The Energy Generation Megathread: Heated Exchanges

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Energy Generation Megathread: Heated Exchanges

Groda: Mar 17, 2005; Hair Elf

Nocturtle posted:

Has this been discussed?

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-new-mexico-nuclear-dump-20160819-snap-story.html

I'm generally supportive of nuclear energy, but it's troubling to see that an accident involving a single barrel of nuclear waste could cost billions to clean up. The waste that caused the accident was from the US nuclear weapons program, but the contaminated facility was/is supposed to store commercial reactor waste as well. It's also not great that safeguards like the air filtration system failed. It's nice to see that the company contracted to manage the site during the accident received an additional contract to clean it up.

Rescind statehood for Nevada, build a real repository, lock Harry Reid in it.

# ? Aug 24, 2016 19:13

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 13, 2024 09:11

Pander: Oct 9, 2007; Fear is the glue that holds society together. It's what makes people suppress their worst impulses. Fear is power.

And at the end of fear, oblivion.

Trabisnikof posted:

Like I get the initial reaction to say "but coal bad" in the face of yet another failure of the nuclear industry. And sadly while this will further hurt commercial nuclear power, it was a Los Alamos's fault.

But still, the delays in long term storage (even if reimbursed by the Feds) provides another kind of economic uncertainty that would inevitably make nuclear a less attractive option for grid planners at power utilities.

Failures like this are in part why we don't have nuclear replacing those coal plants.

Nuclear doesn't replace coal mostly because the short term price battle vs. natural gas is deadly when natural gas is historically cheap, and the long-term price uncertainty due to regulatory whims.

On-site storage of nuclear fuel is a relatively minor concern. The part that sticks in the craw of the energy industry is that a tax is paid for the government repository for decades with no action foreseeable. That, coupled with post-Fukushima regulatory additions regarding the spent fuel pool (redundant means of cooling in beyond-design-basis external events). I can imagine it's somewhat frustrating to pay tens/hundreds of millions of dollars to ensure your spent fuel pool is upgraded post-Fukushima when, in a just world, you shouldn't be storing so much spent fuel in the first place.

# ? Aug 24, 2016 19:39

evil_bunnY: Apr 2, 2003

And the current system is only producing so much fuel waste because of proliferation concerns, and regulatory bullshit prevent new reactor types AFAIR

# ? Aug 24, 2016 19:53

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Pander posted:

Nuclear doesn't replace coal mostly because the short term price battle vs. natural gas is deadly when natural gas is historically cheap, and the long-term price uncertainty due to regulatory whims.

On-site storage of nuclear fuel is a relatively minor concern. The part that sticks in the craw of the energy industry is that a tax is paid for the government repository for decades with no action foreseeable. That, coupled with post-Fukushima regulatory additions regarding the spent fuel pool (redundant means of cooling in beyond-design-basis external events). I can imagine it's somewhat frustrating to pay tens/hundreds of millions of dollars to ensure your spent fuel pool is upgraded post-Fukushima when, in a just world, you shouldn't be storing so much spent fuel in the first place.

But that's my point, when a grid planner checks out the costs per MW spent on additional unplanned capital, O&M, etc this event is yet another in a long string of nuclear events that increases those costs.

# ? Aug 24, 2016 20:06

Lawman 0: Aug 17, 2010

What are the other problems with reprocessing waste other than the cost and political concerns?

# ? Aug 24, 2016 20:09

Potato Salad: Oct 23, 2014; nobody cares

Trabisnikof posted:

When a grid planner checks out the costs per MW spent on additional unplanned capital, O&M, etc this event is yet another in a long string of nuclear events that justifies the creation of a long-term disposal site sooner than later.

^ This is how someone interested in protecting the near and far future populace from waste disasters really needs to look at it, pronto.

# ? Aug 24, 2016 20:10

Phanatic: Mar 13, 2007; Please don't forget that I am an extremely racist idiot who also has terrible opinions about the Culture series.

Trabisnikof posted:

But that's my point, when a grid planner checks out the costs per MW spent on additional unplanned capital, O&M, etc this event is yet another in a long string of nuclear events that increases those costs.

It's a cost we impose on ourselves, though, not an innate cost of nuclear power. If you have a dumb process to accomplish a goal which is generating dumb results and makes achieving the goal impractically expensive, the correct response is to improve the process, not to decide that the goal's too expensive and keep grinding away at the dumb process.

# ? Aug 24, 2016 20:10

Potato Salad: Oct 23, 2014; nobody cares

It isn't like cutting back on nuclear power deployment is going to make the waste issue go away. The waste is out there in huge quantities now, and regardless of whether or not we continue operating nuclear plants, it is already going to need a long-term disposal site with expensive maintenance or monitoring and an army of curators with permanent funding behind them.

For all those costs, you might as well continue rolling out nuclear, because we are at this point either committed to handling the issue ourselves or guaranteeing serious waste containment failure issues in the near future.

# ? Aug 24, 2016 20:13

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Potato Salad posted:

^ This is how someone interested in protecting the near and far future populace from waste disasters really needs to look at it, pronto.

That's what WIPP is. They're having to replace the entire ventilation system because a single barrel was mispacked.

Phanatic posted:

It's a cost we impose on ourselves, though, not an innate cost of nuclear power. If you have a dumb process to accomplish a goal which is generating dumb results and makes achieving the goal impractically expensive, the correct response is to improve the process, not to decide that the goal's too expensive and keep grinding away at the dumb process.

Except this would have happened even if Yucca Mountain had been opened?

# ? Aug 24, 2016 20:14

Potato Salad: Oct 23, 2014; nobody cares

Trabisnikof posted:

That's what WIPP is. They're having to replace the entire ventilation system because a single barrel was mispacked.

Except this would have happened even if Yucca Mountain had been opened?

Aaaah.

I think the headline would be different had it happened at Yucca: "Waste incident at Yucca, contained & underground as per planning of disposal facility" and "BULLET DODGED: WASTE ACCIDENT IN UNDERGROUND FACILITY HARDENED FOR EXACTLY THIS THING"

# ? Aug 24, 2016 20:16

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Potato Salad posted:

Aaaah.

I think the headline would be different had it happened at Yucca: "Waste incident at Yucca, contained & underground as per planning of disposal facility" and "BULLET DODGED: WASTE ACCIDENT IN UNDERGROUND FACILITY HARDENED FOR EXACTLY THIS THING"

If this happened at Yucca it would have been a *huge* deal and would have cost even more to fix, or it could have even ended it. Especially in this current Bundy environment.

At least this can be blamed on the National Lab and the Nuclear Weapons side of nuclear and it let the DoE hide the info for longer.

Edit: even if it still happened at WIPP you know they'd temporary block new storage at Yucca and spend a few $B on some new systems based on lessons learned

# ? Aug 24, 2016 20:18

Phanatic: Mar 13, 2007; Please don't forget that I am an extremely racist idiot who also has terrible opinions about the Culture series.

Trabisnikof posted:

Except this would have happened even if Yucca Mountain had been opened?

Except that there are reactor designs and fuel cycles which don't require Yucca Mountains?

# ? Aug 24, 2016 20:20

Potato Salad: Oct 23, 2014; nobody cares

"Mr Yucca Supervisor, what is the likely impact on local wildlife? The water table? What are the long-term ramifications of this spill?"

:rant:

"Bacteria in the storage location are in for a rough ride. This is the desert, and we're underground but very high above the water table. In the long term, I am sure glad this happened here instead of somewhere like Hanford or some other above-ground location."

# ? Aug 24, 2016 20:21

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Phanatic posted:

Except that there are reactor designs and fuel cycles which don't require Yucca Mountains?

I was making a point about grid planners and the people who invest in new plants. Grid planners can only pick among designs approved in the US (if we're talking about the US). Are those designs approved by the NRC?

# ? Aug 24, 2016 20:22

Potato Salad: Oct 23, 2014; nobody cares

Trabisnikof posted:

: even if it still happened at WIPP you know they'd temporary block new storage at Yucca and spend a few $B on some new systems based on lessons learned

US citizens: :bahgawd:

Holy poo poo get this stuff to yucca faster.

# ? Aug 24, 2016 20:22

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Potato Salad posted:

"Mr Yucca Supervisor, what is the likely impact on local wildlife? The water table? What are the long-term ramifications of this spill?"

"Bacteria in the storage location are in for a rough ride. This is the desert, and we're underground but very high above the water table. In the long term, I am sure glad this happened here instead of somewhere like Hanford or some other above-ground location."

So literally the same thing the DoE said about the WIPP accident?

# ? Aug 24, 2016 20:23

Phanatic: Mar 13, 2007; Please don't forget that I am an extremely racist idiot who also has terrible opinions about the Culture series.

Trabisnikof posted:

I was making a point about grid planners and the people who invest in new plants. Grid planners can only pick among designs approved in the US (if we're talking about the US). Are those designs approved by the NRC?

See above about improving the process rather than just grinding away at the same dumb one.

# ? Aug 24, 2016 20:24

fishmech: Jul 16, 2006; by VideoGames; Salad Prong

Lawman 0 posted:

What are the other problems with reprocessing waste other than the cost and political concerns?

None, the only real problem with switching to do that is we'd need the money to build enough facilities to handle the load - the military has a few facilities capable of it but they couldn't process all the stuff out there as it is.

# ? Aug 24, 2016 20:25

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Phanatic posted:

See above about improving the process rather than just grinding away at the same dumb one.

Ok but how do you suggest we improve this process? Get rid of NRC design approvals?

A lot of people say the NRC should be more pro-industry, but I haven't heard of a way to do that without creating regulatory capture.

fishmech posted:

None, the only real problem with switching to do that is we'd need the money to build enough facilities to handle the load - the military has a few facilities capable of it but they couldn't process all the stuff out there as it is.

It depends on if you're just talking about low level waste, fuel waste, or mixed high level waste. Mixed high level waste is really hard. As in, we had to rebuild an entire reprocessing plant because we engineered it wrong kinda hard.

But fuel is just a big rear end process but isn't as complex. Low level waste is just lovely landfill waste usually.

# ? Aug 24, 2016 20:28

Groda: Mar 17, 2005; Hair Elf

Phanatic posted:

Except that there are reactor designs and fuel cycles which don't require Yucca Mountains?

Those designs / cycles still very much require repositories, just not for actinides, and not for as long.

# ? Aug 24, 2016 20:29

Potato Salad: Oct 23, 2014; nobody cares

Trabisnikof posted:

Ok but how do you suggest we improve this process? Get rid of NRC design approvals?

Buy French. We can absolutely railroad tried and tested French designs if the political will to do so existed in the US. We could alternately standardize designs -- as the French did -- with money and political will.

The existence of political will -- its absence, rather -- is the core issue, I believe, in this thread, the Climate Change thread, and other "we r loving it up lol" threads.

Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 20:35 on Aug 24, 2016

# ? Aug 24, 2016 20:32

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Potato Salad posted:

Buy French.

The EPR is already an approved design afaik.

Of course, Olkiluoto doesn't bode well.

# ? Aug 24, 2016 20:35

Phanatic: Mar 13, 2007; Please don't forget that I am an extremely racist idiot who also has terrible opinions about the Culture series.

Trabisnikof posted:

Ok but how do you suggest we improve this process? Get rid of NRC design approvals?

Not doing poo poo like shitcanning the IFR or fuel reprocessing because of bullshit proliferation concerns would be a first step.

Trabisnikof posted:

The EPR is already an approved design afaik.

Licensing for an operating reactor includes well more than NRC approval of the reactor design and you know it.

Potato Salad posted:

We could alternately standardize designs -- as the French did -- with money and political will.

Standardizing designs doesn't help much when the NRC treats each individual reactor installation as a unique snowflake of a research project. No matter how many of the same design are installed there are no economies of scale when it comes to operating licenses. Gotta watch out for tsunamis in the middle of the high plains, don't you know.

Phanatic fucked around with this message at 20:47 on Aug 24, 2016

# ? Aug 24, 2016 20:40

Pander: Oct 9, 2007; Fear is the glue that holds society together. It's what makes people suppress their worst impulses. Fear is power.

And at the end of fear, oblivion.

Phanatic posted:

Standardizing designs doesn't help much when the NRC treats each individual reactor installation as a unique snowflake of a research project. No matter how many of the same design are installed there are no economies of scale when it comes to operating licenses. Gotta watch out for tsunamis in the middle of the high plains, don't you know.

Dam failures are one of the biggest threats to a lot of nuclear plants, oddly enough. So yeah, tsunami planning for inland nuclear plants DOES exist, because if every dam consecutively fails in a sequence then the worst-case BDB flood becomes something insane, like 50 feet at one of the Pennsylvania nuke plants (Peach Bottom I think?)

I had to plan for a category EF-5 tornado at a nuke plant along the carolina coast. The worst tornado ever measured within 200 miles was like an EF-2. You have to look 1000 miles away, in like Alabama, to find the nearest EF-5 strike in recorded history.

Nuclear plant risk management is essentially "Assume a meteor destroys the planet, how will you ensure that no radioactive material is released from your plant?"

# ? Aug 24, 2016 20:57

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Pander posted:

Dam failures are one of the biggest threats to a lot of nuclear plants, oddly enough. So yeah, tsunami planning for inland nuclear plants DOES exist, because if every dam consecutively fails in a sequence then the worst-case BDB flood becomes something insane, like 50 feet at one of the Pennsylvania nuke plants (Peach Bottom I think?)

I had to plan for a category EF-5 tornado at a nuke plant along the carolina coast. The worst tornado ever measured within 200 miles was like an EF-2. You have to look 1000 miles away, in like Alabama, to find the nearest EF-5 strike in recorded history.

Nuclear plant risk management is essentially "Assume a meteor destroys the planet, how will you ensure that no radioactive material is released from your plant?"

And this risk management philosophy is why we have a civilian nuclear safety record that is honestly something the industry should be proud of.

Like once again, this WIPP thing will hurt civilian nuclear but it certainly wasn't their fault. Same as Fukushima or Chernobyl.

Phanatic posted:

Not doing poo poo like shitcanning the IFR or fuel reprocessing because of bullshit proliferation concerns would be a first step.

Licensing for an operating reactor includes well more than NRC approval of the reactor design and you know it.

Standardizing designs doesn't help much when the NRC treats each individual reactor installation as a unique snowflake of a research project. No matter how many of the same design are installed there are no economies of scale when it comes to operating licenses. Gotta watch out for tsunamis in the middle of the high plains, don't you know.

That's true for any large scale power project regardless of kind. They all require a bunch of specialty research studies to be done. That's because we don't have a top down map where we've declared X area free of meaningful archeology or whatever.

Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Aug 24, 2016

# ? Aug 24, 2016 21:04

Taffer: Oct 15, 2010

Trabisnikof posted:

And this risk management philosophy is why we have a civilian nuclear safety record that is honestly something the industry should be proud of.

Having regulation that is so stringent and overboard that it kills a viable and important industry is something to be ashamed of, not proud of, especially when other countries do it very well without problems. (again, see: France)

# ? Aug 25, 2016 03:20

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Taffer posted:

Having regulation that is so stringent and overboard that it kills a viable and important industry is something to be ashamed of, not proud of, especially when other countries do it very well without problems. (again, see: France)

But I don't think it is the safety regulations that are killing nuclear in the US, it is the fact we don't have a nationalized grid like France and so individual utilities are making their own decisions rather than following some pro-nuclear mandate from Washington.

# ? Aug 25, 2016 03:24

Phanatic: Mar 13, 2007; Please don't forget that I am an extremely racist idiot who also has terrible opinions about the Culture series.

Trabisnikof posted:

But I don't think it is the safety regulations that are killing nuclear in the US,

http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html

quote:

Several large nuclear power plants were completed in the early 1970s at a typical cost of $170 million, whereas plants of the same size completed in 1983 cost an average of $1.7 billion, a 10-fold increase. Some plants completed in the late 1980s have cost as much as $5 billion, 30 times what they cost 15 years earlier. Inflation, of course, has played a role, but the consumer price index increased only by a factor of 2.2 between 1973 and 1983, and by just 18% from 1983 to 1988. What caused the remaining large increase? Ask the opponents of nuclear power and they will recite a succession of horror stories, many of them true, about mistakes, inefficiency, sloppiness, and ineptitude. They will create the impression that people who build nuclear plants are a bunch of bungling incompetents. The only thing they won't explain is how these same "bungling incompetents" managed to build nuclear power plants so efficiently, so rapidly, and so inexpensively in the early 1970s.

For example, Commonwealth Edison, the utility serving the Chicago area, completed its Dresden nuclear plants in 1970-71 for $146/kW, its Quad Cities plants in 1973 for $164/kW, and its Zion plants in 1973-74 for $280/kW. But its LaSalle nuclear plants completed in 1982-84 cost $1,160/kW, and its Byron and Braidwood plants completed in 1985-87 cost $1880/kW � a 13-fold increase over the 17-year period. Northeast Utilities completed its Millstone 1,2, and 3 nuclear plants, respectively, for $153/kW in 1971, $487/kW in 1975, and $3,326/kW in 1986, a 22-fold increase in 15 years. Duke Power, widely considered to be one of the most efficient utilities in the nation in handling nuclear technology, finished construction on its Oconee plants in 1973-74 for $181/kW, on its McGuire plants in 1981-84 for $848/kW, and on its Catauba plants in 1985-87 for $1,703/kW, a nearly 10-fold increase in 14 years. Philadelphia Electric Company completed its two Peach Bottom plants in 1974 at an average cost of $382 million, but the second of its two Limerick plants, completed in 1988, cost $2.9 billion � 7.6 times as much. A long list of such price escalations could be quoted, and there are no exceptions. Clearly, something other than incompetence is involved.

...

In response to escalating public concern, the NRC began implementing some of these options in the early 1970s, and quickened the pace after the Three Mile Island accident.

This process came to be known as "ratcheting." Like a ratchet wrench which is moved back and forth but always tightens and never loosens a bolt, the regulatory requirements were constantly tightened, requiring additional equipment and construction labor and materials. According to one study,4 between the early and late 1970s, regulatory requirements increased the quantity of steel needed in a power plant of equivalent electrical output by 41%, the amount of concrete by 27%, the lineal footage of piping by 50%, and the length of electrical cable by 36%. The NRC did not withdraw requirements made in the early days on the basis of minimal experience when later experience demonstrated that they were unnecessarily stringent. Regulations were only tightened, never loosened. The ratcheting policy was consistently followed.

In its regulatory ratcheting activities, the NRC paid some attention to cost effectiveness, attempting to balance safety benefits against cost increases. However, NRC personnel privately concede that their cost estimates were very crude, and more often than not unrealistically low. Estimating costs of tasks never before undertaken is, at best, a difficult and inexact art.

In addition to increasing the quantity of materials and labor going into a plant, regulatory ratcheting increased costs by extending the time required for construction. According to the United Engineers estimates, the time from project initiation to ground breaking5 was 16 months in 1967, 32 months in 1972, and 54 months in 1980. These are the periods needed to do initial engineering and design; to develop a safety analysis and an environmental impact analysis supported by field data; to have these analyses reviewed by the NRC staff and its Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards and to work out conflicts with these groups; to subject the analyzed to criticism in public hearings and to respond to that criticism (sometimes with design changes); and finally, to receive a construction permit. The time from ground breaking to operation testing was increased from 42 months in 1967, to 54 months in 1972, to 70 months in 1980.

The increase in total construction time, indicated in Fig. 2, from 7 years in 1971 to 12 years in 1980 roughly doubled the final cost of plants. In addition, the EEDB, corrected for inflation, approximately doubled during that time period. Thus, regulatory ratcheting, quite aside from the effects of inflation, quadrupled the cost of a nuclear power plant. What has all this bought in the way of safety?

# ? Aug 25, 2016 03:36

Potato Salad: Oct 23, 2014; nobody cares

Trabi, do you have an overarching point?

# ? Aug 25, 2016 13:26

Taffer: Oct 15, 2010

Potato Salad posted:

Trabi, do you have an overarching point?

His overarching point is "nuclear bad, solar/wind good", in the face of any an all arguments. He's been posting in this thread for 3 years, saying the same thing the whole time.

# ? Aug 25, 2016 13:50

AreWeDrunkYet: Jul 8, 2006

Trabisnikof posted:

And sadly while this will further hurt commercial nuclear power, it was a Los Alamos's fault.

But still, the delays in long term storage (even if reimbursed by the Feds) provides another kind of economic uncertainty that would inevitably make nuclear a less attractive option for grid planners at power utilities.

Failures like this are in part why we don't have nuclear replacing those coal plants.

Yet another reason to nationalize power generation. No one is better suited than the government (especially a government that can borrow at more or less the rate of inflation) to make long term investments and take on long tail risks.

Plus I don't think anyone trains nuclear engineers in the same numbers as the Navy. Nationalized nuclear power just works perfectly on every level.

# ? Aug 25, 2016 14:52

silence_kit: Jul 14, 2011; by the sex ghost

Taffer posted:

His overarching point is "nuclear bad, solar/wind good", in the face of any an all arguments. He's been posting in this thread for 3 years, saying the same thing the whole time.

It's good to have a little variety in this thread. The majority of posts in this thread are the same excuses, posted over and over again, for why the US isn't rapidly building out nuclear power plants. The thread should be titled "The Nuclear Energy Excuse Generation Megathread."

Trabisnikof's posts are way more varied and talk about more topics, events, and issues than the usual internet science nerd brigade pro-nuclear propaganda that usually occupies this thread's attention.

# ? Aug 25, 2016 16:14

Potato Salad: Oct 23, 2014; nobody cares

AreWeDrunkYet posted:

Yet another reason to nationalize power generation. No one is better suited than the government (especially a government that can borrow at more or less the rate of inflation) to make long term investments and take on long tail risks.

Plus I don't think anyone trains nuclear engineers in the same numbers as the Navy. Nationalized nuclear power just works perfectly on every level.

People taking part in the NPS program taking graduate classes in my institute's physics department are some of the most efficient and focused students I've met. They're doing something right.

# ? Aug 25, 2016 16:16

Pander: Oct 9, 2007; Fear is the glue that holds society together. It's what makes people suppress their worst impulses. Fear is power.

And at the end of fear, oblivion.

silence_kit posted:

It's good to have a little variety in this thread. The majority of posts in this thread are the same excuses, posted over and over again, for why the US isn't rapidly building out nuclear power plants. The thread should be titled "The Nuclear Energy Excuse Generation Megathread."

Trabisnikof's posts are way more varied and talk about more topics, events, and issues than the usual internet science nerd brigade pro-nuclear propaganda that usually occupies this thread's attention.

His varied posts are fine, but when he's suggesting NRC regulations are hunky-dory as they strangle an industry with a proven track record in other regulatory environments he's going to get pushback.

This thread is working as intended, it discusses energy generation. It just so happens you and Trabi are among the minority of posters who do not believe that CO2 emissions in energy generation is all that dire a problem, so it makes sense you see the other posters arguing in favor of the most reasonable solution as an annoyance. It's better this than "The Unrealistic Contrarians Content to Let Earth Die Waiting for Perfect Green Energy Generation Megathread"

# ? Aug 25, 2016 16:27

M_Gargantua: Oct 16, 2006; STOMP'N ON INTO THE POWERLINES; Exciting Lemon

Potato Salad posted:

People taking part in the NPS program taking graduate classes in my institute's physics department are some of the most efficient and focused students I've met. They're doing something right.

As a NPS grad once I got out I was regularly taking 20+ Credit semesters without straining myself. After going through the Memorize -> Test -> Hands on -> Test for Understanding -> Certify -> Operate pipeline university classes are almost insulting with their pace and scope.

# ? Aug 25, 2016 16:51

Phanatic: Mar 13, 2007; Please don't forget that I am an extremely racist idiot who also has terrible opinions about the Culture series.

Potato Salad posted:

People taking part in the NPS program taking graduate classes in my institute's physics department are some of the most efficient and focused students I've met. They're doing something right.

They had to be focused and efficient if they were ever going to make it through power school. From the submarine thread (written with officers in mind):

quote:

Powerschool itself relatively straight forward, if not exactly easy. You have 6 months to learn basic nuclear engineering, circa 1970�s. You�ll study mathematics up to linear algebra, physics up to energy transfer, thermodynamics, materials engineering, nuclear theory and energy, electrical engineering, and reactor plant principles. Most of the teaching, however, revolves around the original theory of nuclear power, when Admiral Rickover made the program, so the whole �quantum mechanics� thing is conveniently ignored. The basics are still sound, however. Class normally starts at 0630, and end around 1600-1700, M-F. After that, there is normally 1-4 hours of homework, and weekly tests on every subject (you are taking 2-4 at a time). You�ll take ~40 hours of classes per week, and anywhere from 10-40 extra hours per week of studying and memorizing. Welcome to submarines; the 80 hour workweek. If you don�t do well, they�ll assign you mandatory study hours of 10-35, depending on how many you need to succeed. At end of the 6 months, you�ll take an 8 hour comprehensive exam.

The key to success at powerschool is to realize that this is not like normal school. The Navy doesn�t really care if you deeply and truly understand nuclear power. What they care about is that you can identify problems and then safely and expertly execute procedures as written. This means you need to know how to memorize; in fact, most of powerschool is just one big memorization fest. The phrase you�ll hear a lot is �drinking out of a firehose�, which is pretty accurate. I normally go home and workout after classes, make some dinner to take to work, and then come back and eat/study until 2000 or 2030. Just expect that you�ll be working long days, so make the weekends count.

...

Prototype, which you will most likely attend right after power school, will allow you to work on an operational naval reactor for 6 months, giving you a chance to learn the basics and teaching you how to qualify a watch. Your goal will be to qualify Engineering Officer of the Watch. There are two different prototypes, Charleston and Balston Spa (in Saratoga, NY). I�ve been told Saratoga is quite nice. Where ever you go, you�ll spend the first 8 weeks learning plant basics, and then you�ll be assigned a crew and move onto shiftwork so you can start qualifying. You schedule gets interesting, now. There are 3 shifts; Morning, from 0800-1600, Swing, from 1600-0000, and Mids, from 0000-0800. You will be on Morning shift for 7 days, followed by 3 days off, Swings for 7 days, followed by 3 days off, and Mids for 7 days, followed by 4 days off. The schedule is gruesome and unpleasant, since you have mandatory study hours afterwatch for 2-6 hours, depending on how far ahead you are. Once you qualify EOOW, you are pretty much done until the comprehensive exam at the end of prototype, which is another 8 hour test.

The key to prototype is to understand that it sucks, and you need to get through it ASAP. Game the system as much as you can. Kiss rear end, make friends, do whatever you have to do to get ahead of quals and stay there. In order to be the best, you need to do as little as possible while still qualifying; the goal is to qualify, not to know everything. So don�t over-study, just do the minimum amount to get the signature and move the gently caress on. No one will care that you blew that Analytical Procedures checkout out of the water, but they will care that you are loving DINQ (delinquent in quals) because you spent 6 hours studying for it. And above all, remember this: the soda machine always accidentally dispenses 2 sodas before a checkout. Live your prototype life by that creed, and life becomes much more bearable.

# ? Aug 25, 2016 16:58

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Pander posted:

His varied posts are fine, but when he's suggesting NRC regulations are hunky-dory as they strangle an industry with a proven track record in other regulatory environments he's going to get pushback.

This thread is working as intended, it discusses energy generation. It just so happens you and Trabi are among the minority of posters who do not believe that CO2 emissions in energy generation is all that dire a problem, so it makes sense you see the other posters arguing in favor of the most reasonable solution as an annoyance. It's better this than "The Unrealistic Contrarians Content to Let Earth Die Waiting for Perfect Green Energy Generation Megathread"

Potato Salad posted:

Trabi, do you have an overarching point?

AreWeDrunkYet posted:

Yet another reason to nationalize power generation. No one is better suited than the government (especially a government that can borrow at more or less the rate of inflation) to make long term investments and take on long tail risks.

Plus I don't think anyone trains nuclear engineers in the same numbers as the Navy. Nationalized nuclear power just works perfectly on every level.

My point is there are a bunch of things we could do better if we wave a magic wand. Nationalizing the electricity generating infrastructure gets suggested but that seems like a vastly less likely reality than making improvements to the NRC.

And this isn't about me being pro or anti nuke. I just prefer a conversation where we debate which NRC regulations are too much or other ways to fix the NRC rather than just repost more anti-coal facts that we all agree on.

# ? Aug 25, 2016 19:05

AreWeDrunkYet: Jul 8, 2006

Trabisnikof posted:

My point is there are a bunch of things we could do better if we wave a magic wand. Nationalizing the electricity generating infrastructure gets suggested but that seems like a vastly less likely reality than making improvements to the NRC.

Literally nationalizing the industry is just a euphemism, no one is realistically talking about the Feds seizing nuclear plants. But instead of just handing over dollar sign sacks of subsidies to private companies who then complain about financial risks and payback periods and regulations, just have the government start building new plants directly. If private industry wants to compete with whatever federal organization is building out capacity, even better!

# ? Aug 25, 2016 19:23

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

AreWeDrunkYet posted:

Literally nationalizing the industry is just a euphemism, no one is realistically talking about the Feds seizing nuclear plants. But instead of just handing over dollar sign sacks of subsidies to private companies who then complain about financial risks and payback periods and regulations, just have the government start building new plants directly. If private industry wants to compete with whatever federal organization is building out capacity, even better!

Honestly I think nationalizing the industry is might be more successful than that. Sounds like the TVA is what you're talking about?

# ? Aug 25, 2016 20:13

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 13, 2024 09:11

Pander: Oct 9, 2007; Fear is the glue that holds society together. It's what makes people suppress their worst impulses. Fear is power.

And at the end of fear, oblivion.

AreWeDrunkYet posted:

Literally nationalizing the industry is just a euphemism, no one is realistically talking about the Feds seizing nuclear plants. But instead of just handing over dollar sign sacks of subsidies to private companies who then complain about financial risks and payback periods and regulations, just have the government start building new plants directly. If private industry wants to compete with whatever federal organization is building out capacity, even better!

If the government is subject to the same time burdens put upon the industry by the NRC, they won't have any more success in building nuclear plants than the private industry.

Building at any cost isn't a sensible solution. Reducing the cost through reasonable regulatory de-ratcheting commensurate with the increases in technology and working experience is the better path.

# ? Aug 25, 2016 20:19

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Energy Generation Megathread: Heated Exchanges

«‹›348 »