Of course cooling is critical. It does not address my criticism.
Using nuclear power reduces global warming, avoiding this scenario of unavailable cooling.
The quote also has nothing to do with the issue at hand, it's just an incident caused by hardware failure. There's nothing spectacular about it, nor does it relate to unavailable external cooling.
It is *the* issue at hand. Global warming is causing drought in some places. Nuclear reactors weren't designed in a way where you can consume *all* of the primary coolant, in this case river water. If you do, you expose new basis design issues and untested failure modes in the reactor because this type of event (called a Loss Of Cooling Accident) is rare.
That *is* the issue at hand. That is what is meant by "cooling resources" , in this case river water.
What the NRC regulations are telling us is that some things that the operators hadn't seen fail before, failed. It also tells us how well certain parts worked and that's important because when something fails in a nuclear reactor it happens in a sequence.
Too many assumptions? They're all conservative. If I didn't assume what I did, my point would be *strengthened*.
Based on the sheer credibility of the asterixs around the word *strengthened* - who can argue with *that*.
With nuclear power, you don't need the vast majority of that carbon output. That's the thing, we're *replacing* it.
That's interesting so how would you mine the ore. That takes energy. Perhaps you know what yield, in grams per ton of ore, is the minimum before Nuclear energy is no longer viable?
I'm assuming you don't know.
Carbon trapping requires energy. Of course! Just build more plants and you can do it in a carbon-negative way.
Should we continue to build the reactor plants using concrete or are you assuming they are built from origami?
Geological storage is not going to happen that soon. The idea is long-term, once a major part of the world's energy consumption is shifted to nuclear power.
Let's assume it's never going to happen.
Claiming it won't happen because we're using oil is circular reasoning, since the goal is to not use oil (as much as possible).
Claiming everybody is using circular logic is circular logic.
100TW is not a unit of energy. So I have no idea what your number is supposed to mean. TWh? That is just not a credible number. TWs? TWm?
You said: Apparently, worldwide energy consumption is between 10TW and 20TW the same measure you used in your post that I replied to. So I'm assuming your own numbers aren't credible or are you just being pedantic.
It's also only viable with a dense, carbon-neutral or better energy source. The only thing that fits the bill is nuclear power.
So we can assume it will never happen.
Storage is a solvable problem. We're talking about small volumes (in the grand scheme of things) of solids which do not tend to spread.
I assume you know who Dixie Lee Ray was, and when *she* said it would be solved?
It's also temporary, as you imply, until burner reactors are available.
I'll assume you have no idea what that is, how it works, why it's important and what obstacles it faces.
Let's also consider the fact that we have to store massive amounts of waste from burning coal. Storing nuclear waste is much simpler and much safer.
I'm assuming you don't know what Plutonium Chloride does in the water table?
As for the energy required for decommissioning, again, TW is not a unit of energy.
I did give you the benefit of the doubt.
But let's assume you're talking TWh. That amounts to ~10 years of output, out of 50ish. Yes, it's significant, but it's the worst case using what looks like inflated energy costs. Even then, nuclear power still works.
A brand new AP1000 reactor will produce 300TW HOURS over it's lifetime with 50TW HOURS used for decommissioning and another 100TW HOURS used to fuel it, per reactor, explain to me how that would work?
*The figures I supplied you were from works used by the IPCC to assess the viability of nuclear power. The other was from peer reviewed works with contributions from over 10 Universities around the world, including CERN. They weren't assumptions, they were calculated using industry standard measurements for assessing industrial activity.*
The real issue you seem to be ignoring is that none of those options scale nearly well enough to solve the problem.
Let's assume you don't know what you're talking about.
Solving it will require a massive shift towards nuclear power.
Let's assume Wall street thinks that nuclear power is a bad investment. Let's al
It's not a problem of technology - we have the technology to reprocess the fuel and remove the neutron poisons that prevent further burn. Science and engineering solved that decades ago.
Indeed we did, but that doesn't mean you can retrofit that technology into existing reactors. It is a completely different reactor technology. Existing reactor remain at 0.3% burn-up rate and will stay that way until they are decommissioned.
We don't use this technology, because of a problem of politics and fear. It's a problem of emotion, not one of science or engineering. And that problem doesn't get solved nearly as easily or completely.
Everything I have seen is that they are just too expensive and Wall street won't invest in nuclear if they can get a return on investment sooner with wind. Who do you think is to blame?
They're talking about a need for redesigning water intakes to handle lower river levels. I've also heard that they're having problems with thermal pollution of the rivers in question. That indicates to me that plant should have one or more lakes that it draws water from and dumps heat to rather than drawing from the river directly.
Interesting. I heard the issues were around river sediment fouling valve systems.
It's not a problem of water availability as I see it, but rather a problem of poor ability to draw water at low river levels combined with dumping heat directly to the river.
That a lot of re-engineering you are talking about, you can't exactly move the reactor. Do you propose a solution?
Since the plants currently aren't engineered to handle these conditions (and may be unable to improve due to land restrictions), then yes, they should operate at reduced capacity when low river levels occur until the problem is fixed.
How do you get cooling water to the reactor to carry heat to the environment to dissipate if water resources are limited?
You would use your limited water resources to get rid of your limited waste heat. It's all finite right?
They were talking about reactors sucking up river sediment because the rivers are so low. Are you saying you would reduce the generating capacity to match the amount of water available?
The spent fuel is no gold mine as half of the fuel in it is... gone. Hence the name: 'spent'.
The amount of fuel consumed by the reactor is referred to as the burn-up rate. The burn-up rate of most of these reactors are only about 0.3% so they are not very efficient. From my understanding the fuel rods have most of the energy density in them that they started with.
Energy density is often cited as a positive point of nuclear power, at issue though is our ability to access that energy density with the technology we have and what I've learned about the reactors we use is that they aren't very good at it.
Which is why proponents of Nuclear power like to talk about Capacity Factor because it deflects the argument away from discussing things like Availability, Utilization and Efficiency.
In other words, the Earth dissipates away all that sunlight energy every day and my view is that human activity would have to be of similar magnitude before there is a heat dissipation problem.
How do you get cooling water to the reactor to carry heat to the environment to dissipate if water resources are limited?
From the NRC's Engineering Analysis of the failure modes of Nuclear Reactors:
Interfacing system loss-of-coolant accidents (ISLOCAs) are a class of accidents that can result in the
over-pressurization and rupture of systems that interface with the reactor coolant system outside containment.
ISLOCAs have been a concern with regard to public health risk due to the potential for fission product release
directly to the environment, bypassing the containment structure. No ISLOCA events have been identified in
the total U.S. operating experience (1969–1997). However, during the course of this study, one ISLOCA
precursor was identified. The identification of only one ISLOCA precursor in the nearly 2,000 LERs over the
nine-year study period is not unexpected, given that only LERs containing documented reactor trips or manual
trips from power were included in the study set. The types of activities that would normally lead to the
identification of an ISLOCA precursor—maintenance and testing on systems that interface with the reactor
coolant system—are usually performed on interfacing systems while the plant is shutdown.
The ISLOCA precursor event identified in this study did not result in a release of reactor coolant to the
environment. The Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 1 event occurred as a result of a High Pressure Safety Injection
System (HPSI) check valve failing to reseat along with the presence of a differential pressure (d/p) condition
between two primary loops due to a tripped reactor coolant pump. This d/p and the failed open check valve
allowed reactor coolant system water to backflow outside of containment via the HPSI system. The backflow
of the high-temperature reactor coolant heated the HPSI piping enough to cause some combustible material in
contact with the piping to start smoldering.
So that is talking about steam hot enough to be a potential ignition source which shows why cooling is *the* critical system of a Nuclear reactor. Additionally there is a short discussion on the impact of drought on Nuclear reactors is discussed on page 4 of this report from the University of Geneve.
As with all basis design issues in nuclear reactors they are only exposed under certain circumstances - that's just how they work. You can mitigate them by designing processes around them to avoid the situation and look for the events that can initiate that form of accident. Considering it is a primary system we are talking about, it is a low probability accident with a very high impact that the NRC's risk analysis describes as neither trending up or down when the study was down in the 90's.
I think the point you are missing is things that change that risk. The NRC's own reporting stated:
Although no ISLOCA has caused core damage, accumulated operational experience, both in the United States and abroad, indicates that ISLOCA-like events have occurred at a rate higher than expected.
That is an idiotic statement (which, given your general tone, doesn't surprise me).
Attaching yourself to an idealized version of nuclear power and calling someone and idiot before exploring the idea suggests it is too much mental energy for you to challenge your own assumptions. This behaviour has been here since long before you arrived, so don't take it personally, however I've found the Nuclear shilling and finger pointing generally ruin any fact based discussion by polarizing it.
Please, you're not the only smart guy here. There is a place for idealistic thinking however a discussion about Nuclear power requires analytical and realistic thinking to resolve its challenges.
Assuming, Let's assume
I think you've made a few too many assumptions to justify your position. After burning coal and oil, the energy used in the production of concrete is the third biggest contributor to greenhouse gasses which is the biggest construction input to Nuclear power plants.
The biggest carbon input to the nuclear fuel cycle is mining, where you need to process roughly 500 tons of rock to get a kilo of uranium and IIRC the carbon energetic input here is in the 100TW range to fuel the reactor over it's lifetime. The alternative, using of in-situ acid leach mining, highlights the problems of carbon capture as a process that is based on a set of flawed assumptions. If geological storage of these materials was viable then you would see it in use in the US, where in-situ acid leech mining was made illegal for the same liability issues that carbon capture will also face.
1970's era vehicle technology is a interesting comparison (since where would a discussion on this subject be without another car analogy) that drew engine power to spin air pumps that injected pressured fresh air into the exhaust stream so that the overall vehicle emissions measured less at the tailpipe, even though the vehicle used more fuel to drive the pump to create the measurement. Carbon capture will require energetic inputs.
If geological storage of hydrocarbons was viable, we would just leave them in the ground, but we can't because we've designed our economy around them and our main issue is changing the course of those massive entities.
A forestation campaign would help a lot in this regard, but converting carbon dioxide into hydrocarbons is also a valid solution - the catch is that it requires the development of better processes. The advantage is that it also allows for traditional fuels to be synthesized in a carbon-neutral way, making this an easy transition for the big sector that needs them, aviation.
This statement is why I have given you the benefit of the doubt. This is unexplored technology and itself would yield massive industry that, for once, might have a positive impact on the environment. One suggestion I would make is that it would be an ideal for rail and truck fuel. Turn your intellect to this - don't bother wasting your effort on nuclear.
Of course, this all hinges on nuclear power being adopted on a much more massive scale, which presents a number of engineering challenges which will have to be overcome.
The first being geological safe storage of spent nuclear fuel and before anyone points out *breeder* reactor technology, remember that these reactors *create* plutonium. Burner reactors could work *if* we solved the problem of storage and logistics and, *if* we solved the problems of energetic expenditure involved in disposing of these reactors. Funding exists for this reactor technology exists in the 2005 US Energy Act.
The energy expenditure for *one* reactor decommissioning is around the 30-70TW range (citing Vattenfal *and* Storm) so with 400 odd reactors around the world we have a roughly 2800TW 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 t
It all boils down to energy density. Is there any other power generation technology that comes close?
The capacity to extract the energy density of the fuel is measured in the burn-up rate the reactor achieves. The current reactor technology deployed achieves a burn-up rate of 0.3%, that is one third of one percent.
So in reality what it boils down to is the technologies ability to extract that energy density as opposed to the energy density of the fuel itself.
The way ads are shoved down your throat by a bunch of marketing clods shows that they just don't understand the net as anything more than a delivery mechanism. Perhaps this is the advertising industries re-imagining of cheap TV advertising for the Internet? The early days of the net was always about delivering more specific information and that your capability to share that information on the subject dictated authority that was worthy of my hard earned money.
I try to not allow advertising to reach me mostly because I don't have time for it. I don't watch TV or listen to commercial radio so the only advertising that really reaches me is from the net or accidentally encountered. Forbes is not a site I choose to visit, essentially because it holds little interest so in one respect, their campaign has backfired. I've certainly learned a lot more about ad-blocking techniques than I did before by veiwing this at -1 and 0. Would it be possible to see more upmodding of these please moderators?
Latley though the decision about avoiding advertising has been more about protecting my mental health. I don't know if there is any science behind it's long term consequences on people in comparison to the amount of money poured into making advertising effective. To me the messages are so 'in-my-face' toxic that I turn away, mute or do anything not to be exposed to it. One of my friends won't let his kids be exposed to it anymore.
I hope that people one day realise that the void in their life is caused by exposure to the advertising that promises to fill that void.
Yes it is, your inability to make a point without hyperbole is your failing. You are the one whining about nothing being done yet you do not propose what should be done and you can't even make your point to justify anything being done without creating false drama and hyperbole.
In the last 2 years I have read over 600 pages of legislation (including this act). I've written to over 50 politicians and made pages of recommendations to fix laws in respectful constructive ways. You could start there.
Where is the provision that leads USAians to be "slaves" that are "begging for jobs"?
I have provided you with the provisions - read them.
The act does not have mandatory power to force the collection systems to be encrypted, it is optional.
Irrelevant, the data they collect is being transmitted unencrypted over a public network anyway, by you no less.
Indeed, however I didn't choose to have that data stored in an unencrypted database, no less.
Whilst I appreciate your pedantry about meta data being data about data it's importance as a vector to identity crime is undeniable and valuable to those with ill intent.
Ok so you give me a practical example of the metadata they collect and how this can be a problem.
No.
Remember it is just metadata, (i.e. the encrypted message, so if you send your credit card number they do not get that).
meta data that contains an archive of your location and who you associate with. Facebook was a great tool to map out associations, this legislation makes that api irrelevant and is probably a much larger instrument.
they do not have the content
Who is they? Second refer to telecommunications act amendments, this one may not, but the others certainly do.
Then consider how that changes when using a system like TOR, what data do they get then?
Well, as some people have discovered, it gets them a dawn raid and all of their equipment confiscated. Beside most internet users don't have those technical skills, but it's all about you, isn't it? You might, I might but it won't change the fact that most interesting data about you will be stored. How will TOR stop your mobile phone logging into cell towers and how long you talked to who for be recorded in a database to be used for anything it maybe required for. Your going to endure the performance issues that come with TOR for everyday browsing? I'm certain other TOR users wouldn't really appreciate that.
I'm no longer interested your oxymoronic discussion because you have been acting like a troll you can't use a pseudonym.
Unions do have a place and need in certain industries... it's just that tech isn't one of them. Anyone sufficiently competent in the tech industry can improve him/herself and get a better income over time - far faster than the typical Union could ever get you.
Have you considered that it is not just about income for you but having an appropriate body to represent the political interests of the tech industry to legislators? That as a group of professionals there is no one there to represent us at a government level or lobby for or against laws that work against our individual interests as professionals. That a government or corporate level no one takes us seriously because no-one has our back.
Overall, why would I (for example) want to chain myself down to the disadvantages of a Union (seniority-over-merit, cronyism, locked/lockstep wage growth and scheduling, monthly dues, aforementioned dues going to politicians and causes I do not support, being forced to join in some states even if I didn't want to, etc)... but little-to-none of the advantages?
Because whilst you are a great tech, you probably don't read and lobby government about the laws that are going to affect your job and write to elected representatives to protect your interests and indeed, extend them. I'm reading 200-600 pages of legislation per year re technology and would gladly pay someone else to do it.
My own wage growth has far outstripped anything that any union could provide, and has done so for 20 years now. If I don't like my employer, I can have at least two job interviews scheduled by the end of the day, and interviews/screens lined up by end-of-week.
Well if it's just all about me then it's probably ok. However that attitude doesn't make it any easier for someone to get a foot in the door for who might just have less access to an opportunity because that job is overseas.
As a group of professionals I think we have to grow out of the attitude that it's all about what I can get for me. If we had professional body looking after our interests then we may not see things like the IP provisions in the TPP or the H1B visa arrangements that we do.
Probably because the frog has been boiled so slowly, people don't notice that the duration between road repairs gets longer and longer or that essential government services are stretched and budgets decreased. People get used to paying more to get less from their government.
Nothing to do with metadata collection or the mass surveillance that has been going on for years, try again.
You yourself said If that is indeed true then it should be pretty easy for you to prove. The problem with these theories is the lack of evidence to actually support them. So when I call your bluff and provide evidence you attempt to change the parameters of what the proof should be. I think you are the one who has tried again, and failed.
That doesnt make USAians my countrymen.
In other words, you don't know if you are subject to meta data retention laws or anything about their affect in your own country. Your opinion offers little value.
You claim to be knowledgeable on this subject so I really am interested.
No, you are being obstinate. You have been provided with the evidence you require. Take 20 minutes to read what you have been presented with. If you were interested you would have already.
When you resort to creating drama with hyperbole all that demonstrates is either your frustration at your inability to express yourself or the lack of weight of your argument.
Is that so? Perhaps I am frustrated by your lack of a point and insincerity. Perhaps choices have always been a problem for you because you aren't aware which ones are available. The choices you present are limited, naive.
I am genuinely interested in what you have to say *IF* you can do it without the hyperbole
Certainly, though you haven't really been specific about what, these are common provisions of anti-terrorism acts, the specifics are for my country:
In the first version of the act, the limitations to body cavity searches on minors was 8 years old. IIRC the age was revised to 16 years old now.
Strict liability clauses exist in the act so that divulging the nature of an arrest *you witness* gets you 5 years jail.
The state confiscates all evidence associated with the arrest and the onus is on the accused to provide evidence of their innocence, whilst the state possesses it.
Is there something specific, that you can think of, that you may require assistance with?
Since the act does not mandate the data be encrypted it is effectively the same thing.
Wrong. This is metadata, this is not your name, address and credit card number, try again.
The act does not have mandatory power to force the collection systems to be encrypted, it is optional. You demonstrate ignorance on this matter.
Whilst I appreciate your pedantry about meta data being data about data it's importance as a vector to identity crime is undeniable and valuable to those with ill intent. The point you are attempting to make with your pendantry about what metadata *is*, is missing consideration of what it can be used *for*. Perhaps that is beyond you.
The *relevance* for what meta data is recorded, is according to the act, of which there is a schedule, of which, name, address and billing systems data is considered metadata for collection and is not subject to mandatory encryption.
IP and MAC address is also in there too, so break out that address, phone, and credit card details in your reply so you can get an idea of the objectively changed life that you asked for.
Mass surveillance of a much more intrusive nature has been going on for years, what ignorant rock have you been living under? Mass surveillance of a much more intrusive nature has been going on for years.
What has existing programs got to do with extending it a
Sending private information unencrypted over any 3rd party network is an insecure, we have known this for decades, if not centuries! Still not learning the lesson? Use encryption, anonymizing routing software and burner email accounts because even if you get the government to promise they won't scour public networks for information and you actually believe them do you really think other people are not doing it too?
None of which will help you against a state that has the resources to map the endpoints in your associations, which is the point of recording metadata.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course cooling is critical. It does not address my criticism.
Using nuclear power reduces global warming, avoiding this scenario of unavailable cooling.
The quote also has nothing to do with the issue at hand, it's just an incident caused by hardware failure. There's nothing spectacular about it, nor does it relate to unavailable external cooling.
It is *the* issue at hand. Global warming is causing drought in some places. Nuclear reactors weren't designed in a way where you can consume *all* of the primary coolant, in this case river water. If you do, you expose new basis design issues and untested failure modes in the reactor because this type of event (called a Loss Of Cooling Accident) is rare.
That *is* the issue at hand. That is what is meant by "cooling resources" , in this case river water.
What the NRC regulations are telling us is that some things that the operators hadn't seen fail before, failed. It also tells us how well certain parts worked and that's important because when something fails in a nuclear reactor it happens in a sequence.
Too many assumptions? They're all conservative. If I didn't assume what I did, my point would be *strengthened*.
Based on the sheer credibility of the asterixs around the word *strengthened* - who can argue with *that*.
With nuclear power, you don't need the vast majority of that carbon output. That's the thing, we're *replacing* it.
That's interesting so how would you mine the ore. That takes energy. Perhaps you know what yield, in grams per ton of ore, is the minimum before Nuclear energy is no longer viable?
I'm assuming you don't know.
Carbon trapping requires energy. Of course! Just build more plants and you can do it in a carbon-negative way.
Should we continue to build the reactor plants using concrete or are you assuming they are built from origami?
Geological storage is not going to happen that soon. The idea is long-term, once a major part of the world's energy consumption is shifted to nuclear power.
Let's assume it's never going to happen.
Claiming it won't happen because we're using oil is circular reasoning, since the goal is to not use oil (as much as possible).
Claiming everybody is using circular logic is circular logic.
100TW is not a unit of energy. So I have no idea what your number is supposed to mean. TWh? That is just not a credible number. TWs? TWm?
You said: Apparently, worldwide energy consumption is between 10TW and 20TW the same measure you used in your post that I replied to. So I'm assuming your own numbers aren't credible or are you just being pedantic.
It's also only viable with a dense, carbon-neutral or better energy source. The only thing that fits the bill is nuclear power.
So we can assume it will never happen.
Storage is a solvable problem. We're talking about small volumes (in the grand scheme of things) of solids which do not tend to spread.
I assume you know who Dixie Lee Ray was, and when *she* said it would be solved?
It's also temporary, as you imply, until burner reactors are available.
I'll assume you have no idea what that is, how it works, why it's important and what obstacles it faces.
Let's also consider the fact that we have to store massive amounts of waste from burning coal. Storing nuclear waste is much simpler and much safer.
I'm assuming you don't know what Plutonium Chloride does in the water table?
As for the energy required for decommissioning, again, TW is not a unit of energy.
I did give you the benefit of the doubt.
But let's assume you're talking TWh. That amounts to ~10 years of output, out of 50ish. Yes, it's significant, but it's the worst case using what looks like inflated energy costs. Even then, nuclear power still works.
A brand new AP1000 reactor will produce 300TW HOURS over it's lifetime with 50TW HOURS used for decommissioning and another 100TW HOURS used to fuel it, per reactor, explain to me how that would work?
*The figures I supplied you were from works used by the IPCC to assess the viability of nuclear power. The other was from peer reviewed works with contributions from over 10 Universities around the world, including CERN. They weren't assumptions, they were calculated using industry standard measurements for assessing industrial activity.*
The real issue you seem to be ignoring is that none of those options scale nearly well enough to solve the problem.
Let's assume you don't know what you're talking about.
Solving it will require a massive shift towards nuclear power.
Let's assume Wall street thinks that nuclear power is a bad investment. Let's al
It's not a problem of technology - we have the technology to reprocess the fuel and remove the neutron poisons that prevent further burn. Science and engineering solved that decades ago.
Indeed we did, but that doesn't mean you can retrofit that technology into existing reactors. It is a completely different reactor technology. Existing reactor remain at 0.3% burn-up rate and will stay that way until they are decommissioned.
We don't use this technology, because of a problem of politics and fear. It's a problem of emotion, not one of science or engineering. And that problem doesn't get solved nearly as easily or completely.
Everything I have seen is that they are just too expensive and Wall street won't invest in nuclear if they can get a return on investment sooner with wind. Who do you think is to blame?
They're talking about a need for redesigning water intakes to handle lower river levels. I've also heard that they're having problems with thermal pollution of the rivers in question. That indicates to me that plant should have one or more lakes that it draws water from and dumps heat to rather than drawing from the river directly.
Interesting. I heard the issues were around river sediment fouling valve systems.
It's not a problem of water availability as I see it, but rather a problem of poor ability to draw water at low river levels combined with dumping heat directly to the river.
That a lot of re-engineering you are talking about, you can't exactly move the reactor. Do you propose a solution?
Since the plants currently aren't engineered to handle these conditions (and may be unable to improve due to land restrictions), then yes, they should operate at reduced capacity when low river levels occur until the problem is fixed.
Indeed.
While I think that the current alleged consensus on catastrophic global warming and other climate change is grossly exaggerated,
What do you mean?
I don't see fossil fuels being used as they currently are forever.
How will they be used?
There will come a time when we'll switch to other things.
Like what?
How do you get cooling water to the reactor to carry heat to the environment to dissipate if water resources are limited?
You would use your limited water resources to get rid of your limited waste heat. It's all finite right?
They were talking about reactors sucking up river sediment because the rivers are so low. Are you saying you would reduce the generating capacity to match the amount of water available?
The spent fuel is no gold mine as half of the fuel in it is ... gone. Hence the name: 'spent'.
The amount of fuel consumed by the reactor is referred to as the burn-up rate. The burn-up rate of most of these reactors are only about 0.3% so they are not very efficient. From my understanding the fuel rods have most of the energy density in them that they started with.
Energy density is often cited as a positive point of nuclear power, at issue though is our ability to access that energy density with the technology we have and what I've learned about the reactors we use is that they aren't very good at it.
Which is why proponents of Nuclear power like to talk about Capacity Factor because it deflects the argument away from discussing things like Availability, Utilization and Efficiency.
Which are more expensive and so won't be built.
The scenario is more interesting than you might of had time to look into. Thank you again for a great discussion.
Technology is well on its way to disentangling standard of living from a reliance on fossil fuels.
Anything specific you are talking about?
In other words, the Earth dissipates away all that sunlight energy every day and my view is that human activity would have to be of similar magnitude before there is a heat dissipation problem.
How do you get cooling water to the reactor to carry heat to the environment to dissipate if water resources are limited?
From the NRC's Engineering Analysis of the failure modes of Nuclear Reactors:
Interfacing system loss-of-coolant accidents (ISLOCAs) are a class of accidents that can result in the over-pressurization and rupture of systems that interface with the reactor coolant system outside containment. ISLOCAs have been a concern with regard to public health risk due to the potential for fission product release directly to the environment, bypassing the containment structure. No ISLOCA events have been identified in the total U.S. operating experience (1969–1997). However, during the course of this study, one ISLOCA precursor was identified. The identification of only one ISLOCA precursor in the nearly 2,000 LERs over the nine-year study period is not unexpected, given that only LERs containing documented reactor trips or manual trips from power were included in the study set. The types of activities that would normally lead to the identification of an ISLOCA precursor—maintenance and testing on systems that interface with the reactor coolant system—are usually performed on interfacing systems while the plant is shutdown.
The ISLOCA precursor event identified in this study did not result in a release of reactor coolant to the environment. The Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 1 event occurred as a result of a High Pressure Safety Injection System (HPSI) check valve failing to reseat along with the presence of a differential pressure (d/p) condition between two primary loops due to a tripped reactor coolant pump. This d/p and the failed open check valve allowed reactor coolant system water to backflow outside of containment via the HPSI system. The backflow of the high-temperature reactor coolant heated the HPSI piping enough to cause some combustible material in contact with the piping to start smoldering.
So that is talking about steam hot enough to be a potential ignition source which shows why cooling is *the* critical system of a Nuclear reactor. Additionally there is a short discussion on the impact of drought on Nuclear reactors is discussed on page 4 of this report from the University of Geneve.
As with all basis design issues in nuclear reactors they are only exposed under certain circumstances - that's just how they work. You can mitigate them by designing processes around them to avoid the situation and look for the events that can initiate that form of accident. Considering it is a primary system we are talking about, it is a low probability accident with a very high impact that the NRC's risk analysis describes as neither trending up or down when the study was down in the 90's.
I think the point you are missing is things that change that risk. The NRC's own reporting stated:
Although no ISLOCA has caused core damage, accumulated operational experience, both in the United States and abroad, indicates that ISLOCA-like events have occurred at a rate higher than expected.
Power-generation system vulnerability and adaptation to changes in climate and water resources
And we're five orders of magnitude away from exhausting those cooling resources
How do you arrive at that figure?
That is an idiotic statement (which, given your general tone, doesn't surprise me).
Attaching yourself to an idealized version of nuclear power and calling someone and idiot before exploring the idea suggests it is too much mental energy for you to challenge your own assumptions. This behaviour has been here since long before you arrived, so don't take it personally, however I've found the Nuclear shilling and finger pointing generally ruin any fact based discussion by polarizing it.
Please, you're not the only smart guy here. There is a place for idealistic thinking however a discussion about Nuclear power requires analytical and realistic thinking to resolve its challenges.
Assuming, Let's assume
I think you've made a few too many assumptions to justify your position. After burning coal and oil, the energy used in the production of concrete is the third biggest contributor to greenhouse gasses which is the biggest construction input to Nuclear power plants.
The biggest carbon input to the nuclear fuel cycle is mining, where you need to process roughly 500 tons of rock to get a kilo of uranium and IIRC the carbon energetic input here is in the 100TW range to fuel the reactor over it's lifetime. The alternative, using of in-situ acid leach mining, highlights the problems of carbon capture as a process that is based on a set of flawed assumptions. If geological storage of these materials was viable then you would see it in use in the US, where in-situ acid leech mining was made illegal for the same liability issues that carbon capture will also face.
1970's era vehicle technology is a interesting comparison (since where would a discussion on this subject be without another car analogy) that drew engine power to spin air pumps that injected pressured fresh air into the exhaust stream so that the overall vehicle emissions measured less at the tailpipe, even though the vehicle used more fuel to drive the pump to create the measurement. Carbon capture will require energetic inputs.
If geological storage of hydrocarbons was viable, we would just leave them in the ground, but we can't because we've designed our economy around them and our main issue is changing the course of those massive entities.
A forestation campaign would help a lot in this regard, but converting carbon dioxide into hydrocarbons is also a valid solution - the catch is that it requires the development of better processes. The advantage is that it also allows for traditional fuels to be synthesized in a carbon-neutral way, making this an easy transition for the big sector that needs them, aviation.
This statement is why I have given you the benefit of the doubt. This is unexplored technology and itself would yield massive industry that, for once, might have a positive impact on the environment. One suggestion I would make is that it would be an ideal for rail and truck fuel. Turn your intellect to this - don't bother wasting your effort on nuclear.
Of course, this all hinges on nuclear power being adopted on a much more massive scale, which presents a number of engineering challenges which will have to be overcome.
The first being geological safe storage of spent nuclear fuel and before anyone points out *breeder* reactor technology, remember that these reactors *create* plutonium. Burner reactors could work *if* we solved the problem of storage and logistics and, *if* we solved the problems of energetic expenditure involved in disposing of these reactors. Funding exists for this reactor technology exists in the 2005 US Energy Act.
The energy expenditure for *one* reactor decommissioning is around the 30-70TW range (citing Vattenfal *and* Storm) so with 400 odd reactors around the world we have a roughly 2800TW 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 t
It all boils down to energy density. Is there any other power generation technology that comes close?
The capacity to extract the energy density of the fuel is measured in the burn-up rate the reactor achieves. The current reactor technology deployed achieves a burn-up rate of 0.3%, that is one third of one percent.
So in reality what it boils down to is the technologies ability to extract that energy density as opposed to the energy density of the fuel itself.
This.
The way ads are shoved down your throat by a bunch of marketing clods shows that they just don't understand the net as anything more than a delivery mechanism. Perhaps this is the advertising industries re-imagining of cheap TV advertising for the Internet? The early days of the net was always about delivering more specific information and that your capability to share that information on the subject dictated authority that was worthy of my hard earned money.
I try to not allow advertising to reach me mostly because I don't have time for it. I don't watch TV or listen to commercial radio so the only advertising that really reaches me is from the net or accidentally encountered. Forbes is not a site I choose to visit, essentially because it holds little interest so in one respect, their campaign has backfired. I've certainly learned a lot more about ad-blocking techniques than I did before by veiwing this at -1 and 0. Would it be possible to see more upmodding of these please moderators?
Latley though the decision about avoiding advertising has been more about protecting my mental health. I don't know if there is any science behind it's long term consequences on people in comparison to the amount of money poured into making advertising effective. To me the messages are so 'in-my-face' toxic that I turn away, mute or do anything not to be exposed to it. One of my friends won't let his kids be exposed to it anymore.
I hope that people one day realise that the void in their life is caused by exposure to the advertising that promises to fill that void.
What's a redear?
It's the opposite of a wrytur with bad smelling.
That's no moon
Thank you!
Would it be possible to provide a link to the draft bill in these stories please?
Yes it is, your inability to make a point without hyperbole is your failing. You are the one whining about nothing being done yet you do not propose what should be done and you can't even make your point to justify anything being done without creating false drama and hyperbole.
In the last 2 years I have read over 600 pages of legislation (including this act). I've written to over 50 politicians and made pages of recommendations to fix laws in respectful constructive ways. You could start there.
Where is the provision that leads USAians to be "slaves" that are "begging for jobs"?
I have provided you with the provisions - read them.
The act does not have mandatory power to force the collection systems to be encrypted, it is optional.
Irrelevant, the data they collect is being transmitted unencrypted over a public network anyway, by you no less.
Indeed, however I didn't choose to have that data stored in an unencrypted database, no less.
Whilst I appreciate your pedantry about meta data being data about data it's importance as a vector to identity crime is undeniable and valuable to those with ill intent.
Ok so you give me a practical example of the metadata they collect and how this can be a problem.
No.
Remember it is just metadata, (i.e. the encrypted message, so if you send your credit card number they do not get that).
meta data that contains an archive of your location and who you associate with. Facebook was a great tool to map out associations, this legislation makes that api irrelevant and is probably a much larger instrument.
they do not have the content
Who is they? Second refer to telecommunications act amendments, this one may not, but the others certainly do.
Then consider how that changes when using a system like TOR, what data do they get then?
Well, as some people have discovered, it gets them a dawn raid and all of their equipment confiscated. Beside most internet users don't have those technical skills, but it's all about you, isn't it? You might, I might but it won't change the fact that most interesting data about you will be stored. How will TOR stop your mobile phone logging into cell towers and how long you talked to who for be recorded in a database to be used for anything it maybe required for. Your going to endure the performance issues that come with TOR for everyday browsing? I'm certain other TOR users wouldn't really appreciate that.
I'm no longer interested your oxymoronic discussion because you have been acting like a troll you can't use a pseudonym.
Unions do have a place and need in certain industries... it's just that tech isn't one of them. Anyone sufficiently competent in the tech industry can improve him/herself and get a better income over time - far faster than the typical Union could ever get you.
Have you considered that it is not just about income for you but having an appropriate body to represent the political interests of the tech industry to legislators? That as a group of professionals there is no one there to represent us at a government level or lobby for or against laws that work against our individual interests as professionals. That a government or corporate level no one takes us seriously because no-one has our back.
Overall, why would I (for example) want to chain myself down to the disadvantages of a Union (seniority-over-merit, cronyism, locked/lockstep wage growth and scheduling, monthly dues, aforementioned dues going to politicians and causes I do not support, being forced to join in some states even if I didn't want to, etc)... but little-to-none of the advantages?
Because whilst you are a great tech, you probably don't read and lobby government about the laws that are going to affect your job and write to elected representatives to protect your interests and indeed, extend them. I'm reading 200-600 pages of legislation per year re technology and would gladly pay someone else to do it.
My own wage growth has far outstripped anything that any union could provide, and has done so for 20 years now. If I don't like my employer, I can have at least two job interviews scheduled by the end of the day, and interviews/screens lined up by end-of-week.
Well if it's just all about me then it's probably ok. However that attitude doesn't make it any easier for someone to get a foot in the door for who might just have less access to an opportunity because that job is overseas.
As a group of professionals I think we have to grow out of the attitude that it's all about what I can get for me. If we had professional body looking after our interests then we may not see things like the IP provisions in the TPP or the H1B visa arrangements that we do.
In all, we maybe taken a little more seriously.
If you sell your competitive advantage, you shouldn't be surprised or complain when someone uses it.
Probably because the frog has been boiled so slowly, people don't notice that the duration between road repairs gets longer and longer or that essential government services are stretched and budgets decreased. People get used to paying more to get less from their government.
Nothing to do with metadata collection or the mass surveillance that has been going on for years, try again.
You yourself said If that is indeed true then it should be pretty easy for you to prove. The problem with these theories is the lack of evidence to actually support them. So when I call your bluff and provide evidence you attempt to change the parameters of what the proof should be. I think you are the one who has tried again, and failed.
That doesnt make USAians my countrymen.
In other words, you don't know if you are subject to meta data retention laws or anything about their affect in your own country. Your opinion offers little value.
You claim to be knowledgeable on this subject so I really am interested.
No, you are being obstinate. You have been provided with the evidence you require. Take 20 minutes to read what you have been presented with. If you were interested you would have already.
When you resort to creating drama with hyperbole all that demonstrates is either your frustration at your inability to express yourself or the lack of weight of your argument.
Is that so? Perhaps I am frustrated by your lack of a point and insincerity. Perhaps choices have always been a problem for you because you aren't aware which ones are available. The choices you present are limited, naive.
I am genuinely interested in what you have to say *IF* you can do it without the hyperbole
Certainly, though you haven't really been specific about what, these are common provisions of anti-terrorism acts, the specifics are for my country:
In the first version of the act, the limitations to body cavity searches on minors was 8 years old. IIRC the age was revised to 16 years old now.
Strict liability clauses exist in the act so that divulging the nature of an arrest *you witness* gets you 5 years jail.
The state confiscates all evidence associated with the arrest and the onus is on the accused to provide evidence of their innocence, whilst the state possesses it.
Is there something specific, that you can think of, that you may require assistance with?
Since the act does not mandate the data be encrypted it is effectively the same thing.
Wrong. This is metadata, this is not your name, address and credit card number, try again.
The act does not have mandatory power to force the collection systems to be encrypted, it is optional. You demonstrate ignorance on this matter.
Whilst I appreciate your pedantry about meta data being data about data it's importance as a vector to identity crime is undeniable and valuable to those with ill intent. The point you are attempting to make with your pendantry about what metadata *is*, is missing consideration of what it can be used *for*. Perhaps that is beyond you.
The *relevance* for what meta data is recorded, is according to the act, of which there is a schedule, of which, name, address and billing systems data is considered metadata for collection and is not subject to mandatory encryption.
IP and MAC address is also in there too, so break out that address, phone, and credit card details in your reply so you can get an idea of the objectively changed life that you asked for.
Mass surveillance of a much more intrusive nature has been going on for years, what ignorant rock have you been living under? Mass surveillance of a much more intrusive nature has been going on for years.
What has existing programs got to do with extending it a
Thank you Captain Obvious.
Sending private information unencrypted over any 3rd party network is an insecure, we have known this for decades, if not centuries! Still not learning the lesson? Use encryption, anonymizing routing software and burner email accounts because even if you get the government to promise they won't scour public networks for information and you actually believe them do you really think other people are not doing it too?
None of which will help you against a state that has the resources to map the endpoints in your associations, which is the point of recording metadata.