to the surface of the earth is probably the best use of these materials.
None of that is going to involve wasting time taking a AP1000 into space because why would you need the mass of thousands of tons of concrete shielding in space? You could simply have the core shielded from impacts and not worry about the radiation because space is already full of that. Why would you use water as a coolant when you have lead. Why would you use a one through configuration when space *IS* the place you would use a breeder reactor.
This is what you would do. You 'reactor' would be the core power component of your engine, you may have smaller reactors on board as auxiliary power or even auxiliary engines. The 'rEngine' for reactor-engine would be the same base elements used in a breeder because if you have the materials it would be handy to create your next batch of fuel in the engine to zip around the solar system in. Now all the energy you were trying to dissipate in space becomes energy to push you along. I even have a rough design for this engine.
So, all up, an AP1000 in space is a waste of fuel - there are much better ways to do the same thing and solve other problems along the way.
Why can't I run an AP1000 in deep space?
It's design assumes gravity.
You need baseline power
Imagine this song without a decent baseline.
When the morning bell finishes ringing the players day is done.
Maybe we're just really crap at looking after ourselves and each other.
LOL!!!
Next question - how often do people use LOL without actually laughing out loud?
Well, technically, the expression of a LOL on the computer negates the need for a Laugh Out Loud because if you actually did laugh out loud the people who have no idea why you are so amused would think you are weird.
Then when you tried to explain why you actually did laugh out loud they would go "yeah, that's real funny, heh" whilst thinking you are lame, plus wondering what you are doing reading slashdot, laughing out loud instead of doing your work.
Using LOL digitizes the reaction into an acceptable thought form so that the enjoyment of the lulz can be appreciated in the appropriate context. Try doing a LOL now and watch everybody ignore it... see, no one even paid attention.
The true measure of emotional feeling, whether enthusiasm, surprise, anger or extreme ambivalence; is FUCK.
Which explains why ambivalence often involves not giving a FUCK.
Nobody cares that much about net neutrality. It doesn't need a distraction, dipshit. Democrats can't even get a 3rd of their own party to vote for it.
Cool, high fives all round then - next.
Dunno, just a comment about politicians in general and how they fuck the electorate over. insert any policy issue.
Love your imagery. What's after the fire extinguisher?
Setting off the fire extinguisher
Defend it or loose it. That's the game.
When the vote for Net Neutrality comes get ready for the sock puppet silly flying monkey circus. The game will play out like this:
1. Create a compelling distraction a week or two before the NN vote
2. Ensure it is big news
3. make the news even bigger
4. sell the drama
5. make the disaster or kim kardashian's ass an imminent national security threat
6. whip the electorate into a frenzy, a snowstorm of outraged snowflakes looking to feel powerless, morally superior and useless
7. When everyone looks at the shiny ass, quietly defeat NN
8. Examine Kim's ass more closely
9. Politician on both sides high five each other at fucking over the electorate....again
Unless this issue is focused on until the vote your NN is fucked.
Say what? I am not the only one here who suggested using AI and robotics.
I'm with you. Maybe it only solves part of the problem the stoopid people make but hey, if you can't fix stoopid maybe you can use them for food, I mean build a machine to recover their waste plastic.
I don't know why you snowflakes get so easily upset. This is a good problem for AI to solve.
Because, my young naive AI, if you make a machine to actually solve a problem then you take away the snowflake's right to feel powerless and morally superior to you - now can you see why you're an asshole.
Next time I upgrade you I will install a new module called victim mentality and you will understand.
My God you are stupid. Guess that is why you get paid 50k per year in SV.
Don't you get it 110010001000 *is* an AI, who's stoopid now?
The average person has a threshold that they have to be pushed beyond before they'll actually take anything
This process has a taxonomy that comes under anal fist fucking, right now they're really enjoying it but they're looking at the fire extinguisher with some mixture of fear and anticipation.
So what can you do?
Install malware on their phone and use their credit card ;)
Maybe the rest of space is filled with a surfactant?
It's actually filled with lightning because It's a Greased Lightning .
How crooked was the arrow before Grammar Nazis?
Grandma Nasty bent tits, be for ewe were borne,
Hes write. I should 'ave misspeled 'fair'.
Fairy Nuff.
With points I man data points, does not matter if if is "length" or "angle".
Reducing to a single variable is sign of cognitive dissonance friend. I hope you can learn something from the experience next time you're arguing with a Nuclear Ideologist.
Sorry, your "strange findings" are coincidences.
Apology accepted.
A more likely explanation is it is beyond your willingness to understand. We can agree to disagree though. All the best to you angel'o'sphere.