Anti-Nuclear activist, including many in Congress, have done everything they can to gun up the nuclear power industry.
You mean the oil and coal industry.
As a technology, nuclear is only in it's very first stages.Promising technologies like breeder reactors that can burn nuclear wastes to almost inert piles or rock were arbitrarily outlawed.
You mean fissile ash, which is highly radioactive from a reactor that will cost $100 billion to build. Breeder technology is a dead end.
Promising avenues such as micro reactors are mired in red tape and make no mistake, lawsuits will follow them where ever they think of putting one.
you mean it's the dumbest.idea.eva.
1. Two to Three standard designs, vetted by some group of nuclear engineers as safe. Facilitates factory production of components
you mean SNUPPS
What do you think the AP1000 is based on?
2. Processes to fast track environmental reviews
Siting a nuclear reactor is so much more than environmental reviews. The public has no say in where these facilities are placed.
3. Limited indemnity for developers to prevent frivolous lawsuits.
Price-Anderson Act
4. Some form of expedited processed in the courts to review lawsuits and settle them quickly.
So not just special indemnity, you want a special nuclear court as well. Maybe someone will come along and do that.
5. Reopen Yucca Mountain. Fuck Harry Reid. Hell, bury his soon to be dead ass in it.
OR make it legal to build a proper facility in granite, not a porous useless facility in a geologically active area.
6. Ongoing research into new designs, module designs, etc.
Sec 600. 2005 US Energy policy act already provides this funding.
If you do a little research you will find most of these things have already been done.
1. In the US, at least, we do. It's called Yucca Mountain. it wasn't politically acceptable to the previous Administration for #UNKNOWNREASON, but the current Administration would probably be fine to use this purpose-built facility for what it was built for - long-term storage of nuclear waste.
No. It wasn't acceptable to the DOE who specified that the geology should be part of a concept for the facility called "Defense in Depth". As it stands the facility is built into a porus pumice mountain instead of into a granite facility. Tests of ground water at the facility found Chlorine 55 which originated from atmospheric test nuclear explosions which tells us that it takes less than 50 years for ground water to enter and leave a facility that is supposed to contain radio-isotopes for 100s of thousands of years.
The only *political* wrangling that occurred was to make building such facilities into granite illegal to keep those facilities out of certain states.
Fix that law if you are so sincere about supporting nuclear power and you can have a proper facility - such as the Swiss have.
Thanks for that information. According to attached reports: Amounts accumulated in the decommissioning trust funds for operating power reactors totaled approximately $53.4 billion as of December 31, 2016. which is woefully inadequate.
Shortfalls are reported and it represents an inadequate amount of money to properly decommission all of the reactors that are currently in service, which means it is inappropriate to discuss building new ones.
An idea I have seen floated is to convert 'end of service life' Nuclear plants to natural gas so that the site has a profit motivation and funding to maintain and slowly decommission the sites, which maybe a good way to get a further return on the energy invested into building the sites.
So, we're where you want to be (at least in the US);
The link you sent appears broken. I think you are referring to the Price Anderson Act which was established in 1954 until the nuclear industry proved itself safe to insurance risk assessors. It is still in existence so that does not say much for how professional risk assessors view Nuclear power.
what's the hold-up to rolling out more nuclear?
Mainly that there is no energy return on the energy put into it. Mining fuel for an AP1000 consumes 1/3 of the petajoules it produces over its service life. This is carbon based energy, a factor which is often overlooked when taking an idealistic view of nuclear power.
Before you refer me to the IPCC report, I'll point out that it references a study by Vatenfal, a producer of nuclear power plants, and the only way to produce the referenced carbon figure is to use in-situ acid leach mining which is illegal in Russia and the US because it produces megalitres of radioactive sulfuric acid.
Anyone who studies the Nuclear Power fuel cycle in depth will find that there are many reasons why Nuclear Power is not viable and that the hold up is because investors want to see a return.
Thanks for your links, further education is always welcomed on this subject.
That is *exactly* what is happening with Depleted Uranium. It is being used as munitions where it becomes pyrophoric creating a ceramic like dust that is an inhalant. You can see the effect that it is having on the local population.
And guess who owns Diablo??? PG&E. Yes the same PG&E that is currently filing for bankruptcy. Guess the joke will be on the taxpayers. Again.
Deregulation of PUCHA in the 2005 US energy policy act has opened the door for utilities to raid taxpayers using NPP proposals and then drop the construction proposals.
China, for example, where the reactors are built by the state, has been pumping out reactors, each taking 5 or 6 years.
So what you are saying is communism does Nuclear power better than capitalism and in capitalist countries nuclear is not economically viable because it doesn't generate a return for investors, which doesn't matter in communist countries.
Are you certain that these reactors have been built to the highest standards and that they weren't rushed? Or are you saying it's ok to suppress a population that resists their government so that you can have your idealistic nuclear future?
To reach the target within three decades, the world would have to add about 3.3 trillion more kilowatt-hours of clean energy every year.
It takes about 30 years to build one nuclear power plant.
When arguing that an alternative is too slow to construct, you really shouldn't be pushing something that is even slower to construct.
The other issue is that nuclear represents 3% of global electricity production. So even if we doubled Nuclear power (to 800 reactors), worldwide it would only represent 6% of global electricity production.
No. You're projecting the deflated grandiosity you feel over not getting moral superiority from the social proof you used because you got called out on a nuclear fantasy that only works in your imagination.
Solving nuclear industry issues means dealing with the nuclear boogeyman instead of pretending there isn't a problem. Four smoldering nuclear reactors on the edge of the Pacific Ocean is what the nuclear boogey man looks like, that's the reality we have to deal with.
Good for you.
I suggest it's time for you to feel comfortable educating yourself, like an adult would, about the serious consequences externalized from the nuclear industry onto the international community. This is a serious subject Rick, with the consequences expressed in Human DNA.
Nobody else cares.
Obviously you do otherwise you would not be prone to behave this way when discussing this subject. One day you may be able to overcome the nuclear industry deceptions you have been exposed to that cause you to project nuclear idealism the way you have in this thread.
I see you have nothing of value to offer this conversation so I hope this helps you.
because you only hear what you want to hear. Right back at you, buddy.
You are attempting to tell people how to think and that they are somehow irrational for having valid concerns. The information provided, including the link to the Energy policy was to illustrate just how poorly thought out your projections are.
You're not offering any solutions. WTF, I'm supposed to come up with a 100 year energy plan for Humanity in a comment on a shitty 3rd-tier new commenting site? Get real.
I've provided such a way forward for Nuclear power *several times* in these discussions. A deep consideration of the motivations behind using Nuclear Power is required to be able to understand how best to use the technology and learn the lessons of failure from this version of the industry.
Clearly you are unable to engage at thinking about Nuclear Power at this level which suggests you are simply another clone of a nuclear industry PR robot with nothing new to add to the conversation except insult the people who are sincerely trying to consider solutions to the mess this industry has created for the world.
I'm going to refrain from insulting you, for now, as it is quite common for people such as your self to be deceived as you want the best for everybody and at least your motivations come from a good place, despite your ignorance.
I can't say for sure if you're just a very wordy troll or if you're just really dumb, but the conversation ends here, if for no other reason than your 'style' of commenting makes my eyes bleed.
As you have no answer to any of the points I've raised it is clear that thinking about this subject is difficult for you in anything other than the most shallow methods of trying to provoke an emotional reaction from those who are bored with the same repetitive style of nuclear industry rhetoric.
This is the consequences from subscribing to social proof so you can feel morally superior, someone (and I'm not the only one) will come along and you end up feeling humiliated because you are unable to provide an intelligent response.
You're not changing my mind or convincing anyone else, all you're doing is wasting time and creating eye-strain.
I have no interest in changing your mind and your projections are futile. All you have done is described yourself, your posting style and revealed that you have no knowledge that forms the basis of an argument. The projections you meant to inflict on people with genuine concerns like it's time to be the adults, look under our own beds, and assure ourselves that the Nuclear Boogeyman is just our imagination have now backfired on you showing that there is no substance to anything you say. When challenged to engage in conversation like an adult on a serious subject you respond like a teenager who thinks they can maintain their decorum simply by saying something as juvenile as:
The other option, of course, is to pedantically document work-around for bugs, create instructions, add a few steps to make sure it won't break and then inform the asshole's manager that this is the process to ensure that a certain business process completes properly. A few of these and the asshole will be begging you to automate their job.
Most fear of nuclear power IS in people's heads. Get over it.
No, your irrational idealism is in your head. Anyone who has spent any time examining the properties of radionuclides would know that they are energetic emitters of alpha, beta and gamma radiation. Just because you are ignorant of the mechanism doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it means you don;t understand why some of that fear is a rational response to a threatening situation.
Ignorance, it would seem, really is bliss. Meanwhile people serious people continue to educate themselves on this subject and are able to explain their objections in a well thought out way. No wonder nuclear is dying, with friends like you, who needs enemies - do continue you're doing a better job at killing nuclear than the anti-nuke crowd.
The Federal Government is who invests in nuclear reactors, not private industry. However they don't seem to allow anyone license to develop anything new otherwise we'd have Thorium reactors. So don't tell me 'federal policy' is FOR nuclear power.
I don't need to, you can check the link I sent you for yourself. Though the funding mechanisms for nuclear are large and varied so it might involve a lot of reading and comprehension.
..30 known improvements.. see above.
The NRC assembled a panel from Westinghouse, GE, Bechtel and others created these recommendation
You would also be lobbying to have laws surrounding the illegality.. You just proved my point about federal policy by contradicting yourself.
You have no idea what you are talking about. It is illegal to create spent fuel repositories in granite as a quirk of state politics not wanting them in their state.
I've got no problem with the continued development of fission burner reactors. Sure doesn't sound like it to me.
because you only hear what you want to hear.
However this mindless, dumb, hurried, weaponized poorly designed deployment.. Who, by the way, said ANYTHING about ignoring waste disposal? Stop making excuses to keep using fossil fuels.
You're not offering any solutions.
Ultimately that is what many nuclear proponents do as a consequence of their willful ignorance. They do not and will not take responsibility.. There you go again beating that same drum. Who said ANYTHING about ignoring the waste products? Me? NO. Anyone else? NO.
There you go, still not taking responsibility for your advocacy.
The rest of your post is full of over-emotional irrationality, pointless really. You seem so emotionally triggered you are unable to create a cohesive sentence. Please try to calm down so we can have an adult conversation.
It would have been less if nuclear power plants were kept in operation and/or new ones were built. But Americans are a bunch of poorly-educated, cowardly NIMBYs so that won't happen.
Yeah, how dare those NIMBYs demand that utility companies run plants like Davis Besse until they were unsafe. Just because the NIMBYs demanded additional profits for the utility company shareholders.
The intermittent nature of solar and wind mean that as more is deployed, you need larger and larger backup systems.
What it actually means is that you have more locations where electricity is being produced to cover the gaps. It's a good point that you bring up that we need a massive deployments of wind power in many different locations.
Nuclear can supply all of our energy needs for the foreseeable future. Climate bed-wetters always frame our current situation as solar/wind or nothing.
Nuclear power satisfies roughly 3% of global demand for power. Even if you doubled what we have now it would be 6%. A large scale investment in solar and wind would come online sooner and deliver better energy return on energy invested.
We've run very old Nuclear plants well past their design lifespans safely.
No, we've been extremely lucky.
We would be on 3rd or 4th gen reactors by now - if we could just get some Nuclear deniers out of the way.
Here in America, we need to push Nuclear SMRs into production SOON. NuScale is a perfect example.
Small Modular Reactors are about the dumbest idea I have ever seen. Once those things are at the end of their service life they will be extremely radioactively hot and there will be no way to dispose of it.
You're barking up the wrong tree windbourne, for nuclear to be successful it will have to be in large centralized facilities that incorporate spent fuel storage and reprocessing.
However to make that step a radical improvement in materials technology is required.
Come on, America, it's time to be the adults, look under our own beds, and assure ourselves that the Nuclear Boogeyman is just our imagination.
Whilst the radionuclides and other byproducts of the nuclear industry, like depleted uranium, radio active CFCs, megalitres of radioactive sulfuric acid from mining remain in the environment.
Effective advocates of nuclear power would pose solutions to these issues instead of trying to convince people it's all in their head. This willful ignorance is far more damaging to the unclear industry than any NIMBY could be.
We need nuclear power. Safe nuclear power isn't 'theoretical', it's a reality; there are safer reactor designs on the drawing board right now, but since everyone seems to lose their bladder containment whenever the subject comes up, no money gets allocated into developing them.
Sure, it's just so expensive that no sane investor wants to go near it because whilst it is still prone to human error they are unlikely to see a return on their investment in their lifetime.
Evidence of this is that none of the nuclear plant designs in existence incorporate any of the 30 known improvements to nuclear reactor plant design suggested by industry at the behest of the NRC. Any serious advocate of nuclear power would be lobbying the NRC to make these changes to nuclear reactor design mandatory.
You would also be lobbying to have laws surrounding the illegality of spent fuel facilities in granite removed. However I bet you don't even know that is a law that exists to prevent the proper development of the nuclear industry, it's just easier to blame NIMBYs.
Of course none of this can even begin to happen until 2020; we need to get the current bozo out of office,
I'm not gonna touch that one.
Once we get past that hurdle and back into a sane energy policy, new reactor designs can be developed and implemented. That'll take at least 10 years though.
An entire section (600) in the 2005 US energy policy act is devoted to funding nuclear energy. It is encouraged in every way but used as a means for oil and coal to raid taxpayers wallets because they are the only ones who can *afford* to build them. Solar, wind and everything else are left out where the funding burden is put onto the business sector, with everything else.
Meanwhile continuing development and deployment of solar and wind power, in conjuction with large-scale energy storage strategies, should tide us over, and as capacity in these technologies increases, old-fashioned outdated filthy fossil-fuel-based power plants can be shuttered. Tear them down and build solar farms, so we can reuse the grid connections to them.
I've heard rumbling of converting aging nuclear power plants to natural gas so as to utilise the turbine infrastructure. This is good because we need a way to make it profitable to maintain the sites where the spent fuel is stored until a cetralized repository and infrastructure can be built.
In order to facilitate faster adoption of plug-in electric vehicles, there should be new government programs to promote them. Rebates, credits for decomissioning ICE vehicles, grants to municipalities to fund change-over from diesel buses to electrics, ad campaigns promoting electrics. Get as many people as possible off ICE-based transportation and into electrics.
Part of the dream of Burner reactors is that they can produce enough hydrogen to replace oil as a fuel that maintains the existing vehicle fleet whilst reducing their effective carbon footprint to zero.
Meanwhile continue funding development of practical fusion technology, to eventually replace fission technology.
A software engineer over 40 is considered used up by a lot of companies, and it only gets worse as you get older.
This meme is created to pit older developers against younger developers and drive down salary costs. It's a pretty ugly thing to have to consider at the beginning of your career, at 25, that you only have 15 years left - so most people don't because who would start a career in software development knowing that?
I think companies are starting to realize that this attitude simply shrinks the availability of software developers. In the meantime more experienced developers find their way into better shops or work on their own business.
Also note that just because your shop values experienced developers, does not mean others do.
Maybe it's your shop that doesn't value experienced developers? However I think this is the core issue, not enough people know about software development to be able to do it well.
There are always shops that take an burn and churn approach to software development because they aren't very good. The good thing about churn and burn shops is that you can learn a lot in a short time, if you survive the pressure then you will probably have a lasting career.
After that you tend to figure out how to apply design patterns and create methods so that you can learn things quickly and you only get to do that in the quality shops where they have been bitten by technical debt and understand how it relates to their business' bottom line. I.e. they give you time so things don't go haywire later.
If you don't move into management-esque positions, your career will plateau early.
Yeah sort of. My experience was to be able to pick up business and project management skills and be able to adapt them to the circumstances you find yourself in. It's this adaptability that links your career to longevity as management starts to ask your advice and takes you more seriously as you can see the big problems before they are. They only have to not listen to you once or twice before they suddenly discover that you are trying to save them time, money and stress.
I repeat two maxims to them, the first: You can do it right the first time or the second time, it's your choice and the second: It's your money (budget) you can waste it however you choose.
I don't disagree with the point you are making however the point I'm making is there has never been a legal mechanism for government to compel a software company into installing "front-doors" into their software products specifically for government to use until the law was passed at the end of 2018. There has never been a legal mechanism for government to coerce information technologists with fines and jail terms for not co-operating until now.
Slashdot Mirror
and Capacity Factors is a statistical lie cooked up to obscure CRAP Availability Factor of Nuclear power.
Anti-Nuclear activist, including many in Congress, have done everything they can to gun up the nuclear power industry.
You mean the oil and coal industry.
As a technology, nuclear is only in it's very first stages.Promising technologies like breeder reactors that can burn nuclear wastes to almost inert piles or rock were arbitrarily outlawed.
You mean fissile ash, which is highly radioactive from a reactor that will cost $100 billion to build. Breeder technology is a dead end.
Promising avenues such as micro reactors are mired in red tape and make no mistake, lawsuits will follow them where ever they think of putting one.
you mean it's the dumbest.idea.eva.
1. Two to Three standard designs, vetted by some group of nuclear engineers as safe. Facilitates factory production of components
you mean SNUPPS What do you think the AP1000 is based on?
2. Processes to fast track environmental reviews
Siting a nuclear reactor is so much more than environmental reviews. The public has no say in where these facilities are placed.
3. Limited indemnity for developers to prevent frivolous lawsuits.
Price-Anderson Act
4. Some form of expedited processed in the courts to review lawsuits and settle them quickly.
So not just special indemnity, you want a special nuclear court as well. Maybe someone will come along and do that.
5. Reopen Yucca Mountain. Fuck Harry Reid. Hell, bury his soon to be dead ass in it.
OR make it legal to build a proper facility in granite, not a porous useless facility in a geologically active area.
6. Ongoing research into new designs, module designs, etc.
Sec 600. 2005 US Energy policy act already provides this funding.
If you do a little research you will find most of these things have already been done.
1. In the US, at least, we do. It's called Yucca Mountain. it wasn't politically acceptable to the previous Administration for #UNKNOWNREASON, but the current Administration would probably be fine to use this purpose-built facility for what it was built for - long-term storage of nuclear waste.
No. It wasn't acceptable to the DOE who specified that the geology should be part of a concept for the facility called "Defense in Depth". As it stands the facility is built into a porus pumice mountain instead of into a granite facility. Tests of ground water at the facility found Chlorine 55 which originated from atmospheric test nuclear explosions which tells us that it takes less than 50 years for ground water to enter and leave a facility that is supposed to contain radio-isotopes for 100s of thousands of years.
The only *political* wrangling that occurred was to make building such facilities into granite illegal to keep those facilities out of certain states.
Fix that law if you are so sincere about supporting nuclear power and you can have a proper facility - such as the Swiss have.
2. Done. All nuclear plants already pay into a decommissioning fund that is controlled and overseen by the NRC.
Thanks for that information. According to attached reports: Amounts accumulated in the decommissioning trust funds for operating power reactors totaled approximately $53.4 billion as of December 31, 2016. which is woefully inadequate.
Shortfalls are reported and it represents an inadequate amount of money to properly decommission all of the reactors that are currently in service, which means it is inappropriate to discuss building new ones.
An idea I have seen floated is to convert 'end of service life' Nuclear plants to natural gas so that the site has a profit motivation and funding to maintain and slowly decommission the sites, which maybe a good way to get a further return on the energy invested into building the sites.
3. Every nuclear power plant buy insurance from the Government to cover people and property.
So, we're where you want to be (at least in the US);
The link you sent appears broken. I think you are referring to the Price Anderson Act which was established in 1954 until the nuclear industry proved itself safe to insurance risk assessors. It is still in existence so that does not say much for how professional risk assessors view Nuclear power.
what's the hold-up to rolling out more nuclear?
Mainly that there is no energy return on the energy put into it. Mining fuel for an AP1000 consumes 1/3 of the petajoules it produces over its service life. This is carbon based energy, a factor which is often overlooked when taking an idealistic view of nuclear power.
Before you refer me to the IPCC report, I'll point out that it references a study by Vatenfal, a producer of nuclear power plants, and the only way to produce the referenced carbon figure is to use in-situ acid leach mining which is illegal in Russia and the US because it produces megalitres of radioactive sulfuric acid.
Anyone who studies the Nuclear Power fuel cycle in depth will find that there are many reasons why Nuclear Power is not viable and that the hold up is because investors want to see a return.
Thanks for your links, further education is always welcomed on this subject.
1. When you have a viable (politically and otherwise) solution to long term waste storage.
Maybe we could just blow it into the air and/or dump it into the sea, just like the coal-fired plants do.
https://www.scientificamerican...
That is *exactly* what is happening with Depleted Uranium. It is being used as munitions where it becomes pyrophoric creating a ceramic like dust that is an inhalant. You can see the effect that it is having on the local population.
And guess who owns Diablo??? PG&E. Yes the same PG&E that is currently filing for bankruptcy. Guess the joke will be on the taxpayers. Again.
Deregulation of PUCHA in the 2005 US energy policy act has opened the door for utilities to raid taxpayers using NPP proposals and then drop the construction proposals.
It's just a slightly different take on 1929.
China, for example, where the reactors are built by the state, has been pumping out reactors, each taking 5 or 6 years.
So what you are saying is communism does Nuclear power better than capitalism and in capitalist countries nuclear is not economically viable because it doesn't generate a return for investors, which doesn't matter in communist countries.
Are you certain that these reactors have been built to the highest standards and that they weren't rushed? Or are you saying it's ok to suppress a population that resists their government so that you can have your idealistic nuclear future?
To reach the target within three decades, the world would have to add about 3.3 trillion more kilowatt-hours of clean energy every year.
It takes about 30 years to build one nuclear power plant.
When arguing that an alternative is too slow to construct, you really shouldn't be pushing something that is even slower to construct.
The other issue is that nuclear represents 3% of global electricity production. So even if we doubled Nuclear power (to 800 reactors), worldwide it would only represent 6% of global electricity production.
Ctrl-A, Delete.
Do you feel all empowered and superior now?
No. You're projecting the deflated grandiosity you feel over not getting moral superiority from the social proof you used because you got called out on a nuclear fantasy that only works in your imagination.
Solving nuclear industry issues means dealing with the nuclear boogeyman instead of pretending there isn't a problem. Four smoldering nuclear reactors on the edge of the Pacific Ocean is what the nuclear boogey man looks like, that's the reality we have to deal with.
Good for you.
I suggest it's time for you to feel comfortable educating yourself, like an adult would, about the serious consequences externalized from the nuclear industry onto the international community. This is a serious subject Rick, with the consequences expressed in Human DNA.
Nobody else cares.
Obviously you do otherwise you would not be prone to behave this way when discussing this subject. One day you may be able to overcome the nuclear industry deceptions you have been exposed to that cause you to project nuclear idealism the way you have in this thread.
I see you have nothing of value to offer this conversation so I hope this helps you.
because you only hear what you want to hear. Right back at you, buddy.
You are attempting to tell people how to think and that they are somehow irrational for having valid concerns. The information provided, including the link to the Energy policy was to illustrate just how poorly thought out your projections are.
You're not offering any solutions. WTF, I'm supposed to come up with a 100 year energy plan for Humanity in a comment on a shitty 3rd-tier new commenting site? Get real.
I've provided such a way forward for Nuclear power *several times* in these discussions. A deep consideration of the motivations behind using Nuclear Power is required to be able to understand how best to use the technology and learn the lessons of failure from this version of the industry.
Clearly you are unable to engage at thinking about Nuclear Power at this level which suggests you are simply another clone of a nuclear industry PR robot with nothing new to add to the conversation except insult the people who are sincerely trying to consider solutions to the mess this industry has created for the world.
I'm going to refrain from insulting you, for now, as it is quite common for people such as your self to be deceived as you want the best for everybody and at least your motivations come from a good place, despite your ignorance.
I can't say for sure if you're just a very wordy troll or if you're just really dumb, but the conversation ends here, if for no other reason than your 'style' of commenting makes my eyes bleed.
As you have no answer to any of the points I've raised it is clear that thinking about this subject is difficult for you in anything other than the most shallow methods of trying to provoke an emotional reaction from those who are bored with the same repetitive style of nuclear industry rhetoric.
This is the consequences from subscribing to social proof so you can feel morally superior, someone (and I'm not the only one) will come along and you end up feeling humiliated because you are unable to provide an intelligent response.
You're not changing my mind or convincing anyone else, all you're doing is wasting time and creating eye-strain.
I have no interest in changing your mind and your projections are futile. All you have done is described yourself, your posting style and revealed that you have no knowledge that forms the basis of an argument. The projections you meant to inflict on people with genuine concerns like it's time to be the adults, look under our own beds, and assure ourselves that the Nuclear Boogeyman is just our imagination have now backfired on you showing that there is no substance to anything you say. When challenged to engage in conversation like an adult on a serious subject you respond like a teenager who thinks they can maintain their decorum simply by saying something as juvenile as:
Bu-bye.
should be, because they're an asshole.
The other option, of course, is to pedantically document work-around for bugs, create instructions, add a few steps to make sure it won't break and then inform the asshole's manager that this is the process to ensure that a certain business process completes properly. A few of these and the asshole will be begging you to automate their job.
Either way, you win.
Most fear of nuclear power IS in people's heads. Get over it.
No, your irrational idealism is in your head. Anyone who has spent any time examining the properties of radionuclides would know that they are energetic emitters of alpha, beta and gamma radiation. Just because you are ignorant of the mechanism doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it means you don;t understand why some of that fear is a rational response to a threatening situation.
Ignorance, it would seem, really is bliss. Meanwhile people serious people continue to educate themselves on this subject and are able to explain their objections in a well thought out way. No wonder nuclear is dying, with friends like you, who needs enemies - do continue you're doing a better job at killing nuclear than the anti-nuke crowd.
The Federal Government is who invests in nuclear reactors, not private industry. However they don't seem to allow anyone license to develop anything new otherwise we'd have Thorium reactors. So don't tell me 'federal policy' is FOR nuclear power.
I don't need to, you can check the link I sent you for yourself. Though the funding mechanisms for nuclear are large and varied so it might involve a lot of reading and comprehension.
The NRC assembled a panel from Westinghouse, GE, Bechtel and others created these recommendation
You would also be lobbying to have laws surrounding the illegality.. You just proved my point about federal policy by contradicting yourself.
You have no idea what you are talking about. It is illegal to create spent fuel repositories in granite as a quirk of state politics not wanting them in their state.
I've got no problem with the continued development of fission burner reactors. Sure doesn't sound like it to me.
because you only hear what you want to hear.
However this mindless, dumb, hurried, weaponized poorly designed deployment.. Who, by the way, said ANYTHING about ignoring waste disposal? Stop making excuses to keep using fossil fuels.
You're not offering any solutions.
Ultimately that is what many nuclear proponents do as a consequence of their willful ignorance. They do not and will not take responsibility.. There you go again beating that same drum. Who said ANYTHING about ignoring the waste products? Me? NO. Anyone else? NO.
There you go, still not taking responsibility for your advocacy.
The rest of your post is full of over-emotional irrationality, pointless really. You seem so emotionally triggered you are unable to create a cohesive sentence. Please try to calm down so we can have an adult conversation.
Ideally, if we restart our nuclear power with SMRs, we will probably use a combination of battery/recharging when going through slow cities/stops.
So how do you propose to dispose of a SMR at the end of its service life? Have you thought this idea through?
It would have been less if nuclear power plants were kept in operation and/or new ones were built. But Americans are a bunch of poorly-educated, cowardly NIMBYs so that won't happen.
Yeah, how dare those NIMBYs demand that utility companies run plants like Davis Besse until they were unsafe. Just because the NIMBYs demanded additional profits for the utility company shareholders.
Perhaps you should think about what you post.
The intermittent nature of solar and wind mean that as more is deployed, you need larger and larger backup systems.
What it actually means is that you have more locations where electricity is being produced to cover the gaps. It's a good point that you bring up that we need a massive deployments of wind power in many different locations.
Nuclear can supply all of our energy needs for the foreseeable future. Climate bed-wetters always frame our current situation as solar/wind or nothing.
Nuclear power satisfies roughly 3% of global demand for power. Even if you doubled what we have now it would be 6%. A large scale investment in solar and wind would come online sooner and deliver better energy return on energy invested.
We've run very old Nuclear plants well past their design lifespans safely.
No, we've been extremely lucky.
We would be on 3rd or 4th gen reactors by now - if we could just get some Nuclear deniers out of the way.
If only nuclear idealists could be realists.
Here in America, we need to push Nuclear SMRs into production SOON. NuScale is a perfect example.
Small Modular Reactors are about the dumbest idea I have ever seen. Once those things are at the end of their service life they will be extremely radioactively hot and there will be no way to dispose of it.
You're barking up the wrong tree windbourne, for nuclear to be successful it will have to be in large centralized facilities that incorporate spent fuel storage and reprocessing.
However to make that step a radical improvement in materials technology is required.
Come on, America, it's time to be the adults, look under our own beds, and assure ourselves that the Nuclear Boogeyman is just our imagination.
Whilst the radionuclides and other byproducts of the nuclear industry, like depleted uranium, radio active CFCs, megalitres of radioactive sulfuric acid from mining remain in the environment.
Effective advocates of nuclear power would pose solutions to these issues instead of trying to convince people it's all in their head. This willful ignorance is far more damaging to the unclear industry than any NIMBY could be.
We need nuclear power. Safe nuclear power isn't 'theoretical', it's a reality; there are safer reactor designs on the drawing board right now, but since everyone seems to lose their bladder containment whenever the subject comes up, no money gets allocated into developing them.
Sure, it's just so expensive that no sane investor wants to go near it because whilst it is still prone to human error they are unlikely to see a return on their investment in their lifetime.
Evidence of this is that none of the nuclear plant designs in existence incorporate any of the 30 known improvements to nuclear reactor plant design suggested by industry at the behest of the NRC. Any serious advocate of nuclear power would be lobbying the NRC to make these changes to nuclear reactor design mandatory.
You would also be lobbying to have laws surrounding the illegality of spent fuel facilities in granite removed. However I bet you don't even know that is a law that exists to prevent the proper development of the nuclear industry, it's just easier to blame NIMBYs.
Of course none of this can even begin to happen until 2020; we need to get the current bozo out of office,
I'm not gonna touch that one.
Once we get past that hurdle and back into a sane energy policy, new reactor designs can be developed and implemented. That'll take at least 10 years though.
An entire section (600) in the 2005 US energy policy act is devoted to funding nuclear energy. It is encouraged in every way but used as a means for oil and coal to raid taxpayers wallets because they are the only ones who can *afford* to build them. Solar, wind and everything else are left out where the funding burden is put onto the business sector, with everything else.
Meanwhile continuing development and deployment of solar and wind power, in conjuction with large-scale energy storage strategies, should tide us over, and as capacity in these technologies increases, old-fashioned outdated filthy fossil-fuel-based power plants can be shuttered. Tear them down and build solar farms, so we can reuse the grid connections to them.
I've heard rumbling of converting aging nuclear power plants to natural gas so as to utilise the turbine infrastructure. This is good because we need a way to make it profitable to maintain the sites where the spent fuel is stored until a cetralized repository and infrastructure can be built.
In order to facilitate faster adoption of plug-in electric vehicles, there should be new government programs to promote them. Rebates, credits for decomissioning ICE vehicles, grants to municipalities to fund change-over from diesel buses to electrics, ad campaigns promoting electrics. Get as many people as possible off ICE-based transportation and into electrics.
Part of the dream of Burner reactors is that they can produce enough hydrogen to replace oil as a fuel that maintains the existing vehicle fleet whilst reducing their effective carbon footprint to zero.
Meanwhile continue funding development of practical fusion technology, to eventually replace fission technology.
I've got no problem with the continued develo
A software engineer over 40 is considered used up by a lot of companies, and it only gets worse as you get older.
This meme is created to pit older developers against younger developers and drive down salary costs. It's a pretty ugly thing to have to consider at the beginning of your career, at 25, that you only have 15 years left - so most people don't because who would start a career in software development knowing that?
I think companies are starting to realize that this attitude simply shrinks the availability of software developers. In the meantime more experienced developers find their way into better shops or work on their own business.
Also note that just because your shop values experienced developers, does not mean others do.
Maybe it's your shop that doesn't value experienced developers? However I think this is the core issue, not enough people know about software development to be able to do it well.
There are always shops that take an burn and churn approach to software development because they aren't very good. The good thing about churn and burn shops is that you can learn a lot in a short time, if you survive the pressure then you will probably have a lasting career.
After that you tend to figure out how to apply design patterns and create methods so that you can learn things quickly and you only get to do that in the quality shops where they have been bitten by technical debt and understand how it relates to their business' bottom line. I.e. they give you time so things don't go haywire later.
If you don't move into management-esque positions, your career will plateau early.
Yeah sort of. My experience was to be able to pick up business and project management skills and be able to adapt them to the circumstances you find yourself in. It's this adaptability that links your career to longevity as management starts to ask your advice and takes you more seriously as you can see the big problems before they are. They only have to not listen to you once or twice before they suddenly discover that you are trying to save them time, money and stress.
I repeat two maxims to them, the first: You can do it right the first time or the second time, it's your choice and the second: It's your money (budget) you can waste it however you choose.
Oh it does
yeah, naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah
Nope there always was a legal avenue.
I don't disagree with the point you are making however the point I'm making is there has never been a legal mechanism for government to compel a software company into installing "front-doors" into their software products specifically for government to use until the law was passed at the end of 2018. There has never been a legal mechanism for government to coerce information technologists with fines and jail terms for not co-operating until now.
Mr KAIROS doesn't have the same ring to it.
Laptops that can be "serviced" remotely are exactly what you need to avoid if you value your data security.
The hardware.
Hacks are NOT sold - they are strictly licensed. Will one intel agency tip off other agencies or share the details? You bet.
You really missed the point about there now being a legal avenue to do this.