That's pretty much how they would do it with the NuScaledesign, everything is small and modular. The power modules can be "unhooked" and carried to a refueling area in the pool by crane, that's the whole thing, containment and all, it gets shipped in via barge, rail or truck, so if you need to, you could just ship the whole thing back to the factory too.
Moving a reactor like that when it is new and cold would be different from moving it after it has been running for a couple of decades and it is radioactive. The scope for accidents while the reactor core is in transit (as this would be the logistics of each move) would be quite a serious concern.
It's an interesting approach, I'd really like to see what their plans for transport at the *end* of the reactors lifetime. Thanks for the links!
Wow, pretty over sensitive if that's considered be a Troll. I've cited from finding used in IPCC and presented to the European parliament so I guess this must be a version of Nuclear shill censorship.
Why would you think new plants have the same energy debt as old plants?
Because they are essentially the same machine. I agree that there has been improvements in some new designs, however the reactor vessel is the core component that is energy intensive to dispose of.
New plants are designed with decommissioning in mind,
Do you have something or somewhere specific in mind?
whereas old plants were not and are a bugger to decommission.
Indeed.
Dounreay in the UK has had loads of contamination problems, including masses of asbestos contamination, as well as discharges to the local beach (now closed). But all these old reactor problems are lessons learnt for the newer generation of reactors and designs.
Well you would expect design improvements to be made as experience was gained. The question being what type of improvements. I understand the (EU) EPR is the best option for safety, improvements in the Russian reactors from lessons about Chernobyl and American reactors for making them cheaper to build.
Disposal of the waste is not as difficult as people pretend,
It's very difficult. Groundwater contaimination is a major issue. Stopping things like plutonium chloride from getting into the water table and finding the right geology to store this is a major challenge for geologists. There is some interesting work going on in tying transuranics up in some crystal types of rocks. The crystals are actually green and quite beautiful. Most importantly, they are impervious to water - so the hope is that it can become an industrial process.
and in fact would be simple and cheap if successive generations of politicians not bowed to NIMBY pressure...
Well NIMBY in the context of these reactors is next to some pretty densly populated cities and many millions of people.
Running older reactors can be perfectly safe too;
How old? Nothing is perfect.
costs a bit more,
How much is 'a bit'?
since you have to model how the materials age and replacement can be tricky, but there are specialists who provide those services.
I don't think so. Neutron bombardment of the reactor vessel, the main component of the reactor, is the main factor that limits the life of a nuclear reactor. These aren't exactly the kinds of thing you can call GE and arrange a feild tech to come out and replace.
Typically 40 years operation is the expected lifespan. Micro cracks and fissures are the type of thing expected to occur at the end of it's service life and it's not cost effective to repair. The reactors are approaching the end of their service life so it might be a good idea to gradually wind it down whilst they bring something else on line.
The concern is that some organisations are moving away from the "safety first, money no object" mentality to squeeze more cash out of their already highly-profitable installations.
That's exactly right. Reactors are at their most dangerous at the begining and at the end of their operational lifespan so it's proably a good idea to keep a close eye on these guys so they don't go taking any stupid risks.
Davis Besse Nuclear Power plant is a good example where management ignored signs the reactor wasn't behaving to specification when water filters had to be replaced more often than was normally required. It turned out to be a very fine jet of borated water was spraying onto the inside of the reactor head creating a hole the size of a football through six inchs of stainless steel. I think criminal charges were pressed against the management.
So if the Belgium authorities are keeping an eye on them, it's probably a good idea.
For reactors being torn down, yes it takes energy. But given that we should know how to make plants last 50 years at this point, minimum, it's not actually that big of a proportion. Hell, after 50 years you'll probably be replacing the solar panels as well.
The energy expenditure for *one* reactor decommissioning is around the 30-70TWh range [citing Vattenfal *and* Storm for lower and upper ranges] so with 400 odd reactors around the world we have a roughly 2800TWh energy *debt* pending from existing nuclear reactors in the nuclear industry a decade or two after they are decommissioned. An energy debt that will have to be paid by the great grand children of the baby boomers.
On nuclear accidents - I'll give you that the earliest plants are dangerous. Fukushima, for example was older than Chernobyl or Three Mile Island. Newer plants would be safer.
AP1000 plants have a lower thermal containment ratio (ie, the amount of energy the concrete dome structure can contain) than the installations at Three Mile Island. Additionally AP1000's concrete dome also doubles as a heat exchanger which is not a failure mode that has been tested in anything other than simulations of this type of reactor. So, they maybe newer and more modern, however we won't know for sure if the design changes made are improvements or flawed ideas that can go wrong.
The EPR reactors appear to be a better design over AP1000 for many reason, the most obvious one being a *double* containment building, i.e that massive dome gets *another* structure built over the top of it and main facilities buildings set up so that the whole reactor isn't completely disabled in the event of an emergency. IIRC these are the reactors that Finland is installing.
build new nuclear plants to replace the old ones
I think the economics of building them has really hit the nuclear industry, it's billions of dollars up front and a very long time for any return or value on investment. There is simply better places for money to go. Even if they were built and put online today, none of these new reactor facilities will be producing power for people in 40 to 60 years time because they will be at the end of their service life. The energy debt is to carefully disassemble those reactors so that the toxic elements they contain are captured without being released into the environment.
You're expecting mdsolar's posts to be anti-nuclear and, intentionally or not, he has done quite a good job of exposing the bias of the nuclear shills on/. by posting a report that is designed to support nuclear power. The authors are from IAEA, NRC, and big utility companies like Duke who operate 6-8 nuclear reactors.
The Nuclear shills are criticizing the report of an organisation whose founders state exists to strengthen global security by reducing the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, and also to reduce the risk that they will actually be used.. Who wouldn't want that, especially if you support nuclear power?
They're criticizing a regulatory framework that the NRC has committed to implementing in conjunction with the DOE, FBI, DOHS that lays the regulatory framework for extending Nuclear power around the world.
This is what it looks like when Industry, in this case the nuclear industry, push government when *they* recognise a risk that they want legal frameworks to deal with. What Industry is saying to government is that they are lagging because of the lack of progress on international regulatory frameworks being in place to force *all* radiological materials handlers to comply.
It shows that our nuclear shill friends aren't examining or understanding what is presented and instead are relying on their internal bias and pre-conceived judgement. mdsolar has posted something pro-nuclear, that critiques government's lack of progress on international law required to secure Nuclear power. The appropriate response for a sincere supporter of Nuclear Power would be to say 'boo, government, bad, holding nuclear industry back get those laws in place' but they are too busy pointing fingers at anti-nuke NIMBYs in combi vans that have very little influence over the process. Their great anti-nuke conspiracy theory.
Intentionally or not, mdsolar has gotten the nuclear shills to criticize a report that supports the development of Nuclear power.
Maybe you didn't notice there are two links on the page. It's so much fun when you guys get pissed off, it makes me laugh at you even more because your foolishness deserves ridicule and the *best* you can do is anonymously troll me.
you have reacted exactly as the authors wanted you to.
The authors of this report are a panel of experts including current and formers directors from the IAEA and various Nuclear Regulatory Commissions around the world, Professors, research fellows, 14 authors in all.
To highlight how completely ridiculous your bias is one of "the authors" of the report is the
Director, Nuclear Policy and Support at Duke Energy Corporation and what you're saying is that he is acting against the interests of a company to which he has legal obligations to protect the interests of.
It isn't connected to the internet . These authors do a good job of confusing the reader.
From the article:Our purpose is to show how all countries can improve the security of dangerous nuclear materials - NTI Co-Chairman and former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn.
They do not distinguish between systems that control actual nuclear related equipment, communications and administrative networks, facility controls (hvac), etc. They also dont distingush between facilities that do nuclear research in a lab with little risk to start with vs those that process high grade materials vs those that just store materials.
From the methodology used to produce the Threat Index:The NTI Index differentiates among three sets of countries: (a) countries with one kilogram or more of weapons-usable nuclear
materials (countries with materials), (b) countries with less than one kilogram of or no weapons-usable nuclear materials (countries without materials), and (c) countries with nuclear facilities, the sabotage of which could result in a significant radiological release with serious off-site health consequences.
And they try to make some jump to conclusions that power plants are included, all of which works toward their agenda.
From a 2009 White House joint press release by the President of the United States and President of the Russian Federation:The United States of America and the Russian Federation confirm their commitment to strengthening their cooperation to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and stop acts of nuclear terrorism. We bear special responsibility for security of nuclear weapons. While we reconfirm that security at nuclear facilities in the United States and Russia meets current requirements, we stress that nuclear security requirements need continuous upgrading.
If you are so blinded by your shilling for Nuclear Power that you are prepared to call the process of reducing access to Highly Enriched, weapons grade Uranium to terrorists an 'agenda' you must either have a terrorist agenda of your own or you are so profoundly stupid that you cannot see something that both the US *and* Russian Presidents agree are requirements for "a common vision of the growth of clean, safe, secure and affordable nuclear energy for peaceful purposes".
It's also fair to point out that these types of reactors have had some severe safety problems, in the country of design no less, that shut half of them down and that they generate greater quantities of spent fuel than light water reactors.
Further more, I understand that they generate large quantities of tritium and expel it into the environment, large quantities of Plutonium 239 which drives weapons proliferation and are acknowledged as harder to operate safely than a American reactor.
I understand the enthusiasm for the technology but these are some pretty serious downsides as well aren't they?
a typical uranium based reactor contains 5%-6% fissionable uranium and the rest of 94% is non fissionable.
You're right, thanks for the info.
The total burn up rate, from start till the rods get changed, should be around 3%, not 0.3%
Yes, and no, as the majourity of the fuel can not be burned in an ordinary reactor anyway, but half of the fissionable fuel is burned, it is likely a point of view.
Indeed, we have quite a similar view. My understanding of it was that the density of the coolant and that the fuel rods would be too radioactive when they are extracted are factors that determine the burn-up rate. I'm not sure that the concern is so much about the radioactivity or the delay it imposes on refuelling.
Consider you have one gram of uranium that could power your car 100 times around the globe... however: we have no reactor that can extract that energy from a mere single gram of uranium.
Exactly, and still no place to put it when it is used. They scream "NIMBY" but it doesn't occur to them that the next generation has to clean up their toxic mess just so they can waste electricity.
Yeah, and it never has the CFs right (except for solar, perhaps:D )
I think solar and wind have the most promise for technological development and I predict that as these nuclear reactors go offline the surrounding areas will be littered with wind and solar generation to keep the cooling pools operational for many many decades and roughly 400 nuclear reactors to very carefully disassemble.
I've gotta say I'm amazed at the energy you have to burn these fanbois. I used to do it all the time, but I find their stupidity so tedious. I spent a good 20 years studying this huge industry and I'm fairly convinced that it will collapse under it's own weight. My only concern is a geological stable spent fuel facilities will be built in the respective countries so that they can be stored safely.
It's good speaking to someone with a clue angel'o'sphere.
We do understand that we have concerns, but we really don't care. Why? Because FUCK YOU, that's why!
Now shut up and go back to sleep.
Sincerely,
The Man
Pretty much spot on for some. One response was snarky, others were more like, yeah we don't like it either but it's happening and you can either enjoy being fist fucked or not. That is your democratic right.
Sorta, but not, more angry sad frustrated. A lot of people tried, a lot more didn't. It's not their fault for being deceived, but it also is. Most people are just trying to get by in life and these fuckers come along and just make it harder for everybody cause they haven't got enough money.
And people wonder why I want an armed population...
I don't trust government. It can do good, I don't think we could live without any government (that would be equally silly), but I don't trust them either.
Franklin warned that the American constituion would not stop it from falling into despotism, what he could not possibly have realised that the nation could have extended it's influence so far into so many nations. I think he would weep at what should have been egalitarian over empire, as empires eventually fail. The corruption of the people that he feared was acheived over time by whittling away at education, media freedom, corporation law, campaign funding laws and so many other things because none of our laws protect the populous from the interests of capital.
Whilst the TPP is mainly sponsored by American Corporations who stand to benefit from it's passage, the population will undergo the same plundering of the middle class that other populations will. Don't think you can fight the state with violence though, you will never win. You'd have that right so you can protect your life long enough to enact political change with a pen.
This is what the founders of modern democracies fought against, the wholesale conversion of public rights into capital.
I wish to voice my opposition to the Trans Pacific Partnership Bill. I ask that you reject the Trans Pacific Partnership until proper time has been given for our citizens to analyse it's effect.
Considering there are roughly thirty chapters and 6000 pages in this Trade Agreement I would be expecting it to be scrutinised and proper time for the ramifications to be thoughly assessed and not rushed passed the house, considering there is no emergency that it addresses.
As an important part of a functioning democracy, citizens should be allowed to veiw all documents being presented to the parliment so that the impact on our society can be evaluated. The secrecy that has shoulded this bill over the last few years of it's construction followed by the limited time granted, relative to the amount of pages in the Bill, to allow for such analysis subverts the intention of democratic process.
As our representatives you are bound to provide 'Responsible Government' to citizens. Passing a Bill that cannot be evaluated is not a form of responsible government, for this reason alone the Bill should be rejected.
I would like the house to go further and introduce laws, practises or other available legislative instruments that prevent the rushing any legislation into law that has a detremental effect to the country and, that in the event of any emergency legislation passed as law, a mandatory sunset period that has the duration of the government that sponsors the bill.
The other issues rasied by segments of the TPP leaked on the Internet that effectively give away the effective sovreignty of our nation, through Investor State Dispute Settlements, is disturbing. Chilling effects on the Health, intellectual property and many other things that are nation destroying.
For these reasons, and many more, I ask you to defeat the TPP passing into law, and enact structures that prevent these kinds of agreements ever being rushed through the House.
Do you realize that every single one of the anti-systemd crowd is not advocating what you are talking about (really using init), but the crazy crappy way with symlinks and everything used by every distro that used sysvinit?
Which was *Red Hat's* idea. No, I didn't.
Red Hat layered that crappy rc system over the original, effective and very simple way init implemented things. Now you're telling me that this is the justification for systemd! Such irony, I can't see their second being any better.
It's a shame, init is one of the purest O.S paradigms there is, it really shows the genius of the people who designed UNIX and C in the first place. Simple elegance.
You're right of course, but what you describe is roughly the same work that has to be done with systemd: trimming these insecure faulty initscripts to one invocation line.
In systemd implementations the unit files will use those init scripts. People usually learn the minimum they can get away with and make do from there.
Sometimes it's not possible and requires a shell script, but the work is the same with systemd and truly using sysvinit.
So the point is?
Go back to init and see what it *can* do. It's simplicity makes it extremely flexible for a large amount of boot conditions. I doubt you have a use case it can't satisfy.
But sysvinit is really too limited compared to systemd, and would need lots of shell scripts to work properly, just to bott a Linux system,
How so? Be extremely specific please.
and most importantly, sysvinit needs a competent sysadmin custom configuring it.
What sort of argument for systemd is that? That you don't have to be competent to configure it or that it is necessary to dumb down an elegant, simple, powerful, flexible paradigm for a bloated one so that you understand it?
So will you write to the politicians? There is something on I want to watch - I'll do it later.
Will you discuss it with anyone? No, I'm feeding my face with farce food.
Will you even ring a politician about it? What were we talking about?
Face it, for all of the rage no-one will do *anything* at all, just blah blah blah. We had a chance to stop this and now it is here so just keep pointing fingers at everyone but yourself because that will solve the problem.
So if there isn't enough water shut the thing down preemptively. It's a pain, but that's what you get for stalling and not cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
Making Nuclear are unreliable as you say wind is. Less frequently than wind however with increased duration.
In the interim, if you really must, just have additional combined-cycle (you might not be able to sustain the combined cycle due to the lack of water, but it'll be usable after nuclear shuts down, for a while longer) natural gas generation on standby. It ramps up quickly and is leaps and bounds better than coal.
So your saying that Nuclear will have to rely on a greenhouse emitter because the plant isn't available. How will you cool the gas generator?
Or, you know, don't build nuclear plants in places likely to experience severe drought.
Slashdot Mirror
I think I have a troll, it was modded up and is headed down again. It's their problem.
That's pretty much how they would do it with the NuScale design, everything is small and modular. The power modules can be "unhooked" and carried to a refueling area in the pool by crane, that's the whole thing, containment and all, it gets shipped in via barge, rail or truck, so if you need to, you could just ship the whole thing back to the factory too.
Moving a reactor like that when it is new and cold would be different from moving it after it has been running for a couple of decades and it is radioactive. The scope for accidents while the reactor core is in transit (as this would be the logistics of each move) would be quite a serious concern.
It's an interesting approach, I'd really like to see what their plans for transport at the *end* of the reactors lifetime. Thanks for the links!
Wow, pretty over sensitive if that's considered be a Troll. I've cited from finding used in IPCC and presented to the European parliament so I guess this must be a version of Nuclear shill censorship.
Why would you think new plants have the same energy debt as old plants?
Because they are essentially the same machine. I agree that there has been improvements in some new designs, however the reactor vessel is the core component that is energy intensive to dispose of.
New plants are designed with decommissioning in mind,
Do you have something or somewhere specific in mind?
whereas old plants were not and are a bugger to decommission.
Indeed.
Dounreay in the UK has had loads of contamination problems, including masses of asbestos contamination, as well as discharges to the local beach (now closed). But all these old reactor problems are lessons learnt for the newer generation of reactors and designs.
Well you would expect design improvements to be made as experience was gained. The question being what type of improvements. I understand the (EU) EPR is the best option for safety, improvements in the Russian reactors from lessons about Chernobyl and American reactors for making them cheaper to build.
Disposal of the waste is not as difficult as people pretend,
It's very difficult. Groundwater contaimination is a major issue. Stopping things like plutonium chloride from getting into the water table and finding the right geology to store this is a major challenge for geologists. There is some interesting work going on in tying transuranics up in some crystal types of rocks. The crystals are actually green and quite beautiful. Most importantly, they are impervious to water - so the hope is that it can become an industrial process.
and in fact would be simple and cheap if successive generations of politicians not bowed to NIMBY pressure...
Well NIMBY in the context of these reactors is next to some pretty densly populated cities and many millions of people.
Running older reactors can be perfectly safe too;
How old? Nothing is perfect.
costs a bit more,
How much is 'a bit'?
since you have to model how the materials age and replacement can be tricky, but there are specialists who provide those services.
I don't think so. Neutron bombardment of the reactor vessel, the main component of the reactor, is the main factor that limits the life of a nuclear reactor. These aren't exactly the kinds of thing you can call GE and arrange a feild tech to come out and replace.
Typically 40 years operation is the expected lifespan. Micro cracks and fissures are the type of thing expected to occur at the end of it's service life and it's not cost effective to repair. The reactors are approaching the end of their service life so it might be a good idea to gradually wind it down whilst they bring something else on line.
The concern is that some organisations are moving away from the "safety first, money no object" mentality to squeeze more cash out of their already highly-profitable installations.
That's exactly right. Reactors are at their most dangerous at the begining and at the end of their operational lifespan so it's proably a good idea to keep a close eye on these guys so they don't go taking any stupid risks.
Davis Besse Nuclear Power plant is a good example where management ignored signs the reactor wasn't behaving to specification when water filters had to be replaced more often than was normally required. It turned out to be a very fine jet of borated water was spraying onto the inside of the reactor head creating a hole the size of a football through six inchs of stainless steel. I think criminal charges were pressed against the management.
So if the Belgium authorities are keeping an eye on them, it's probably a good idea.
For reactors being torn down, yes it takes energy. But given that we should know how to make plants last 50 years at this point, minimum, it's not actually that big of a proportion. Hell, after 50 years you'll probably be replacing the solar panels as well.
The energy expenditure for *one* reactor decommissioning is around the 30-70TWh range [citing Vattenfal *and* Storm for lower and upper ranges] so with 400 odd reactors around the world we have a roughly 2800TWh energy *debt* pending from existing nuclear reactors in the nuclear industry a decade or two after they are decommissioned. An energy debt that will have to be paid by the great grand children of the baby boomers.
On nuclear accidents - I'll give you that the earliest plants are dangerous. Fukushima, for example was older than Chernobyl or Three Mile Island. Newer plants would be safer.
AP1000 plants have a lower thermal containment ratio (ie, the amount of energy the concrete dome structure can contain) than the installations at Three Mile Island. Additionally AP1000's concrete dome also doubles as a heat exchanger which is not a failure mode that has been tested in anything other than simulations of this type of reactor. So, they maybe newer and more modern, however we won't know for sure if the design changes made are improvements or flawed ideas that can go wrong.
The EPR reactors appear to be a better design over AP1000 for many reason, the most obvious one being a *double* containment building, i.e that massive dome gets *another* structure built over the top of it and main facilities buildings set up so that the whole reactor isn't completely disabled in the event of an emergency. IIRC these are the reactors that Finland is installing.
build new nuclear plants to replace the old ones
I think the economics of building them has really hit the nuclear industry, it's billions of dollars up front and a very long time for any return or value on investment. There is simply better places for money to go. Even if they were built and put online today, none of these new reactor facilities will be producing power for people in 40 to 60 years time because they will be at the end of their service life. The energy debt is to carefully disassemble those reactors so that the toxic elements they contain are captured without being released into the environment.
but procrastination pays off immediately!!!
You may have missed the point.
You're expecting mdsolar's posts to be anti-nuclear and, intentionally or not, he has done quite a good job of exposing the bias of the nuclear shills on /. by posting a report that is designed to support nuclear power. The authors are from IAEA, NRC, and big utility companies like Duke who operate 6-8 nuclear reactors.
The Nuclear shills are criticizing the report of an organisation whose founders state exists to strengthen global security by reducing the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, and also to reduce the risk that they will actually be used.. Who wouldn't want that, especially if you support nuclear power?
They're arguing against an initiative designed to improve the acceptance of Nuclear power supported by the US and Russians presidents.
They're criticizing a regulatory framework that the NRC has committed to implementing in conjunction with the DOE, FBI, DOHS that lays the regulatory framework for extending Nuclear power around the world.
This is what it looks like when Industry, in this case the nuclear industry, push government when *they* recognise a risk that they want legal frameworks to deal with. What Industry is saying to government is that they are lagging because of the lack of progress on international regulatory frameworks being in place to force *all* radiological materials handlers to comply.
It shows that our nuclear shill friends aren't examining or understanding what is presented and instead are relying on their internal bias and pre-conceived judgement. mdsolar has posted something pro-nuclear, that critiques government's lack of progress on international law required to secure Nuclear power. The appropriate response for a sincere supporter of Nuclear Power would be to say 'boo, government, bad, holding nuclear industry back get those laws in place' but they are too busy pointing fingers at anti-nuke NIMBYs in combi vans that have very little influence over the process. Their great anti-nuke conspiracy theory.
Intentionally or not, mdsolar has gotten the nuclear shills to criticize a report that supports the development of Nuclear power.
Maybe you didn't notice there are two links on the page. It's so much fun when you guys get pissed off, it makes me laugh at you even more because your foolishness deserves ridicule and the *best* you can do is anonymously troll me.
nor facilities that do nuclear related R&D but have no significant amount of nuclear material that would pose any kind of threat.
Obviously you have not even looked at this report. The methodology makes a clear distinction
you have reacted exactly as the authors wanted you to.
The authors of this report are a panel of experts including current and formers directors from the IAEA and various Nuclear Regulatory Commissions around the world, Professors, research fellows, 14 authors in all.
To highlight how completely ridiculous your bias is one of "the authors" of the report is the Director, Nuclear Policy and Support at Duke Energy Corporation and what you're saying is that he is acting against the interests of a company to which he has legal obligations to protect the interests of.
It isn't connected to the internet . These authors do a good job of confusing the reader.
From the article: Our purpose is to show how all countries can improve the security of dangerous nuclear materials - NTI Co-Chairman and former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn.
They do not distinguish between systems that control actual nuclear related equipment, communications and administrative networks, facility controls (hvac), etc. They also dont distingush between facilities that do nuclear research in a lab with little risk to start with vs those that process high grade materials vs those that just store materials.
From the methodology used to produce the Threat Index: The NTI Index differentiates among three sets of countries: (a) countries with one kilogram or more of weapons-usable nuclear materials (countries with materials), (b) countries with less than one kilogram of or no weapons-usable nuclear materials (countries without materials), and (c) countries with nuclear facilities, the sabotage of which could result in a significant radiological release with serious off-site health consequences.
And they try to make some jump to conclusions that power plants are included, all of which works toward their agenda.
From a 2009 White House joint press release by the President of the United States and President of the Russian Federation: The United States of America and the Russian Federation confirm their commitment to strengthening their cooperation to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and stop acts of nuclear terrorism. We bear special responsibility for security of nuclear weapons. While we reconfirm that security at nuclear facilities in the United States and Russia meets current requirements, we stress that nuclear security requirements need continuous upgrading.
If you are so blinded by your shilling for Nuclear Power that you are prepared to call the process of reducing access to Highly Enriched, weapons grade Uranium to terrorists an 'agenda' you must either have a terrorist agenda of your own or you are so profoundly stupid that you cannot see something that both the US *and* Russian Presidents agree are requirements for "a common vision of the growth of clean, safe, secure and affordable nuclear energy for peaceful purposes".
CANDU
It's also fair to point out that these types of reactors have had some severe safety problems, in the country of design no less, that shut half of them down and that they generate greater quantities of spent fuel than light water reactors.
Further more, I understand that they generate large quantities of tritium and expel it into the environment, large quantities of Plutonium 239 which drives weapons proliferation and are acknowledged as harder to operate safely than a American reactor.
I understand the enthusiasm for the technology but these are some pretty serious downsides as well aren't they?
Well,
a typical uranium based reactor contains 5%-6% fissionable uranium and the rest of 94% is non fissionable.
You're right, thanks for the info.
The total burn up rate, from start till the rods get changed, should be around 3%, not 0.3% Yes, and no, as the majourity of the fuel can not be burned in an ordinary reactor anyway, but half of the fissionable fuel is burned, it is likely a point of view.
Indeed, we have quite a similar view. My understanding of it was that the density of the coolant and that the fuel rods would be too radioactive when they are extracted are factors that determine the burn-up rate. I'm not sure that the concern is so much about the radioactivity or the delay it imposes on refuelling.
Consider you have one gram of uranium that could power your car 100 times around the globe ... however: we have no reactor that can extract that energy from a mere single gram of uranium.
Exactly, and still no place to put it when it is used. They scream "NIMBY" but it doesn't occur to them that the next generation has to clean up their toxic mess just so they can waste electricity.
Yeah, and it never has the CFs right (except for solar, perhaps :D )
I think solar and wind have the most promise for technological development and I predict that as these nuclear reactors go offline the surrounding areas will be littered with wind and solar generation to keep the cooling pools operational for many many decades and roughly 400 nuclear reactors to very carefully disassemble.
I've gotta say I'm amazed at the energy you have to burn these fanbois. I used to do it all the time, but I find their stupidity so tedious. I spent a good 20 years studying this huge industry and I'm fairly convinced that it will collapse under it's own weight. My only concern is a geological stable spent fuel facilities will be built in the respective countries so that they can be stored safely.
It's good speaking to someone with a clue angel'o'sphere.
Thank you!
Thank you for trying.
We do understand that we have concerns, but we really don't care. Why? Because FUCK YOU, that's why!
Now shut up and go back to sleep.
Sincerely,
The Man
Pretty much spot on for some. One response was snarky, others were more like, yeah we don't like it either but it's happening and you can either enjoy being fist fucked or not. That is your democratic right.
I know you're trolling,
Sorta, but not, more angry sad frustrated. A lot of people tried, a lot more didn't. It's not their fault for being deceived, but it also is. Most people are just trying to get by in life and these fuckers come along and just make it harder for everybody cause they haven't got enough money.
Why did I even bother voting?
Because if we give up we loose everything.
And people wonder why I want an armed population...
I don't trust government. It can do good, I don't think we could live without any government (that would be equally silly), but I don't trust them either.
Franklin warned that the American constituion would not stop it from falling into despotism, what he could not possibly have realised that the nation could have extended it's influence so far into so many nations. I think he would weep at what should have been egalitarian over empire, as empires eventually fail. The corruption of the people that he feared was acheived over time by whittling away at education, media freedom, corporation law, campaign funding laws and so many other things because none of our laws protect the populous from the interests of capital.
Whilst the TPP is mainly sponsored by American Corporations who stand to benefit from it's passage, the population will undergo the same plundering of the middle class that other populations will. Don't think you can fight the state with violence though, you will never win. You'd have that right so you can protect your life long enough to enact political change with a pen.
This is what the founders of modern democracies fought against, the wholesale conversion of public rights into capital.
You can write until your hands fall off. It won't matter. It's a done deal already.
There is always hope that a violent man will stop being violent one day, but there is no hope for a coward. - Ghandi.
Dear Minister
I wish to voice my opposition to the Trans Pacific Partnership Bill. I ask that you reject the Trans Pacific Partnership until proper time has been given for our citizens to analyse it's effect.
Considering there are roughly thirty chapters and 6000 pages in this Trade Agreement I would be expecting it to be scrutinised and proper time for the ramifications to be thoughly assessed and not rushed passed the house, considering there is no emergency that it addresses.
As an important part of a functioning democracy, citizens should be allowed to veiw all documents being presented to the parliment so that the impact on our society can be evaluated. The secrecy that has shoulded this bill over the last few years of it's construction followed by the limited time granted, relative to the amount of pages in the Bill, to allow for such analysis subverts the intention of democratic process.
As our representatives you are bound to provide 'Responsible Government' to citizens. Passing a Bill that cannot be evaluated is not a form of responsible government, for this reason alone the Bill should be rejected.
I would like the house to go further and introduce laws, practises or other available legislative instruments that prevent the rushing any legislation into law that has a detremental effect to the country and, that in the event of any emergency legislation passed as law, a mandatory sunset period that has the duration of the government that sponsors the bill.
The other issues rasied by segments of the TPP leaked on the Internet that effectively give away the effective sovreignty of our nation, through Investor State Dispute Settlements, is disturbing. Chilling effects on the Health, intellectual property and many other things that are nation destroying.
For these reasons, and many more, I ask you to defeat the TPP passing into law, and enact structures that prevent these kinds of agreements ever being rushed through the House.
Sincerely
Do you realize that every single one of the anti-systemd crowd is not advocating what you are talking about (really using init), but the crazy crappy way with symlinks and everything used by every distro that used sysvinit?
Which was *Red Hat's* idea. No, I didn't.
Red Hat layered that crappy rc system over the original, effective and very simple way init implemented things. Now you're telling me that this is the justification for systemd! Such irony, I can't see their second being any better.
It's a shame, init is one of the purest O.S paradigms there is, it really shows the genius of the people who designed UNIX and C in the first place. Simple elegance.
You're right of course, but what you describe is roughly the same work that has to be done with systemd: trimming these insecure faulty initscripts to one invocation line.
In systemd implementations the unit files will use those init scripts. People usually learn the minimum they can get away with and make do from there.
Sometimes it's not possible and requires a shell script, but the work is the same with systemd and truly using sysvinit.
So the point is?
Go back to init and see what it *can* do. It's simplicity makes it extremely flexible for a large amount of boot conditions. I doubt you have a use case it can't satisfy.
But sysvinit is really too limited compared to systemd, and would need lots of shell scripts to work properly, just to bott a Linux system,
How so? Be extremely specific please.
and most importantly, sysvinit needs a competent sysadmin custom configuring it.
What sort of argument for systemd is that? That you don't have to be competent to configure it or that it is necessary to dumb down an elegant, simple, powerful, flexible paradigm for a bloated one so that you understand it?
So will you write to the politicians? There is something on I want to watch - I'll do it later.
Will you discuss it with anyone? No, I'm feeding my face with farce food.
Will you even ring a politician about it? What were we talking about?
Face it, for all of the rage no-one will do *anything* at all, just blah blah blah. We had a chance to stop this and now it is here so just keep pointing fingers at everyone but yourself because that will solve the problem.
So if there isn't enough water shut the thing down preemptively. It's a pain, but that's what you get for stalling and not cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
Making Nuclear are unreliable as you say wind is. Less frequently than wind however with increased duration.
In the interim, if you really must, just have additional combined-cycle (you might not be able to sustain the combined cycle due to the lack of water, but it'll be usable after nuclear shuts down, for a while longer) natural gas generation on standby. It ramps up quickly and is leaps and bounds better than coal.
So your saying that Nuclear will have to rely on a greenhouse emitter because the plant isn't available. How will you cool the gas generator?
Or, you know, don't build nuclear plants in places likely to experience severe drought.
That isn't an answer, it's an excuse
Just because there are problems with it, doesn't mean it's not the right solution.
Like the scaling problem you erroneously claim with solar and wind.
Nuclear power is deeply flawed, I'm afraid.
FTFY
I do not think this study does what you want it to.
I'm not sure what you mean? The point is not that you can increase the plant efficiency, it is that you expose new basis design issues and untested failure modes in the reactor because this type of event is rare. I explained it elsewhere, the plants weren't designed in a way where you can consume *all* of the primary coolant, in this case river water.
You may not have been aware that we were also discussing this in another thread.