|
FAUXTON posted:I can't imagine how a reactor of any kind would achieve the conditions necessary for a "nuclear bomb" type explosion. I would imagine Chernobyl was the closest to that and it didn't even level the building, let alone the plant complex. They kept running the other reactor well into the 1990s even.
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 14:13 |
|
|
Salt Fish posted:They kept running the other reactor well into the 1990s even. Reactors 1 and 3 ran up till 2000
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
Although its not clear to me how much of that was because they had to and how much was because they could.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 04:53
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:Although its not clear to me how much of that was because they had to and how much was because they could. It was more due to regional demand, reactor 2 went up in flames in 1991 as well, so they were down to those two which were relieved as soon as new plants came online.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
Morbus posted:I think it is a stretch to call it stupid. The kind of reactors you need to build, and the kind of reprocessing infrastructure you need to have, in order to make more efficient use of Uranium, are the same reactors and reprocessing infrastructure you need to make plutonium for weapons. "Wasteful" light water technology that uses uranium much less efficiently is much more proliferation resistant. If you take a proper fast reactor and feed it nuclear waste, the plutonium is going to be so contaminated with short half life crap for the mid term you'd be better off starting fresh to build a bomb.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 10:02
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Crickets & Jam M8
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 10:03
|
|
|
I feel the technical issues with nuclear reactors, waste recycling and management, and so on are eminently surmountable. Instead, what we have in my country (UK) is a very unfavourable political economy: a small number of private utilities with a known history of cartel behaviour, a weak energy regulator, a pro-austerity government and opposition desperate for private infrastructural investment, and a political system highly susceptible to industrial and financial interests. Nuclear energy seems to me to have all the features of a state-private venture ripe for skimming off public money: a very limited and specialised number of suppliers (reducing competition), highly risky financials (leading to guaranteed strike prices), and the very long lead time of construction and maintenance (locking in consumers and allowing decommissioning to be ultimately offloaded on to the public). As someone working on climate change mitigation, it seems to me an expensive distraction that (in the case of the UK) wont lead to a substantial impact on our carbon budget and will divert limited public funds (as well as attitudes) away from needed investments in electricity distribution, grid resilience and demand reduction, ultimately paving the way for cost reductions in the renewable sector.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 10:45
|
|
|
Myotis posted:I feel the technical issues with nuclear reactors, waste recycling and management, and so on are eminently surmountable. Instead, what we have in my country (UK) is a very unfavourable political economy: a small number of private utilities with a known history of cartel behaviour, a weak energy regulator, a pro-austerity government and opposition desperate for private infrastructural investment, and a political system highly susceptible to industrial and financial interests. It is true that Nuclear Power is still in the "Big government provides you electricity" model. Governments like dependence. Something like HCPV's and Molten Salt batteries can be scaled down to small community/neighborhood electricity grids. I think I read somewhere that Tesla was testing some lithium home batteries. Maybe this is an answer. Example you setup a subdivision with it's own High Concentration Photo Voltaic station, and individual batteries on each residence. Usage would be on a sliding scale to encourage conservation, the farther you are from the average use, the more you pay per unit of energy, the lower you are from the average use the less you pay per unit. Something like this could be workable in the sunbelt, maybe.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
This is a post pretending that "greens" have literally any say about anything, especially in the US, and that deference to their demands wasn't something that was going to happen anyways as nuclear plants became too expensive to build and decommission and fell victim to NIMBYism. Like, Three Mile Island and Fukushima happened. Blame the media for playing those events up, not "greens" who have accomplished literally nothing ever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Radbot posted:This is a post pretending that "greens" have literally any say about anything, especially in the US, and that deference to their demands wasn't something that was going to happen anyways as nuclear plants became too expensive to build and decommission and fell victim to NIMBYism. Plus, it wasn't politics that shut down SONGS or Crystal River, it was operator stupidity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Like, Three Mile Island and Fukushima happened. Blame the media for playing those events up, not "greens" who have accomplished literally nothing ever. Nothing happened at Three Mile Island. A Meltdown occured and was contained, the other reactor is still in service. It was a success, not a failure.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Nothing happened at Three Mile Island. A Meltdown occured and was contained, the other reactor is still in service. It was a success, not a failure. No poo poo. Now tell that to the media at the time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
Dahn posted:It is true that Nuclear Power is still in the "Big government provides you electricity" model. Governments like dependence. This post reads like the lead-in to some bitcoiner sales pitch. Decentralizing maintenance and operations responsibility means you need a fleet of generator-specific maintenance staff rather than having them all work at the plant. The concept of throwing a reactor of any kind at the end of every other block introduces so many points of failure you might as well just go on to explain how you plan to scale down load-balancing and site security and pay to host regular neighborhood seminars on accident contingency plans, even if accidents are infinitesimally improbable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Nothing happened at Three Mile Island. A Meltdown occured and was contained, the other reactor is still in service. It was a success, not a failure. It was a success from a safety perspective and yet still a massive failure on the Metropolitan Edison ledger.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:It was a success from a safety perspective and yet still a massive failure on the Metropolitan Edison ledger. True, very true. I was speaking more in terms of the safety and resulting damage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:True, very true. I was speaking more in terms of the safety and resulting damage. The concept of "successful accident" is hard to parse for a lot of people, mainly because of the unplanned aspect of an accident. If the meltdown was a staged demonstration of containment the thinking on it would be different ("oh they're so safe they can compromise all the safety hurdles and melt the core without irradiating the surrounding area") but the end result (melted core pooled at the bottom of the containment shell with no release into the external environment) would be the same. It's unfortunate, really.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:The concept of "successful accident" is hard to parse for a lot of people, mainly because of the unplanned aspect of an accident. If the meltdown was a staged demonstration of containment the thinking on it would be different ("oh they're so safe they can compromise all the safety hurdles and melt the core without irradiating the surrounding area") but the end result (melted core pooled at the bottom of the containment shell with no release into the external environment) would be the same. It's unfortunate, really. The problem is that even if the safety systems worked and prevented the accident from spreading beyond the plant, the plant was still ruined. 21% of all nuclear plants in the US have been shut down due to reliability or cost problems and a further 27% had outages lasting a year or more. If you are a portfolio planner for a utility and you look and see Socal Edison, Metro Edison, Duke and Entergy all lose poo poo tons of money due to misplaced investments in nuclear, you'd be very hesitant to think you're smarter than them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The problem is that even if the safety systems worked and prevented the accident from spreading beyond the plant, the plant was still ruined. TMI had two reactors, the one that didn't melt down is still running and generating power for something like 2 million people. Trabisnikof posted:21% of all nuclear plants in the US have been shut down due to reliability or cost problems and a further 27% had outages lasting a year or more. If you are a portfolio planner for a utility and you look and see Socal Edison, Metro Edison, Duke and Entergy all lose poo poo tons of money due to misplaced investments in nuclear, you'd be very hesitant to think you're smarter than them. I wonder why it's so expensive to build and maintain the existing inventory of nuclear plants.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:This post reads like the lead-in to some bitcoiner sales pitch. Decentralizing maintenance and operations responsibility means you need a fleet of generator-specific maintenance staff rather than having them all work at the plant. The concept of throwing a reactor of any kind at the end of every other block introduces so many points of failure you might as well just go on to explain how you plan to scale down load-balancing and site security and pay to host regular neighborhood seminars on accident contingency plans, even if accidents are infinitesimally improbable. I am sorry for your bitcoin loss my friend. HCPV is a still under development solar solution. It is not a perfect solution, still under development. Your the woodpecker to my weasel, or am I the weasel to your woodpecker. Or am I the ....ok this is boring
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 04:02
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:TMI had two reactors, the one that didn't melt down is still running and generating power for something like 2 million people. Yes and that's the whole point. Investing in 2 reactors and getting only 1 is a very bad proposition for a utility. FAUXTON posted:I wonder why it's so expensive to build and maintain the existing inventory of nuclear plants. Luckily the new plants like Vogtle and Olkiluoto are coming in on time and under budget, to convince electric utilities that nuclear is finally as cheap as advertised. Oh wait....
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
Radbot posted:No poo poo. Now tell that to the media at the time. The media is of course a-political.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Luckily the new plants like Vogtle and Olkiluoto are coming in on time and under budget, to convince electric utilities that nuclear is finally as cheap as advertised. Oh wait.... quote:The construction workforce includes about 3,800 employees from 500 companies. 80% of the workers are foreigners, mostly from eastern European countries. It has been reported that one Bulgarian contracting firm is owned by the mafia, and that Bulgarian workers have been required to pay weekly protection fees to the mafia, wages have been unpaid, employees have been told not to join a union and that employers also reneged on social security payments. Sounds like Olkiluoto is a victim of the current state of global labor corruption, more than an inherent problem with nuclear itself. This poo poo is endemic in pretty much every industry now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
Rime posted:Sounds like Olkiluoto is a victim of the current state of global labor corruption, more than an inherent problem with nuclear itself. This poo poo is endemic in pretty much every industry now. And if I'm having to deal some global corrupt construction labor suppliers, I'm going to pick the less complicated power station with lower precision construction and maintenance requirements.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 04:45
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:And if I'm having to deal some global corrupt construction labor suppliers, I'm going to pick the less complicated power station with lower precision construction and maintenance requirements. And higher externalized costs due to pollution, higher fuel sourcing costs, and an increased likelihood of an ecological disaster due to slip-shod construction anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 05:36
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:And if I'm having to deal some global corrupt construction labor suppliers, I'm going to pick the less complicated power station with lower precision construction and maintenance requirements. So coal or natural gas. Not good enough.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 05:37
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:And higher externalized costs due to pollution, higher fuel sourcing costs, and an increased likelihood of an ecological disaster due to slip-shod construction anyway. Yeah but for the power operator, externalized costs don't fall on their balance sheet. That's why its externalized costs. Someone else has to pay them. CommieGIR posted:So coal or natural gas. Not good enough. We're on the same page about morality, I'm just pointing out the realities that make utilities not want to build nuclear power stations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 05:46
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Someone else has to pay them. Everyone else has to pay them, more like.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 14:25
|
|
|
Couple of things I came across today... Mac McClelland, who was one of the big names during the BP spill, wrote an article in Audubon concerning the Outer Banks: quote:When a family from the Midwest looked up satellite images of the house at 23267 Midgetts Mobile Court in Rodanthe, North Carolina, they saw that it was separated from the Atlantic Ocean—sparkling, even in the photograph—by another mansion. But when they arrived there this past July, they were mystified, if not at all disappointed. The six-bedroom, 4,500-square-foot vacation rental, for which they were shelling out $8,000 a week, was now oceanfront property. Also, more holes have been found in Siberia: quote:"We have just learnt that in Yakutia, new information has emerged about a giant crater one kilometre (0.6 miles) in diameter," the deputy director of the Oil and Gas Research Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Vasily Bogoyavlensky, told AFP.  I do hope that is an exaggeration.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:Also, more holes have been found in Siberia: *sound of a gun cocking*
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:Couple of things I came across today... So. hosed. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
How are u posted:So. hosed. set it on fire (finally a reason to nuke siberia) I sort of want to see one of those craters form and see if they blow up (but i see no ejecta  )/collapse spontaneously or if it is more of a gradual process over hours/days.
suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 20:58 on Mar 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:Couple of things I came across today... It still amazes me how much the East Coast sucks rear end. What do y'all do besides decide who's a townie and a local and/or discriminate based on how expensive your college was to attend? So much hand-wringing about outsiders. The East Coast plus Southern culture must be nearly unbearable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
blowfish posted:set it on fire (finally a reason to nuke siberia) This hole is made for meeeeeeeee!
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Nuclear? You mean nuclear BOMBS?! THE PLANT IS GOING TO GO NUCLEAR! What if we renamed the plants to... Fission plants and skip the nuclear bomb plants? Would that help the media, nimby problem? Even just a little? logosanatic fucked around with this message at 22:17 on Mar 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
logosanatic posted:What if we renamed the plants to... Then they'll just want to get rid of Fission BOMB plants. You can't win.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
Right now the industry labels itself as nuclear energy Nuclear weapons are called nuclear. Shouldnt they be distancing themselves a bit from the word nuclear. fission plant accident doesnt sound nearly as bad. Im not saying it solves all the nimby problems but its an easy step to take
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
I've said it before and I'll say it again, until you convince power utilities that nuclear power would be a smart investment for them, more nuclear won't be built.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:This hole is made for meeeeeeeee! Drr... Drr... Drr...
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I've said it before and I'll say it again, until you convince power utilities that nuclear power would be a smart investment for them, more nuclear won't be built. Well, as long as for profit companies run power utilities, we'll never get there. Ever. logosanatic posted:Right now the industry labels itself as nuclear energy It wouldn't matter, because you'd still have a bunch of morons with a dumb look on their face and whine and moan about the fact that its fueled by Uranium....which means NUCLEAR BOMBS  This is not to mention that, while the average American knows very little about nuclear, they at least know fission is related in some way to it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 14:13 |
|
|
On March 20th Germany will have a partial solar eclipse which will first reduce energy output from their PV and then sharply increase it afterwards. If it's a sunny day it will be an exciting time to play extreme peaker planting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 00:04
|
|