# bill gates and warren buffet building nuclear reactor in Wyoming



## Space Lynx (Jun 3, 2021)

Bill Gates company to build reactor at Wyoming coal plant
					

CHEYENNE, Wyo. (AP) — A next-generation, small nuclear plant will be built at a soon-to-be retired coal-fired power plant in Wyoming in the next several years, business and government officials said Wednesday.




					apnews.com
				












						Bill Gates and Warren Buffett to build new kind of nuclear reactor in Wyoming
					

The project in Wyoming – the country’s top coal-producing state – is a small advanced reactor with salt-based storage that could boost output




					www.theguardian.com
				




here we go!!! this is what we need if we are ever going to beat climate change... Fusion still seems to be a dream that may or may not happen, these small nuclear reactors make a lot of sense to me. and apparently they can use waste product so no need to bury the waste anymore... I watched the Netflix bill gates documentary and he mentioned that in the documentary. this could be a game changer if it works.

edit:  that netflix documentary also said these new designs are extremely safe and failproof safe... plus wyoming doesn't get earthquakes and tsunami's to my knowledge, so all should be good.


----------



## biffzinker (Jun 3, 2021)

What about the massive volcano known as Yellowstone National Park?


----------



## Space Lynx (Jun 3, 2021)

biffzinker said:


> What about the massive volcano known as Yellowstone National Park?



if the Super Volcano ever explodes, you have more to worry about than a small nuclear reactor meltdown, I promise. if the Yellowstone Super Volcano goes, you are looking at probably half the worlds population dying. so let's just hope that doesn't happen ye?


----------



## dorsetknob (Jun 3, 2021)

The project features a 345 megawatt sodium-cooled fast reactor with molten salt-based energy storage that could boost the system’s power output to 500MW during peak power demand.

So its not a New type of Reactor......
*Sodium's* Latin name, '*natrium*'  that will slip past people radar.

When Winfrith AEE  (location Dorset England ) was up and running they had up to 9 different Expermental Reactors online
Several were Sodium Salt Designs.


----------



## Xzibit (Jun 3, 2021)

Spoiler alert: Wyoming is a Crypto friendly state. They want their own power plant to farm crypto.


----------



## qubit (Jun 3, 2021)

Nuclear is indeed the answer. It's been staring at us in the face for decades, yet the green lobby keep banging on about wind power and other useless technology.   Makes one wonder if they're really on the side of the environment, or if there's a secret agenda.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Jun 3, 2021)

Depleted Uranium? So this is a breeder reactor?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#/media/File:Sasahara.svg. At least, breeder reactors are the only kind that use depleted Uranium to my knowledge.

The "Pu" elements in the cycle are always a political football. There usually needs to be some kind of discussion on why, or why not, those Plutonium atoms are inaccessible to attackers and/or unsavory countries.



qubit said:


> Nuclear is indeed the answer. It's been staring at us in the face for decades, yet the green lobby keep banging on about wind power and other useless technology.   Makes one wonder if they're really on the side of the environment, or if there's a secret agenda.



Nuclear definitely is (part of) the answer, and any environmentalist who disparages nuclear is just one of those idiots who follow the "hype culture" without thinking deeper about the problem. Which... most people fall into this hype trap so whatever. I'm not going to assume an agenda when simple idiocy answers the question, lol.

That being said: the problem with Nuclear is and always be, its a taboo technology. People don't like nuclear because people don't like nuclear. Even if a fast-breeder reactor is of a completely different design than Chernobyl or Fukushima, people will make ignorant comparisons. Still though, for something to get done in this country, it needs to have enough support of the people, so a savvy political game needs to be part of the picture.

----------

This "TeraPower" thing, is it a fast breeder reactor? Or is it some other technology? Its not exactly clear what it is... but that could be just savvy politics in this day and age (The less is known about the tech, the less the idiots have to complain about...).

I think the Depleted Uranium cycle, with the Plutonium, is always going to just be a hard thing to push for politically. A Thorium breeder reactor has no Pu in its cycle, but far fewer Thorium reactors have been built. Any kind of nuclear is a win for me, but too many breeder-reactors have been defeated in the political discussion that its hard for me to drum up optimism.


----------



## tabascosauz (Jun 3, 2021)

qubit said:


> Nuclear is indeed the answer. It's been staring at us in the face for decades, yet the green lobby keep banging on about wind power and other useless technology.   Makes one wonder if they're really on the side of the environment, or if there's a secret agenda.



More that humans are fickle and weak-willed, and can't commit to shit anymore without balking at the challenges. People saw Chernobyl and Fukushima and immediately jumped to the conclusion that nuclear will be the death of humanity, instead of asking why Western PWRs are designed differently, or why plants run by other companies within the earthquake zone didn't suffer catastrophic release.

Like this "advanced" reactor in question. Immediately the counterargument is that experts "warn" that it's more dangerous because high enrichment fuels are also more suited to weapons development. Yeah, no shit Sherlock, there's also something called oversight and regulation, maybe that's where to focus attention? People not only becoming risk-averse - they're becoming paranoid. There's a potential problem, so explore solutions.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jun 3, 2021)

dorsetknob said:


> The project features a 345 megawatt sodium-cooled fast reactor with molten salt-based energy storage that could boost the system’s power output to 500MW during peak power demand.
> 
> So its not a New type of Reactor......
> *Sodium's* Latin name, '*natrium*'  that will slip past people radar.
> ...



It's not a new reactor no, but it is a new design, at least from what I understand of Bill Gates documentary on Netflix I watched last year. It can re-use nuclear waste to create energy, which is a key game changer.



dragontamer5788 said:


> Depleted Uranium? So this is a breeder reactor?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#/media/File:Sasahara.svg. At least, breeder reactors are the only kind that use depleted Uranium to my knowledge.
> 
> The "Pu" elements in the cycle are always a political football. There usually needs to be some kind of discussion on why, or why not, those Plutonium atoms are inaccessible to attackers and/or unsavory countries.
> 
> ...



a multilayer approach is necessary depending where you live.  If you live in Nevada/Arizona/New Mexico you need to be 100% solar and massive solar farms need to be erected there.  elon musk can ship batteries from his gigafactories, very nearby proximity.

I buy my vitamins from a company called ProCaps Labs, based in Nevada, they run on 100% solar.

If you live in Wash State maybe a hydro damn or nuclear power of some kind if hydro isn't enough...  if you live on the east coast ocean cities and those cities line up with the right currents then massive offshore windfarms make sense, and so on and so forth.



tabascosauz said:


> More that humans are fickle and weak-willed, and can't commit to shit anymore without balking at the challenges. People saw Chernobyl and Fukushima and immediately jumped to the conclusion that nuclear will be the death of humanity, instead of asking why Western PWRs are designed differently, or why plants run by other companies within the earthquake zone didn't suffer catastrophic release.
> 
> Like this "advanced" reactor in question. Immediately the counterargument is that experts "warn" that it's more dangerous because high enrichment fuels are also more suited to weapons development. Yeah, no shit Sherlock, there's also something called oversight and regulation, maybe that's where to focus attention? People not only becoming risk-averse - they're becoming paranoid. There's a potential problem, so explore solutions.



Agreed 100%, Germany for example with its knee jerk reaction over fukushima was not logical at all. Unless germany's nuclear power plants were built in danger zones like tsuanmi and earthquakes... to my knowledge they weren't.  overreactions are sadly common in our species...


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 3, 2021)

biffzinker said:


> What about the massive volcano known as Yellowstone National Park?


I think that'll be a worry well past the plant's expiration date.



dorsetknob said:


> So its not a New type of Reactor......


New vs anything America has fielded.  Context, dorset.  Our reactors are all from like, the 80s at best.


----------



## Fouquin (Jun 3, 2021)

qubit said:


> Nuclear is indeed the answer. It's been staring at us in the face for decades, yet the green lobby keep banging on about wind power and other useless technology.   Makes one wonder if they're really on the side of the environment, or if there's a secret agenda.



Because when we went after Nuclear in the 70s it got smashed into oblivion by lobbies and over regulated. Regulation in moderation would have kept the ball rolling, but now that it costs billions to even break ground on a reactor nobody wants to push for it. Anyone who knows anything wants nuclear back on the map.


----------



## Voodoo Rufus (Jun 3, 2021)

Finally. Another new nuclear project. Hopefully they can build it on time and under budget for once.


----------



## Steevo (Jun 3, 2021)

About time, Nuclear is clean base load and doesn’t destroy the economy where plants and infrastructure already exist.

Natural gas turbines should be phased out, they are loud and dump CO2 out just like coal.


----------



## tabascosauz (Jun 3, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> Agreed 100%, Germany for example with its knee jerk reaction over fukushima was not logical at all. Unless germany's nuclear power plants were built in danger zones like tsuanmi and earthquakes... to my knowledge they weren't.  overreactions are sadly common in our species...



It's simply insane to me the FUD and double standard that some Westerners believe. In Japan, I can understand those sentiments given the lasting impact of the Tohoku earthquake and it is politically suicidal not to tread carefully after 2011 - but we're not in Japan.

People saw Chernobyl...... and concluded that Soviet BWRs are bad, Soviet politics was bad, and mismanagement was bad. All a reasonable reaction.
People saw Fukushima I/II...... and concluded that nuclear power is bad.  the human factor wasn't as different as some people think.

Onagawa: The Japanese nuclear power plant that didn’t melt down on 3/11 - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (thebulletin.org)
Learning from non-failure of Onagawa nuclear power station: an accident investigation over its life cycle - ScienceDirect
IAEA Expert Team Concludes Mission to Onagawa NPP | IAEA

I try not to sound too enthusiastic about something that was still making the best of a bad situation, especially when reliable and objective English-language sources on it are scarce. There's a lot of safety measures and upgrades needed even at Onagawa, but some politicians are already trying to jump the gun to get it restarted before then.



Fouquin said:


> Because when we went after Nuclear in the 70s it got smashed into oblivion by lobbies and over regulated. Regulation in moderation would have kept the ball rolling, but now that it costs billions to even break ground on a reactor nobody wants to push for it. Anyone who knows anything wants nuclear back on the map.



I get that there needs to be incentive again to jumpstart nuclear again, but you say that like "regulation in moderation" is a good thing. The stakes are too high to allow for anything less than the strictest oversight, I thought history was clear.


----------



## Voodoo Rufus (Jun 3, 2021)

The larger benefit is that the nuclear plant will help to phase out the remaining coal power that WY uses, all the while giving high paying transferrable jobs from coal to nuclear plant workers.

Natgas is still vital as it produces half the CO2 and none of the heavy emissions that coal does.


----------



## sepheronx (Jun 3, 2021)

Didn't America's only manufacturer of nuclear tech gone belly up after Fukushima?  Westinghouse?

Or is this a one off tech specifically built for this project?


----------



## Voodoo Rufus (Jun 3, 2021)

There's a lot of nuclear startup companies flaunting 4th gen and advanced nuclear concepts. I can't wait for NuScale to show off their prototype in a while.


----------



## 64K (Jun 3, 2021)

biffzinker said:


> What about the massive volcano known as Yellowstone National Park?



They will worry about those ramifications later.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jun 4, 2021)

sepheronx said:


> Didn't America's only manufacturer of nuclear tech gone belly up after Fukushima?  Westinghouse?
> 
> Or is this a one off tech specifically built for this project?



in the documentary on netflix Bill Gates says he had plans to do this current nuclear reactor much sooner, but the trade wars with China that Trump did set him back.

so I am guessing some of the source material is coming from China, but probably not all of it.


----------



## mtcn77 (Jun 4, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> but the trade wars with China that Trump did set him back.


Nonsense, the atomic bomb's uranium came from the Soviets, too. That is just another excuse for sjw self-righteousness.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 4, 2021)

sepheronx said:


> Didn't America's only manufacturer of nuclear tech gone belly up after Fukushima?  Westinghouse?
> 
> Or is this a one off tech specifically built for this project?


I am curious about this aspect.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jun 4, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> if the Yellowstone Super Volcano goes, you are looking at probably *99% of* the worlds population dying.


Fixed that for you man.. Yellowstone pops and much of all life on Earth will die off. Much worse than anything a failed nuclear plant could ever do.


----------



## Caring1 (Jun 4, 2021)

qubit said:


> Nuclear is indeed the answer. It's been staring at us in the face for decades, yet the green lobby keep banging on about wind power and other useless technology.   Makes one wonder if they're really on the side of the environment, or if there's a secret agenda.


I just want to point out the fact anyone can install a wind powered generator or solar power unit on their own property, but portable, personal nuclear is not possible.


----------



## mtcn77 (Jun 4, 2021)

R-T-B said:


> I meant technical aspects.  Political history is a no-go here.


That is leftist logic. You might have your self righteous superstition, but when the push meets the shove - you cannot get things done and just "word" things. Which has no bearing on real world outcomes.
You are alienating not just from myself, but the whole debate what it means to have private property.
Lol my whole argument is that you cannot overturn private initiative through anonymity, have you got any notion of that?
These are ground truths, not your opinionated perspectives I'm talking about. I made my claim, I laid my basis. Try as you might, I'm well founded.


----------



## claes (Jun 4, 2021)

claes said:


> Wtf did I just read lol


Honestly it’s almost like you’re trying to be misunderstood


----------



## Space Lynx (Jun 4, 2021)

I think main thing to keep in mind here is this is just a good first step. Proof of concept to see if waste nuclear material can be re-used efficiently enough to make the argument for nuclear again. That is the main goal of this (I think), once it is proven than governments of the world can scale it (I don't mean in size of reactor, I just mean more small reactors in non-wind  non-solar geographical locations that need 24/7 energy). Getting rid of that waste was the main issue.


----------



## qubit (Jun 4, 2021)

Caring1 said:


> I just want to point out the fact anyone can install a wind powered generator or solar power unit on their own property, but portable, personal nuclear is not possible.


Sure, but I'm talking about power plants that power whole cities. Nuclear is perfect for that.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jun 4, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> Proof of concept to see if waste nuclear material can be re-used efficiently enough to make the argument for nuclear again.


This! It is possible, if done properly and carefully, to reuse spent nuclear fuels.


----------



## bogmali (Jun 4, 2021)

Gentlemen, gentlemen, gentlemen..you all know the rules 

Thread cleansed


----------



## R0H1T (Jun 4, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> if the Yellowstone Super Volcano goes, you are looking at probably half the worlds population dying. so let's just hope that doesn't happen ye?


No, unless you meant your half (pacific rim) of the world? And yeah that geyser is one hell of a, you know


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jun 4, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> plus wyoming doesn't get earthquakes and tsunami's to my knowledge, so all should be good.


I’m pretty sure there have been quite a few quakes in Wyoming the past few years. Their increasing frequency is part of what alarms a number of volcanologists about Yellowstone.

Edit: I checked and this is a little synopsis.
There are 1,516 earthquake incidents in Wyoming on record since 1931. The state averages 18 earthquakes per year. The largest earthquake on record for Wyoming occurred on 02/03/1994, with a depth of 3.8 miles and a magnitude of 5.6 on the Richter scale in Lincoln County, WY.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jun 4, 2021)

rtwjunkie said:


> I’m pretty sure there have been quite a few quakes in Wyoming the past few years. Their increasing frequency is part of what alarms a number of volcanologists about Yellowstone.
> 
> Edit: I checked and this is a little synopsis.
> There are 1,516 earthquake incidents in Wyoming on record since 1931. The state averages 18 earthquakes per year. The largest earthquake on record for Wyoming occurred on 02/03/1994, with a depth of 3.8 miles and a magnitude of 5.6 on the Richter scale in Lincoln County, WY.



hmm, would be interesting to hear Warren Buffet/Bill Gates response as to the choice of location.


----------



## Fouquin (Jun 4, 2021)

tabascosauz said:


> It's simply insane to me the FUD and double standard that some Westerners believe. In Japan, I can understand those sentiments given the lasting impact of the Tohoku earthquake and it is politically suicidal not to tread carefully after 2011 - but we're not in Japan.
> 
> People saw Chernobyl...... and concluded that Soviet BWRs are bad, Soviet politics was bad, and mismanagement was bad. All a reasonable reaction.
> People saw Fukushima I/II...... and concluded that nuclear power is bad.  the human factor wasn't as different as some people think.
> ...



The stakes are not nearly as high as the public has been scared to believe. You can count the publicized failures on one hand, but you'd need a spreadsheet to keep track of the operational life cycles of all the reactors that performed perfectly without an issue. If we're talking human cost look at how many people in a 100 year scale have suffered from the effects of coal, oil, and gas accidents. It's a deadly field of work with second hand deadly emissions. Any time nuclear is mentioned the pearl clutching begins and another bill gets signed forcing even more strict red tape that other industries with worse safety records simply don't have to deal with. Shit dude how many millions of barrels of crude dumped into the oceans in the last 20 years versus how many ecologically destructive nuclear failures happened. Like seriously there's clearly some regulatory imbalance happening if we're going to clutch pearls and point at how destructive any particular energy source can potentially be.

Do not misinterpret my words here. Nuclear, as with anything inherently risky, needs to be regulated to certain standards of operable safety and reliability. However the regulations applied to nuclear vastly stifle any possibility of sustainability, and are in place not to just make nuclear simply a safe option but to make it an entirely unattractive option. It's costly not because it's inherently more unsafe than other energy sources, but because it's been regulated beyond being viable. Hence how we end up with geriatric billionaires being the only ones capable of funding development in the field at this point...


----------



## TumbleGeorge (Jun 4, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> Fusion still seems to be a dream that may or may not happen


Will happen but in China and USA will be forced to buy it from there.


----------



## R0H1T (Jun 4, 2021)

Fouquin said:


> but because it's been regulated beyond being viable. Hence how we end up with geriatric billionaires being the only ones capable of funding development in the field at this point


You could very well argue without the "stifling" regulations you end up with ~








						Chernobyl (TV Mini Series 2019) - IMDb
					

Chernobyl: Created by Craig Mazin. With Jessie Buckley, Jared Harris, Stellan Skarsgård, Adam Nagaitis. In April 1986, an explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics becomes one of the world's worst man-made catastrophes.




					www.imdb.com
				



Or more recently ~








						Fukushima nuclear disaster - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



If the corporations are allowed to have their way they will skip on a lot of safety measures, even if they're over the top. It's always better to be safe than sorry, especially when dealing with nuclei at an atomic scale.


----------



## Fouquin (Jun 4, 2021)

R0H1T said:


> You could every well argue without the "stifling" regulations you end up with ~
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ah yes two of the three horseman of "what about" nuclear regulatory hell. The same tired talking points that have destroyed development in the field despite the hundreds of perfectly functional reactors and facilities globally, many which operate or operated during the very same time spans. If you want to argue for safety regulation in the energy sector you're pointing the gun at the wrong target. Nuclear is well and properly regulated. Speaking of disasters, here's a fun graphic to end on...






Keep enjoying that fish...


----------



## R0H1T (Jun 4, 2021)

So you're saying none of these disasters happened due to sometimes lacking (safety) regulations or corporate greed? They aren't mutually exclusive btw.


----------



## Fouquin (Jun 4, 2021)

R0H1T said:


> So you're saying none of these disasters happened due to sometimes lacking (safety) regulations or corporate greed? They aren't mutually exclusive btw.



I said what I said and nothing more take your "so you're saying" counters and keep them to yourself, thank you very much. I refuse to engage with somebody who can't stick to the argument without swinging at words that weren't said. I'm not for shadow boxing, leave that in the gym. If you'd like to dissect the circumstances of the three, count them, three civilian nuclear disasters of the past 50 years there is lots of public information on them. Just do not forget to keep your scope wide and compare to the competition's impact with the disasters they've caused. The regulations placed on nuclear energy simply for existing far outstrip any other source of energy with greater impacts to the planet and its inhabitants. If we were to assess risk evenly then it would be easier to develop nuclear to phase out dirtier, more destructive energy industries.


I'm out of words for this thread as I've repeated myself three times now.


----------



## R0H1T (Jun 4, 2021)

Hey you're the one who brough up other "disasters" so if you can't stick to your guns you should indeed sign off & disengage. Ciao


----------



## the54thvoid (Jun 4, 2021)

My friend's a principal engineer for a global company. We discuss a lot of technical parameters and just last week spoke of 'process' as a factor in safety. 

As far as nuclear is concerned, you do need regulations in place. I know thats anathema to some but it's essential for that industry. Nuclear done well is safe. Cut corners, or have systems that don't allow critical human feedback (Chernobyl) and it's not so rosy.


----------



## R0H1T (Jun 4, 2021)

Yeah & just to give you a hint ~








						The Impasse Over Liability Clause in Indo-U.S. Nuclear Deal
					

The two nations have been unable to conclude talks on civilian nuclear energy because American companies have refused to accept the liability framework that the Indian government set in place in 2010 to deal with nuclear accidents.



					india.blogs.nytimes.com
				






> *Eager to establish its credibility as an American ally, the Indian government largely copied an annex of the convention into a draft law. However, it could not negate the historical context: an estimated 15,000 people have died in Bhopal as a result of poisoning by methyl isocyanate, a chemical that escaped from a plant run by a subsidiary of the American company Union Carbide in 1984. The accident clearly resulted from corporate negligence, and there is considerable anger in India that top executives — including the C.E.O. of Union Carbide at the time of the Bhopal disaster, Warren Anderson, who lives openly in the United States despite having been declared an “absconder” by Indian courts —have never been brought to book.*
> 
> The effect of the Indian government’s proposal for the nuclear liability law was to override the “absolute liability” principle laid down by the Indian Supreme Court after the Bhopal disaster. Under this principle, both the operator and supplier would have been jointly liable, with no cap on their liability. Instead, the government wanted to indemnify the supplier and transfer responsibility for an accident onto the public-sector Nuclear Power Corporation. This would have led to a situation where Indian victims and taxpayers were entirely liable for an accident, with no way of holding the supplier to account.
> 
> ...


Just as a frame of reference you know the number of people who died at Bhopal? It's anywhere between at least* 100-1000x* than the BP oil spill, the real number will never be known! You know what Union Carbide paid? I know it's not right to compare tragedies but the scale of disaster at Bhopal & commensurate compensation* wasn't even peanuts wrt BP payout*!

The scale of disaster which nuclear power can unleash is unreal & no amount of capping limited liability on the nuclear (power) provider will suffice! As far as I'm concerned, personally I wouldn't mind such companies going bankrupt over the disasters they caused!


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jun 4, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> hmm, would be interesting to hear Warren Buffet/Bill Gates response as to the choice of location.


I too would like to hear their response. However, 5.6 is not huge and that was also many years ago. Most are smaller and unless one is monitoring readings, most people never even realize it. I just wanted to point out it’s not a risk-free zone. Personally, i’m not opposed to more new nuclear plants.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jan 20, 2022)

In tiny Wyoming town, Bill Gates bets big on nuclear power
					

KEMMERER, Wyoming (AP) — In this sleepy Wyoming town that has relied on coal for over a century, a company founded by the man who revolutionized personal computing is launching an ambitious project to counter climate change: A nationwide reboot of nuclear energy technology.




					apnews.com
				




just an update on this thread.


----------



## claes (Jan 20, 2022)

qubit said:


> Nuclear is indeed the answer. It's been staring at us in the face for decades, yet the green lobby keep banging on about wind power and other useless technology.   Makes one wonder if they're really on the side of the environment, or if there's a secret agenda.


I know it’s too late, but the arguments I’ve heard against nuclear from the left are basically that it takes too long (in terms of climate change) and costs too much, not so much that it’s bad, although there are concerns about waste and it’s development going towards weapons, but that’s another story.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jan 20, 2022)

claes said:


> I know it’s too late, but the arguments I’ve heard against nuclear from the left are basically that it takes too long (in terms of climate change) and costs too much, not so much that it’s bad, although there are concerns about waste and it’s development going towards weapons, but that’s another story.



just fyi the power plants from bill gates are a bit different, there will be one normal but updated power plant nuclear, then a smaller plant that is designed to re-use the nuclear radioactive waste from the bigger power plant.

there ends up being no waste at all this way and no radioactive stuff needs stored.  its quite genius from what i understand about it. bill gates and warren buffet seem fairly confident in it anyway 

(im not an expert in this stuff, so some of that info may be wrong, but thats how i understand it)


----------



## Voodoo Rufus (Jan 21, 2022)

The only reason any of those things are true (cost, time to build) is because we've made it that way. In terms of climate change, we might be slow but far from late. But it really is the only current option for a high-energy society. And energy usage is directly tied to quality of life. Low energy is a quicker death, to put it succinctly.

I highly recommend reading Mike Shellenberger's book Apocalypse Never, and checking out his website. 









						Complete Case for Nuclear Energy — Environmental Progress
					

Complete Case for Nuclear Energy




					environmentalprogress.org


----------



## Space Lynx (Jan 21, 2022)

Voodoo Rufus said:


> The only reason any of those things are true (cost, time to build) is because we've made it that way. In terms of climate change, we might be slow but far from late. But it really is the only current option for a high-energy society. And energy usage is directly tied to quality of life. Low energy is a quicker death, to put it succinctly.
> 
> I highly recommend reading Mike Shellenberger's book Apocalypse Never, and checking out his website.
> 
> ...



thanks for sharing I will give it a look, personally I think there are so many variables against us that we are just wasting our finite resources at to rapid a pace, for example, even driving across my town the other day and seeing the new buildings they are building... like the wood they use is so cheap... it won't last very long at all against even medium level tornadoes.  its just a constant waste/rebuild game with insurance companies and contractors going as cheap as they can for max profits.

we are just wasteful beyond belief in almost every category across the board, its simply not sustainable, and we won't change our ways until "shortages" hit the headlines, and no i don't mean shortages like today, i mean literally the company who sources the good usable silicon sand says oh hey, we overestimated our supply... lol

RIP


----------



## Voodoo Rufus (Jan 21, 2022)

There's a lot to unpack there. Basically, the developed world is wasteful because we can afford to be. Things are plentiful. Not so much for the developing world. They live in scarcity. That's what we should be focusing on, and there's a lot of good and bad solutions out there. Mostly what's been done has not helped them.

Wood is renewable. We can farm it. Yes, stick-built homes are not efficient uses of wood and the practice goes back a couple hundred years. Manufactured homes make a lot more sense but goes against tradition and there's a stigma around them as cheaply built, but it doesn't have to be. Look up ebay cabins or barndominums for all sorts of cool ideas. Only real solution to tornado damage is to basically live underground or don't live near tornado areas. Pretty much every geographical area has its own challenges from a climate or geology standpoint (e.g. earthquake). Shellenberger has a good page on how fewer people die from natural disasters and how good we are at adapting to them in his climate section. 

Just because humanity is wasteful doesn't mean it isn't sustainable. We should get more efficient with how we use our land, and that comes with increased energy usage. Want to lessen deforestation as developing countries are still burning wood and charcoal for cooking, and dying of indoor air pollution? Get them on propane. Want to lessen land usage for ag? Get people off of manual labor farming and get them a tractor and fertilizer. We already grow food for 10 billion people. It's more a matter of getting it where it needs to go, and growing it on fewer acres.

What's going on in the chip space is weird. We're not running out of sand.....that's one of the most plentiful things on earth!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 21, 2022)

The main force behind this natrium reactor is that it can respond to renewables.  The liquid sodium acts as a thermal battery so the electric generation loop can be hours divorced from thermal (reactor) loop.  At night, it can put 100% of thermal capacity into the electric loop.  If wind picks up, that number drops.  If the sun starts rising and there's too much solar in the grid, some of the electricity may be used to heat the sodium (instead of nuclear) to be expended later.  Molten sodium reactors are industrial thermal batteries in addition to being nuclear power plants. That's what makes this design so attractive, even though it can't hold a light to boiling water reactors in terms of pure electric generation (often have nameplate generation capacity 3x higher).

The really exciting thing about these reactors is that they can _replace_ natural gas in the grid.  It has similar performance/capability as gas turbines but without the emissions and market pricing risks.




lynx29 said:


> just fyi the power plants from bill gates are a bit different, there will be one normal but updated power plant nuclear, then a smaller plant that is designed to re-use the nuclear radioactive waste from the bigger power plant.
> 
> there ends up being no waste at all this way and no radioactive stuff needs stored.  its quite genius from what i understand about it. bill gates and warren buffet seem fairly confident in it anyway
> 
> (im not an expert in this stuff, so some of that info may be wrong, but thats how i understand it)


Fast breeder reactor.  The problem with breeders is that nobody trusts anybody with them because they can weaponize uranium.  They need to be among the most secure facilities in the world.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Jan 21, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Fast breeder reactor.  The problem with breeders is that nobody trusts anybody with them because they can weaponize uranium.  They need to be among the most secure facilities in the world.



I've read actually there is shortage of really highly enriched and pure uranium in US. The space industry complained about that as they need small reactors for future missions too.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 21, 2022)

NASA had to procure plutonium for RTGs from Russia because the last facility producing it in the USA shutdown years ago (I believe it was at ORNL).


----------



## Ferrum Master (Jan 21, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> NASA had to procure plutonium for RTGs from Russia because the last facility producing it in the USA shutdown years ago (I believe it was at ORNL).



Basically a need? Income opportunity for Uncle Bill?


----------



## Vayra86 (Jan 21, 2022)

tabascosauz said:


> More that humans are fickle and weak-willed, and can't commit to shit anymore without balking at the challenges. People saw Chernobyl and Fukushima and immediately jumped to the conclusion that nuclear will be the death of humanity, instead of asking why Western PWRs are designed differently, or why plants run by other companies within the earthquake zone didn't suffer catastrophic release.
> 
> Like this "advanced" reactor in question. Immediately the counterargument is that experts "warn" that it's more dangerous because high enrichment fuels are also more suited to weapons development. Yeah, no shit Sherlock, there's also something called oversight and regulation, maybe that's where to focus attention? People not only becoming risk-averse - they're becoming paranoid. There's a potential problem, so explore solutions.



Humans are not fickle and weak-willed, our Western snowflake societies are. We are living a generation that has not seen war or true misery, except abroad. Its always 'happening over there'.

Climate change though is happening everywhere. I think we're going to rediscover the necessary spirit. Its happening already, because people are seeing wind turbines in their back yard and the noise they bring along, and they realize: shit, pollution isn't just the air we breathe, but the sky we can look at and the sound we hear, too. Green is slapping them in the face as they speak, and they begin to realize how abundant the fossil boom was. Similarly, the gas problem... oops, yeah, eheh... nuclear might be pretty warm in winter, after all.

Its a shame we never learn from history too well... its the same thing with all these nonsensical 'political' debates. Its not even about politics but about individuals trying to preserve snowflake lives. That goes from being scared of a jab (the fundamental problem rn, beyond all the bullshit people make up for themselves so we don't call them pussies), to categoric denial that we lack a sustainable way forward so we just 'blunder ahead' and blame government for it.

Western societies have become a grossly irresponsible bunch of idiots and its about time we learned what's what. Its only for that reason, too, that Putin now has 127k Russians at the Ukranian border. He smells weakness and knows history. And what's worse: we already know he'll probably succeed at taking another piece of the country as he did before, because we also know we're not going to fight someone else's war, we're too weak, and we have bread & games. A vast majority isn't even capable or willing of fighting its own war, whichever it is. Surely we paid someone to do that for us, right?


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jan 21, 2022)

Think about the number of reactors, and the number of "accidents" cough windscale cough. Nuclear is perfectly safe, Fukishima was unfortunate, but was their fault Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) operated the station and was warned their seawall was insufficient to withstand a powerful tsunami, but did not increase the seawall height in response. TEPCO ran other stations (such as the Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant) closer to the epicenter of the earthquake which had much more robust seawalls.

I been saying for year we need to use more nuclear power, it is clean and safe.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jan 21, 2022)

Tigger said:


> Think about the number of reactors, and the number of "accidents" cough windscale cough. Nuclear is perfectly safe, Fukishima was unfortunate, not really the Japs fault.
> 
> I been saying for year we need to use more nuclear power, it is clean and safe.


The next argument I hear when I say this around other people is 'sure, probably safe then, but omg the radioactive stuff, its unsafe for ages and you can't get rid of it'...

As if there aren't other processes that create massive toxic waste... and radioactive material:
Take aluminium, another one of those key materials we use for our transition to greener, highly recyclable 








						TENORM: Bauxite and Alumina Production Wastes | US EPA
					

Bauxite is used to produce alumina, which is then used to produce aluminum. Naturally-occurring radioactivity in bauxite ores is concentrated during the refining process, creating TENORM in bauxite refining residuals.




					www.epa.gov


----------



## R-T-B (Jan 21, 2022)

Ferrum Master said:


> The space industry complained about that as they need small reactors for future missions too.


I thought there were treaties against use of true fission based reactors in space?

Or is that a pipe dream from a different era? (For the record, I have no issue with it as long as it does not come back.  Space is radioactive in many places anyways).



FordGT90Concept said:


> NASA had to procure plutonium for RTGs from Russia because the last facility producing it in the USA shutdown years ago (I believe it was at ORNL).


Holy crap you post.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 21, 2022)

Tigger said:


> not really the Japs fault.


Not true. The plant was designed and built near a coastline without taking tsunami effect into account in a nation that has a history of being hit by tsunami's. It was poor planning and design.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jan 21, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> Not true. The plant was designed and built near a coastline without taking tsunami effect into account in a nation that has a history of being hit by tsunami's. It was poor planning and design.



They could have built the protection wall taller than the 5.7m they did. There was actually another Nuclear plant further up the coast Onagawa that was closer to the epicentre, but they built their wall higher at 14.7m iirc and suffered no damage and managed to shut down the 4 reactors safely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa_Nuclear_Power_Plant#2011_Tōhoku_earthquake

I mean not their fault as in they could not have predicted the earthquake, though japan is in a zone i guess. The thing they did wrong was not protecting the emergency generators from water.

Edit- i take it back, it was their fault-Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) operated the station and was warned their seawall was insufficient to withstand a powerful tsunami, but did not increase the seawall height in response. TEPCO ran other stations (such as the Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant) closer to the epicenter of the earthquake which had much more robust seawalls.


----------



## kapone32 (Jan 21, 2022)

lynx29 said:


> if the Super Volcano ever explodes, you have more to worry about than a small nuclear reactor meltdown, I promise. if the Yellowstone Super Volcano goes, you are looking at probably half the worlds population dying. so let's just hope that doesn't happen ye?


It would be bye bye the Americas. That is a Caldera!!!


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jan 21, 2022)

kapone32 said:


> It would be bye bye the Americas. That is a Caldera!!!



Bye bye humans, it *could* be an extinction eruption


----------



## kapone32 (Jan 21, 2022)

Tigger said:


> Bye bye humans, it *could* be an extinction eruption


Exactly the thought process (in some circles) is that those were some of the first Volcanoes on Earth. The fact that there is sustained Geyser activity speaks volumes to the amount of magma lying under the cone that is Yellowstone and beyond.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 21, 2022)

Tigger said:


> They could have built the protection wall taller than the 5.7m they did.





Tigger said:


> The thing they did wrong was not protecting the emergency generators from water.


Exactly. What they needed to do was built the emergency generators 20meters off the ground not worry about higher sea-walls.

However, in the Wyoming plant, this not going to be a problem.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jan 21, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> Exactly. What they needed to do was built the emergency generators 20meters off the ground not build higher sea-walls.
> 
> However, in the Wyoming plant, this not going to be a problem.



imo the future should be these new power plants from bill gates and use that power to get hydrogen up and going in some parts geographically that make sense, in other parts where there are tons of sun use aptera solar powered cars, and in other parts of the country use hyperloop.

variety is the spice of life baby ^^


----------



## dorsetknob (Jan 21, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> I thought there were treaties against use of true fission based reactors in space?


The Nuclear Batterys in question are not Spaceborne Reactors but a store of shielded Radioactive Plutonium which by natural decay produces heat   which is converted into useful Electricty.
as these batterys age the half life of the Radioactive Plutonium gives less heat and therefore less in converted power.

Voyager 1 & 2 are a good example of Nuclear Batterys experiencing power loss over years of use.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jan 21, 2022)

*sniffs* as thinks of V-Ger in the cold of dark space.


----------



## claes (Jan 21, 2022)

lynx29 said:


> just fyi the power plants from bill gates are a bit different, there will be one normal but updated power plant nuclear, then a smaller plant that is designed to re-use the nuclear radioactive waste from the bigger power plant.
> 
> there ends up being no waste at all this way and no radioactive stuff needs stored.  its quite genius from what i understand about it. bill gates and warren buffet seem fairly confident in it anyway
> 
> (im not an expert in this stuff, so some of that info may be wrong, but thats how i understand it)


Right, but this is all theoretical. Most climate scientists that don’t see nuclear power as a solution aren’t concerned about waste, they’re concerned about the time to proof of concept and then mass adaptation taking decades.


Voodoo Rufus said:


> The only reason any of those things are true (cost, time to build) is because we've made it that way. In terms of climate change, we might be slow but far from late. But it really is the only current option for a high-energy society. And energy usage is directly tied to quality of life. Low energy is a quicker death, to put it succinctly.


True, but that’s the fact of the matter, isn’t it? It takes a decade to secure funding and navigate the political landscape and then another decade to actually build.


Voodoo Rufus said:


> I highly recommend reading Mike Shellenberger's book Apocalypse Never, and checking out his website.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No offense but this guy doesn’t sound interesting to me at all. Does promoting catastrophe make concrete action more difficult? Yes. Can technology and investment help curb emissions? Duh. But if the intro to your wiki page reads like this and you call yourself the “bad boy” of environmentalism… hard pass.


> A controversial and polarizing figure, Shellenberger sharply disagrees with other environmentalists over the impacts of environmental threats and policies for addressing them.[9] Shellenberger's positions have been called "bad science" and "inaccurate" by environmental scientists and academics.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]


Ten citations questioning your legitimacy in the _intro_? Yikes.

I don’t mean to dismiss him outright — some of his ideas seem worthwhile. But it’s not really a response to “nuclear takes too long and is unsustainable,” especially if his timeline for irreparable damage is inconsistent with scientific consensus and depends on technologies that don’t exist yet to curb those ramifications. Throwing rocks at straw men sells books, but there’s a much more practical middle that deals in realities rather than ideology.


FordGT90Concept said:


> The main force behind this natrium reactor is that it can respond to renewables.  The liquid sodium acts as a thermal battery so the electric generation loop can be hours divorced from thermal (reactor) loop.  At night, it can put 100% of thermal capacity into the electric loop.  If wind picks up, that number drops.  If the sun starts rising and there's too much solar in the grid, some of the electricity may be used to heat the sodium (instead of nuclear) to be expended later.  Molten sodium reactors are industrial thermal batteries in addition to being nuclear power plants. That's what makes this design so attractive, even though it can't hold a light to boiling water reactors in terms of pure electric generation (often have nameplate generation capacity 3x higher).
> 
> The really exciting thing about these reactors is that they can _replace_ natural gas in the grid.  It has similar performance/capability as gas turbines but without the emissions and market pricing risks.
> 
> ...


Nice to see you!


Ferrum Master said:


> I've read actually there is shortage of really highly enriched and pure uranium in US. The space industry complained about that as they need small reactors for future missions too.


This is another reason climate scientists aren’t excited about nuclear — at current use rates they expect us to be out of uranium by the end of the century and sooner if we are to build more nuclear power plants.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jan 21, 2022)

the54thvoid said:


> *sniffs* as thinks of V-Ger in the cold of dark space.


My fave trek film


----------



## Voodoo Rufus (Jan 22, 2022)

claes said:


> No offense but this guy doesn’t sound interesting to me at all. Does promoting catastrophe make concrete action more difficult? Yes. Can technology and investment help curb emissions? Duh. But if the intro to your wiki page reads like this and you call yourself the “bad boy” of environmentalism… hard pass.
> 
> Ten citations questioning your legitimacy in the _intro_? Yikes.
> 
> ...



There's more like 800 years of known Uranium reserves if we ran all power production off of it with current reactor tech last I read. And I'm not even sure that factors in fuel recycling like the advanced reactor designs do, to say nothing of the French style reactors which generate like 1% of the waste that US reactors do.

If you want to bash Shellenberger just based off the Wiki page criticisms instead of reading his book, go for it. No skin off my back. He's got other pages countering the attacks on him. I find his arguments compelling from a pro-human standpoint.

I've said this for a while amongst my real life friends: The biggest detriment to environmentalism is environmentalists. They're never held to account for bad policies.

Nothing can scale for humanity's future power needs like nuclear.

I get a weekly nuclear news summary from this site: https://www.ans.org/news/article-3593/predictions-what-lies-ahead-for-nuclear-in-2022/

Both India and China are building reactors as fast as they can pretty much. China just went critical on their first pebble bed reactor, and it seems like they're turning on a new AP1400 every month. Pretty incredible progress. Pretty sad that the US doesn't own this space as we invented a lot of the tech over half a century ago. We could be exporting nuclear tech to the world and profiting handsomely off it.


----------



## claes (Jan 22, 2022)

Voodoo Rufus said:


> There's more like 800 years of known Uranium reserves if we ran all power production off of it with current reactor tech last I read. And I'm not even sure that factors in fuel recycling like the advanced reactor designs do, to say nothing of the French style reactors which generate like 1% of the waste that US reactors do.


Where’d you read that? From the horse’s mouth, if we don’t build any more nuclear power plants, uranium supplies at current usage would last 135 years, 250 if we account for uranium we know about but don’t know how to extract yet:



			https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2020-12/7555_uranium_-_resources_production_and_demand_2020__web.pdf#page109
		



> As documented in this volume, sufficient uranium resources exist to support continued use of nuclear power and significant growth in nuclear capacity for electricity generation and other uses in the long term. Identified recoverable resources,3 including reasonably assured resources and inferred resources, are sufficient for over 135 years, considering uranium requirements of about 59 200 tU (data as of 1 January 2019). Exploitation of the entire conventional resource4 base would increase this to well over 250 years. Nevertheless, the rapid growth of nuclear power in the coming decades would significantly change this picture. Furthermore, uranium exploration and development, motivated by significantly increased demand and market prices, would be required to move these resources into more definitive categories.





Voodoo Rufus said:


> I've said this for a while amongst my real life friends: The biggest detriment to environmentalism is environmentalists. They're never held to account for bad policies.
> 
> Nothing can scale for humanity's future power needs like nuclear.


This is exactly the sort of straw man I am referring to. Any climate scientist or policy analyst worth their salt sees nuclear as an important part of combating emissions and preventing damage from climate change. The “environmentalists” you’re talking about are just red herrings. Here’s how actual environmentalists talk about nuclear:








						We've been having the wrong debate about nuclear energy » Yale Climate Connections
					

What advocates on both sides may be overlooking.




					yaleclimateconnections.org
				




The reality is that the biggest advocates of nuclear energy, like the IAEA, acknowledge that nuclear is not enough to even meet the Paris accords, let alone the more substantial emission reductions climate scientists and policy analysts are calling for.



			https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/TE-1984web.pdf
		



> In summary, while not a panacea for all energy and climate related challenges, the studies in this CRP confirm that nuclear energy can be an important part of the solution depending on specific national circumstances and priorities, fostering not only GHG emissions reduction but also other aspects of sustainable energy development (some which were not analysed in detail in this project).











						Nuclear energy - The solution to climate change?
					

With increased awareness of climate change in recent years nuclear energy has received renewed attention. Positions that attribute nuclear energy an i…




					www.sciencedirect.com
				












						Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System – Analysis - IEA
					

Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System - Analysis and key findings. A report by the International Energy Agency.




					www.iea.org


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jan 22, 2022)

Could they not blast nuclear waste into the sun in a big rocket? the sun is so vast i'm sure the tiny amount of waste we fire into it would have a minute if any effect on it.


----------



## AlwaysHope (Jan 22, 2022)

Tigger said:


> Could they not blast nuclear waste into the sun in a big rocket? the sun is so vast i'm sure the tiny amount of waste we fire into it would have a minute if any effect on it.


Don't have to send it to the sun , just send it far enough away from earth is all that's required. Space is already highly radioactive by nature. The miniscule amounts humans could send up there would be like a grain of sand on a beach compared to the rest of it up there. 
The problem I see is IF & its a rather big IF, the rocket explodes or breaks up prematurely inside the earth's atmosphere, consequences would be like something out of a science fiction horror movie.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 22, 2022)

Tigger said:


> the sun is so vast i'm sure the tiny amount of waste we fire into it would have a minute if any effect on it.


It would have no effect at all on the Sun. The surface of the Sun is far more intense than anything we could throw at it. The problem is getting the stuff there. It's not as easy a shooting a rocket into space. It's actually very difficult to get things to the Sun from as far out in the planetary system as Earth is. Compared to the gas giants we're in close, but close is relative. We're 150million KM from the Sun. That's a big distance.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 22, 2022)

claes said:


> Where’d you read that? From the horse’s mouth, if we don’t build any more nuclear power plants, uranium supplies at current usage would last 135 years, 250 if we account for uranium we know about but don’t know how to extract yet:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Pretty sure they aren't taking into consideration the fact that spent uranium can be reused in breeder reactors or that other heavy metals can be used like thorium.  U-235/U-238 is the preferred fuel because, sadly, it's the only thing that will make it through the mountain of government regulations when commissioning a new reactor.

This is yet another reason why the natrium reactor is a milestone: it's the first new, commercial reactor design (but still using U-235/U-238) in the United States since their inception.  Even Vogtle that they're building now is just a new twist (Gen 3+) on 1960s designs (Gen 2).  To shovel all of the regulatory paperwork to fundamentally just change the cooling loop costs $100s of millions of dollars.

Again, I reiterate that the reason why all this money is being thrown at this particular reactor is because it can replace natural gas which is currently producing >50% of US power.  Hundreds of these reactors could be built replacing natural gas as long as the government doesn't get in the way to stop it (like it did in the 1980s after Three Mile Island).  It could become a trillion dollar industry over the next few decades.


----------



## Totally (Jan 22, 2022)

dragontamer5788 said:


> Depleted Uranium? So this is a breeder reactor?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#/media/File:Sasahara.svg. At least, breeder reactors are the only kind that use depleted Uranium to my knowledge.
> 
> The "Pu" elements in the cycle are always a political football. There usually needs to be some kind of discussion on why, or why not, those Plutonium atoms are inaccessible to attackers and/or unsavory countries.
> 
> ...


My only issue with this is the location, the biggest real issue with Nuke plants is the significant amounts of water they use, I'm not that familiar with it's water situation but I do know that it depends on snow melt and the Colorado River to make up the shortfall. So, I'm curious as to how their handling that especially since every state that gets water from the river never seem to get enough.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 22, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Again, I reiterate that the reason why all this money is being thrown at this particular reactor is because it can replace natural gas which is currently producing >50% of US power. Hundreds of these reactors could be built replacing them as long as the government doesn't get in the way to stop it (like they did in the 1980s after Three Mile Island). It could become a trillion dollar industry over the next few decades.


This. Done right it's perfectly safe and with no waste to store.


----------



## R-T-B (Jan 22, 2022)

dorsetknob said:


> The Nuclear Batterys in question are not Spaceborne Reactors but a store of shielded Radioactive Plutonium which by natural decay produces heat which is converted into useful Electricty.


I was not talking about RTGs dorset.


----------



## claes (Jan 22, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Pretty sure they aren't taking into consideration the fact that spent uranium can be reused in breeder reactors or that other heavy metals can be used like thorium. U-235/U-238 is the preferred fuel because, sadly, it's the only thing that will make it through the mountain of government regulations when commissioning a new reactor.


The IAEA/OECD reports take this into account in their calculations. They are the mouthpieces of the industry after all 

As for the rest, exciting technology that we should invest in but still, need proof of concept, regulatory overhaul, investment, public buy-in, and then for the things to actually be built. We’re talking decades.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jan 22, 2022)

Reactors should be Computer managed, not human as it's only us that make mistakes, ala three mile island, chernobyl, windscale.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jan 22, 2022)

Tigger said:


> Reactors should be Computer managed, not human as it's only us that make mistakes, ala three mile island, chernobyl, windscale.



Hmm. This innocent story suggests othewrwise:









						Robot vacuum cleaner escapes from Cambridge Travelodge
					

The automated vacuum device ignores a hotel door's threshold and makes a break for freedom.



					www.bbc.co.uk
				




It doesn't start with Skynet; the AI revolution has more humble beginnings.

But seriously, Human oversight is still needed to monitor automated systems of such importance. An errant robo-vacuum is comedy. A glitch in software operating a hazardous process isn't remotely chuckle-worthy. As long as we have bad actors and foreign meddling, software-based systems are subject to corruption.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jan 22, 2022)

the54thvoid said:


> Hmm. This innocent story suggests othewrwise:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Maybe they could be Human managed, but with a computer monitored overide for bad decisions or mistakes. Ie if something needed to be done but the humans missed it, the computer would overide and make the changes.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jan 22, 2022)

Tigger said:


> Maybe they could be Human managed, but with a computer monitored overide for bad decisions or mistakes. Ie if something needed to be done but the humans missed it, the computer would overide and make the changes.



In the end safety is gained by good / tested design, and experienced crews. You can't design security perfectly until you know 100% of all the science surrounding that safety. We don't know 100%. Close, but not 100%.

The meltdown in Chernobyl is the perfect example of why any system, no matter how we design it, is based on current knowledge and we simply don't know what we don't know. So you can't model it. Its why our current climate models need adaptation all the time, and even science itself is just the current state of affairs based on everything we know up to this point.

Chernobyl really didn't just fail because of human action, it failed because of a bad personal interpretation of the design. If a different set of brains was at the helm that night, things could have happened differently. Another reason it failed was because of tunnel vision in an autocratic system. But at its core was still a design mistake. Imagine if a computer was the final word in that situation: it would have simply crashed into the same iceberg _without_ the option for human intervention.

Did you see the movie 'Don't look up' ?  It describes a similar problem with science, safety and control, and trying to leave it up to computers. Worth a look!


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jan 22, 2022)

Vayra86 said:


> In the end safety is gained by good / tested design, and experienced crews. You can't design security perfectly until you know 100% of all the science surrounding that safety. We don't know 100%. Close, but not 100%.
> 
> The meltdown in Chernobyl is the perfect example of why any system, no matter how we design it, is based on current knowledge and we simply don't know what we don't know. So you can't model it. Its why our current climate models need adaptation all the time, and even science itself is just the current state of affairs based on everything we know up to this point.
> 
> ...



Chernobyl was human error combined with flawed design, ie the rods. There is no doubt the crew made mistakes. When it should have been shut down as they had gone too far, it wasn't because of the rush to get the test completed. In the USSR there was a fair few of the same designed reactor, none of which melted down, which shows it was mostly human error, though that type of reactor at the time was not the best.

I still believe nuclear is the best way to achieve high output with the least impact on the enviroment.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 22, 2022)

Tigger said:


> I still believe nuclear is the best way to achieve high output with the least impact on the *environment*.


This, as long as it's done right...


----------



## cst1992 (Jan 22, 2022)

I hope this new reactor isn't being built so as to enable the RTX 6090Ti to consume 2000W of power.

We need to bring our power consumption under control. That is one of the key requirements for sustainability and for survival of humans as a species.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jan 22, 2022)

Just got to remember, cooling cooling cooling. I'm gonna have a read up on this molten salt cooling thing.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 22, 2022)

cst1992 said:


> 2000W of power.


That would never happen. Electrical load limits in building code for a wall socket is 1500w total power draw. While this is specific to the USA, most of the world general sticks right around those values for safety reasons.


----------



## Shrek (Jan 22, 2022)

I thought 20A was possible in the US = 2400W

And the British have 13A on 240V = 3000W


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 22, 2022)

Andy Shiekh said:


> I thought 20A was possible in the US = 2400W


Not through a residential general purpose wall socket. The limit everywhere in the US is 1500W. Special use sockets can go as high as 3000W, but that is usually 220v


Andy Shiekh said:


> And the British have 13A on 240V = 3000W


That's what inline fuses are rated for. However, AC voltage works differently at 230v than at 110v in the US. It's complicated and I'm not going into the details here. Everyone has a different safety standard. That's just how it goes, but most of the world is on the 120V 60hz type of system and generally have a 1500w to 2000w power limit in a residential socket.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jan 22, 2022)

We know the volts – the UK uses 230V (+/- 10 percent) – and let's limit Amps to 13 as that's the highest-rated fuse you'll find in a plug, including in multiway adapters. So, you can connect devices which use *up to 2990W* to a single UK mains socket without overloading. so it is nigh on 3000w in the UK
https://www.techadvisor.com/feature/digital-home/what-is-limit-of-13a-socket-3663653/


----------



## R-T-B (Jan 22, 2022)

Tigger said:


> Reactors should be Computer managed, not human as it's only us that make mistakes, ala three mile island, chernobyl, windscale.


Fun fact:  Chernobyls computer management played a role in the disaster because it was being fed bad input from sensors and making bad decisions.  This isn't well known because it wasn't in the HBO series, but it's true.  By the time they realized what the computer was doing, they had far bigger concerns from compounding issues from the human side, but it wasn't helping things at all.



lexluthermiester said:


> Not through a residential general purpose wall socket.


New build code often calls for 20A wall sockets in many parts of the home, actually.  They look like this:









						Leviton 20 Amp 125-Volt Duplex Self-Test Slim GFCI Outlet, White (4-Pack) M42-GFNT2-04W - The Home Depot
					

Peace of mind, all the time. The SmartlockPro Self-Test GFCI tests itself even if you forget. Designed to meet the latest UL standard for auto-monitoring (self-test) our complete line of self-test GFCI's



					www.homedepot.com


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jan 22, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> Fun fact:  Chernobyls computer management played a role in the disaster because it was being fed bad input from sensors and making bad decisions.  This isn't well known because it wasn't in the HBO series, but it's true.  By the time they realized what the computer was doing, they had far bigger concerns from compounding issues from the human side, but it wasn't helping things at all.
> 
> 
> New build code often calls for 20A wall sockets in many parts of the home, actually.  They look like this:
> ...



What happened was near enough like steering over compensation. Rods too far in, power too low, oh crap then too far out, power too high, then boom when replacing them. I guess the power indications they where been shown played a part in it.


----------



## Shrek (Jan 22, 2022)

Boom because the ends of the rods were graphite, a moderator.


----------



## R-T-B (Jan 22, 2022)

I'm well aware guys.  I was just commenting that it's not impossible for a computer to make mistakes when its sensors are designed and installed by humans.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 22, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> New build code often calls for 20A wall sockets in many parts of the home, actually.  They look like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As I understand things, this is only in parts of the home where water hazards are possible, like the bathroom, kitchen and laundry rooms. Common rooms where water is not expected still have the 1500w standard, at least where I live. It does vary a little from state to state.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jan 22, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> I'm well aware guys.  I was just commenting that it's not impossible for a computer to make mistakes when its sensors are designed and installed by humans.



If it is getting wrong data of course, not disagreeing with you


----------



## looniam (Jan 22, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> As I understand things, this is only in parts of the home where water hazards are possible, like the bathroom, kitchen and laundry rooms. Common rooms where water is not expected still have the 1500w standard, at least where I live. It does vary a little from state to state.


that is *GFI* in kitchen/bathroom. 20 amps/12gauge wire is _standard local code anymore_. the trick is all lightning_ fixtures need to be on a seperate  circuit cuz tiny wires can be a fire hazard._


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jan 23, 2022)

In the UK even the kitchen can have normal 13A sockets, a lot of high amp kitchen appliances exist. Most bathrooms in the UK don't have any sockets, if you're lucky there might be a shaver socket, that will not take a 13A plug.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 23, 2022)

looniam said:


> that is *GFI* in kitchen/bathroom. 20 amps/12gauge wire is _standard local code anymore_. the trick is all lightning_ fixtures need to be on a seperate  circuit cuz tiny wires can be a fire hazard._


Fair enough. Didn't know that.


----------



## dorsetknob (Jan 23, 2022)

In UK
1.0mm twin + Earth rated for 5A (lighting ring main).
2.5mm twin + Earth rated for 15A (13A power Ring main).
6.0mm twin + Earth rated for 30A (Electrical Cooker point).
Voltage is nominally Rated as 240 Volt

in most of Europe its 220 Volt
most of continental US its 110 V

As i understand it its because of Distance from Supply Originally
in the US each town had its own power station and the voltage Drop on a 110v supply was deemed acceptable.
in Europe and UK Houses were further from power stations  and the Volt drop was too much on 110v
220/240 V had a more acceptable Supply Volt Drop ( and thus was more efficient ).

Of Course this was set up before the National Grid was introduced ( and local step down substations ).

With the local area allready set up with their 110/220/240 V it was deemed too expensive to change the set up to a Global Standard
 thats how i believe is the origion of our Respective Grids.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 23, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> New build code often calls for 20A wall sockets in many parts of the home, actually.  They look like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I live in new house (2021).  Only 20 amp outlets are literally under the breaker panel.  I asked for a 20 amp outlet to be installed by my computers and they put in a 15 amp.

I've seen 20 amp the most in hospitals where some machines require it.  Newish RVs require a 30 amp.



looniam said:


> that is *GFI* in kitchen/bathroom. 20 amps/12gauge wire is _standard local code anymore_. the trick is all lightning_ fixtures need to be on a seperate  circuit cuz tiny wires can be a fire hazard._


Code is 14-gauge wire for lights and 12-gauge wire for outlets.




Tigger said:


> Just got to remember, cooling cooling cooling. I'm gonna have a read up on this molten salt cooling thing.


It's just liquid sodium coming into contact with the reactor instead of water.  When water gets hot, it wants to phase change into steam which is a completely different animal and potentially dangerous.  Sodium doesn't do that so it can get much, much hotter.

More info: https://natriumpower.com/

As the link says, the heat cycle (reactor) is 345 MWe while the electric generation/cooling cycle is 500 MWe.  If the grid is consuming less than 345 MWe, the heat is stored in the reactor cycle until it is discharged into electricity at a rate of up to 500 MWe.  If the reactor has a lot of stored heat and electric demand is low, the reactor can use the stored heat to supply the grid without firing up the reactor for potentially days.  Even in cases where there is an emergency cut from the grid, current Gen 2 and most Gen 3+ reactors take all that energy from the reactor and vent it to the environment via their cooling loop.  These natrium reactors will instead store most of it (if not all of it) so when the power plant is reconnected to the grid, it won't even have to start up the reactor for hours (depending on demand).  Most of that gap is covered by the molten sodium where it is vented with water loops.



Nuclear power is the best path to cheaply mass produce hydrogen.  The hotter the water is, the more willing the atoms are to separate.


			https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review08/3_production_nuclear_energy_thomas_oconner.pdf
		









						Very-High-Temperature Reactor (VHTR)
					

Very-High-Temperature Reactor (VHTR)




					www.gen-4.org


----------



## cst1992 (Jan 24, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> Fun fact:  Chernobyls computer management played a role in the disaster because it was being fed bad input from sensors and making bad decisions.  This isn't well known because it wasn't in the HBO series, but it's true.  By the time they realized what the computer was doing, they had far bigger concerns from compounding issues from the human side, but it wasn't helping things at all.


Let's hope it was at least recommending the reactor be shut down when they were in the xenon pit, as was shown in the series.

If only they had paid heed to that recommendation...
"Of course it's saying that - it doesn't know we're running a test."


----------



## R-T-B (Jan 24, 2022)

cst1992 said:


> Let's hope it was at least recommending the reactor be shut down when they were in the xenon pit, as was shown in the series.
> 
> If only they had paid heed to that recommendation...
> "Of course it's saying that - it doesn't know we're running a test."


I believe that is accurate, but the irony of that recomendation is it was recomending a fast scram, which is precisely what would cause the reactor to explode due to design faulty-control tips.  The reactor was effectively being told to shutdown the "fast" way far too late in the process due to RBMK reactors having bad sensor blindspots in the reactor.  I believe there were reports by this point that the reactor casing & control rod covers were physically lurching up and down.

The only safe way to exit that scenario would be gradually.

Morbid Fun Fact:  I studied the Chernobyl disaster as well as the faults in its reactor design under the late Professor Robert Smurr at Evergreen.  I was one of the few people in the college to be given the opportunity to actually tour the disaster site, but declined for health safety reasons.

Probably for the best, Robert passed away of cancer after giving the tour for several years.









						Obituary of Robert Welling Smurr | Funeral Alternatives Of Washington
					

Robert Smurr passed away peacefully in Olympia, Washington, on December 31, 2017. Born January 17, 1961 in Sacramento, California, Rob lived life to the fullest and without regret.   Rob was as much at home in a classroom as in the great outdoors; both environments in which he excelled. He...



					funeralalternatives.org


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jan 24, 2022)

Plus not forgetting the morons completely failed to have any sort of shield like western reactors have, hence the big domes on them.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 24, 2022)

This is what the core looks like to Chernobyl employees:





You're seeing the top of this picture (cross section):





This is what Fukashima looks like to their employees (this is a cross section):





The design difference is why one was a huge environmental disaster and the other was minor.

Granted, RBMK reactors (even those at the same facility) operated safely for decades after the accident.  They just didn't run any stupid tests on them to intentionally break them unlike Chernobyl #4.
Chernobyl #2 shut down after a 1991 turbine fire.  Chernobyl #1 and #3 were shutdown in 1995 because of an agreement between Ukraine and EU.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 24, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The design difference is why one was a huge environmental disaster and the other was minor.


Um, Ford? Hate to break this to you, but both were huge disasters. The difference is that Fukashima is easier to clean up, but it's still a very long process.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jan 24, 2022)

Chernobyl had a huge amount 190,287.3 kg of uranium in it too compared to smaller reactors.


----------



## freeagent (Jan 24, 2022)

Tigger said:


> Chernobyl had a huge amount 190,287.3 kg of uranium in it too compared to smaller reactors.


Some reactors use MOX fuel for a much bigger kick than standard fuel iirc.


----------



## R-T-B (Jan 24, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Granted, RBMK reactors (even those at the same facility) operated safely for decades after the accident.


That is not an excuse to keep running a reactor with many known flaws, a great many of them (such as the sensor blindspots) still present.

There's a reason there is pressure to shut those reactors down.  Even with the cascading human failures, the final fast scram should have shut down the reactor safely.  It did not, and there's little evidence to convince the public that that problem has even been addressed (they say they changed the control rod tips but this is often questioned), let alone other known ones they haven't even started on.

RBMK reactors are not a safe design, period.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jan 24, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> That is not an excuse to keep running a reactor with many known flaws, a great many of them (such as the sensor blindspots) still present.
> 
> There's a reason there is pressure to shut those reactors down.  Even with the cascading human failures, the final fast scram should have shut down the reactor safely.  It did not, and there's little evidence to convince the public that that problem has even been addressed (they say they changed the control rod tips but this is often questioned), let alone other known ones they haven't even started on.
> 
> RBMK reactors are not a safe design, period.



I agree, they are not. If they had surrounding concrete containment  structures, maybe so, but as they haven't, they are not.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 24, 2022)

Tigger said:


> Chernobyl had a huge amount 190,287.3 kg of uranium in it too compared to smaller reactors.


This is true.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 25, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> Um, Ford? Hate to break this to you, but both were huge disasters. The difference is that Fukashima is easier to clean up, but it's still a very long process.


Chernobyl was; Fukushima was not.  The panicked, unnecessary evacuation of the Fukushima prefecture caused more deaths and injury than the reactors ever posed directly:








						Fukushima evacuation has killed more than earthquake and tsunami, survey says
					






					www.nbcnews.com
				





> A survey by popular Japanese newspaper Mainichi Shimbun said Monday that deaths relating to this displacement – around 1,600 – have surpassed the number killed in the region in the original disaster.





> Causes of death in the aftermath have included “fatigue” due to conditions in evacuation centers, exhaustion from relocating, and illness resulting from hospital closures. The survey also said a number of suicides had been attributed to the ordeal.


1 was killed due to acute radiation poisoning (inhaled ionized particles at the facility)
16 injured due to hydrogen explosions
2 injured with radiation burns

Fukushima was a lot like Three Mile Island in this regard.  Both were fatal incidents for the plant and _bad_ for people inside but the wider community was safe due to good containment designs...unlike Chernobyl.  The long-term evacuation of Pripyat was absolutely necessary; evacuation of the area surrounding Daiichi and Three Mile Island were not.



R-T-B said:


> That is not an excuse to keep running a reactor with many known flaws, a great many of them (such as the sensor blindspots) still present.
> 
> There's a reason there is pressure to shut those reactors down.  Even with the cascading human failures, the final fast scram should have shut down the reactor safely.  It did not, and there's little evidence to convince the public that that problem has even been addressed (they say they changed the control rod tips but this is often questioned), let alone other known ones they haven't even started on.
> 
> RBMK reactors are not a safe design, period.


And yet, there are still 8 of them operational today (literally half: 16 total were completed and started) at Kursk, Leningrad, and Smolensk producing 7.4 GWs of clean energy.  They can undeniably operate safely.

Safety is always a sliding scale offset by cost.  USSR was not a wealthy nation.


----------



## 80-watt Hamster (Jan 25, 2022)

dorsetknob said:


> In UK
> 1.0mm twin + Earth rated for 5A (lighting ring main).
> 2.5mm twin + Earth rated for 15A (13A power Ring main).
> 6.0mm twin + Earth rated for 30A (Electrical Cooker point).
> ...



US household electrical service is delivered as 220V to the site.  It's then split into two single 110V phases.  That's bridged back into 220V for high-watt devices like ovens and clothes dryers.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 25, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Chernobyl was; Fukushima was not. The panicked, unnecessary evacuation of the Fukushima prefecture caused more deaths and injury than the reactors ever posed directly:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


While your points are valid, I'm not talking about lethality, I'm talking about the total radiation toxicity environmentally, which has been extensive and will continue to be, similar to Chernobyl. The cleanup is likely to take another few decades.



80-watt Hamster said:


> US household electrical service is delivered as 220V to the site.  It's then split into two single 110V phases.  That's bridged back into 220V for high-watt devices like ovens and clothes dryers.


This is correct.


----------



## R-T-B (Jan 25, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> And yet, there are still 8 of them operational today (literally half: 16 total were completed and started) at Kursk, Leningrad, and Smolensk producing 7.4 GWs of clean energy. They can undeniably operate safely.


By your logic, a artillery round that has not yet exploded because it's lodged in someones wall is "safe."  No it's not, it just can be safe for the moment.  RBMK reactors are one of the least safe actively deployed designs on the planet, and should not be running anymore, period.

Yes they CAN operate safely, on a good day, but we don't (or shouldn't) put up with margins like that where the humans having a bad day can send the whole thing into a tailspin.  Chernobyl (supposedly) taught the world that.



lexluthermiester said:


> While your points are valid, I'm not talking about lethality, I'm talking about the total radiation toxicity environmentally, which has been extensive and will continue to be, similar to Chernobyl.


PNW resident:  We are still warned not to touch metal beach debri.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 25, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> PNW resident: We are still warned not to touch metal beach debri.


And that is likely very wise. And least not with your bare hands.


----------



## R-T-B (Jan 25, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> And that is likely very wise. And least not with your bare hands.


My dad used to pick up everything.  Never was wise, but at least when we told him "might be radioactive" he stopped.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jan 25, 2022)

Japan to help build Bill Gates' high-tech nuclear reactor in Wyoming -Yomiuri
					

The Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA) and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd are set to cooperate with the United States and Bill Gates' venture company to build a high-tech nuclear reactor in Wyoming, the daily Yomiuri reported on Saturday.




					www.reuters.com
				




Japan is helping Bill Gates build the new Reactor in Wyoming, interesting.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 25, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> While your points are valid, I'm not talking about lethality, I'm talking about the total radiation toxicity environmentally, which has been extensive and will continue to be, similar to Chernobyl. The cleanup is likely to take another few decades.


Except it's not similar to Chernobyl at all.  FDNPP has a containment structure where Chernobyl did not.  FDNPP shoved the control rods in before meltdown where Chernobyl could not.  There's a paper here published just four hours ago that talks about dealing with Reactors 1-3 clean up:








						Can reactor fuel debris be safely removed from Fukushima Daiichi?
					

Decommissioning and clean-up are ongoing at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (FDNPP); however, many difficult problems remain unaddressed. Chief amongst these problems is the retrieval and management of fuel debris.



					www.sciencedaily.com
				





> Prof. Gareth Law, a co-author from the University of Helsinki emphasized that this "is a tiny fraction of the reactor's overall boron inventory, and this may mean that essentially all of the control rod boron remains inside the reactors." The team hopes that this should prevent excessive fission reactions in the fuel debris.


There's really no rush to do any more at FDNPP because it's stable and contained.

Keep in mind that FDNPP had a 460 MW and two 784 MW reactors meltdown.  This is twice the generation capacity of Chernobyl (925 MW).



R-T-B said:


> By your logic, a artillery round that has not yet exploded because it's lodged in someones wall is "safe."  No it's not, it just can be safe for the moment.  RBMK reactors are one of the least safe actively deployed designs on the planet, and should not be running anymore, period.


By that logic, you can't drive a car anymore because that's controlled explosions.  Or use any electricity from natural gas because that's a controlled explosion.

Nuclear reactors can only explode when water gets hot where it shouldn't.  A coal power plant can cause the same kind of explosions by accident.

I'd rather those 8 RBMK reactors keep running than start burning 8 GW worth of coal.  The former is far safer and more environmentally friendly than the latter.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jan 25, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Keep in mind that FDNPP had a 460 MW and two 784 MW reactors meltdown. This is twice the generation capacity of Chernobyl (925 MW).


 Thermal or electrical? 
Chernobyl was 4 reactors of 1000MW electrical 3200MW thermal


----------



## Leiesoldat (Jan 25, 2022)

Part of the reason Fukushima was so bad, was because TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power Company) ignored 40 years worth of fire protection upgrades due to the cost (I knew an engineer who was in the room when they were going through early discussions on how to stop the radiation spread and fire protection when this nugget of information was discovered). After the disaster, the nuclear regulator went to TEPCO and plopped down the entire appendix of the US Nuclear Code related to fire protection and said it all had to be implemented within the year.


----------



## R-T-B (Jan 26, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> By that logic, you can't drive a car anymore because that's controlled explosions. Or use any electricity from natural gas because that's a controlled explosion.


No.  The reason we are so careful around nuclear power is because when it goes wrong, you can have a very bad situation for the entire planet.  None of those apply to cars or natural gas (or coal).  You just can't budget your way out of safety.



FordGT90Concept said:


> I'd rather those 8 RBMK reactors keep running than start burning 8 GW worth of coal. The former is far safer and more environmentally friendly than the latter.


I really don't feel the same.  And I hate coal.

I'm not anti nuclear.  I'm anti bad-nuclear.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jan 26, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> I'm not anti nuclear.  I'm anti bad-nuclear.




well that is the point of this thread really, bill gates/japan/learning from past mistakes with geographic locations (hence wyoming), new designs, recycling waste, all combined this will make good nuclear, which is why Warren Buffet and Bill Gates seem to be so invested in it.

If they can get a working unit up and going and all goes well, hopefully it will be enough to convince government to move forward. climate change needs some help, and really ******* fast.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jan 26, 2022)

I'm not anti nuclear either. Imo nuclear could be our saviour if it is done right. Obviously apart from the used fuel rods it is clean, and for the amount of fuel compared to the power generated it is pretty efficient-
Nuclear plants are the most efficient source of electricity, operating *24/7 at a 93 percent average capacity factor*. ... That's more than two times the capacity factor of any other carbon-free source. During the 2019 polar vortex, U.S. plants operated at more than 98 percent capacity.

There is no reason not to use them more.

Every other form of generation using fossil fuels should be banned, we could have completely clean electricity generation.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 26, 2022)

Tigger said:


> Thermal or electrical?
> Chernobyl was 4 reactors of 1000MW electrical 3200MW thermal


Electrical.  Chernobyl #4 (the one that catastrophically failed) had 925 MWe net and 1000 MWe gross generation capacity.  FDNPP had six reactors, all are now decommissioned, three (#1, #2, #3) melted down.



R-T-B said:


> No.  The reason we are so careful around nuclear power is because when it goes wrong, you can have a very bad situation for the entire planet.  None of those apply to cars or natural gas (or coal).  You just can't budget your way out of safety.


It has never been "a very bad situation for the *entire planet*."  It's always localized, just like every other disaster.  Car fires are frequent, despite having tanks designed to prevent leaks.  That includes electric vehicle fires.  Every fire truck carries chemical suppressant and a jaw-of-life for a reason.  Natural gas explosions have killed many over the years due to residential leaks.  They have also caused untold damage due to fracking (like pushing the gas into community water sources) and industrial spills.  There's an incomplete list here. My point is that everything has risks and benefits.  Nuclear risk is mostly monetary (everything about them is expensive from construction, to operation, to decommissioning).

It's fundamentally a matter of perspective.  USA has been generating roughly 20% of its power from nuclear for the last 60 years with only one major mishap to show for it. Nuclear is the most reliable, safest, and among the cleanest energy sources known to man.



Tigger said:


> Every other form of generation using fossil fuels should be banned, we could have completely clean electricity generation.


Provided that there's enough time to build and commission replacement power sources before the ban goes into effect.


----------



## R-T-B (Jan 26, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It has never been "a very bad situation for the *entire planet*."


Ford, Chernobyl has affects beyond the local region.  Honestly the fact that I'm debating this with you shows I am wasting my time.  You are in full incomparable whataboutism mode.

USA does not use budget RBMK reactors.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 26, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> Ford, Chernobyl has affects beyond the local region.  Honestly the fact that I'm debating this with you shows I am wasting my time.  You are in full incomparable whataboutism mode.


The increase in radiation could be measured over Europe, not the "entire planet."  That change was not dangerous at all.





It was dangerous close to Pripyat (30km downwind): the area USSR evacuated.  It no longer is.

I'm driven by logic and reason.  It seems you're driven by fear.  Radiation isn't some boogey man out to kill you while you sleep.  It's a relatively well understood concept that we have effective means to combat.



R-T-B said:


> USA does not use budget RBMK reactors.


And? USSR has been running 16 reactors for 40+ years and only one of them had a major accident.  They learned from their mistake to not do low power tests ever again and, surprise, surprise, it never happened again.  RBMK is safer because it's known than newer designs that aren't.  Even in this natrium reactor, some unforeseen design shortcoming could doom them to meltdown.  We can't know until after it happens, sadly.

The benefits outweigh the risks, empirically.


----------



## claes (Jan 26, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I'm driven by logic and reason. It seems you're driven by fear.


If you’re driven by logic and reason just stick to that. No need for personal attacks/lazy misogynism.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jan 26, 2022)

Found this reference to post Chernobyl, Russian reactors:



> Changes after Chernobyl
> The Chernobyl disaster proved that the RBMK design had to be addressed. The key flaws were mentioned above, and the solutions to each of them are:[2]
> 
> Reduction of void coefficient: This task was accomplished by the installation of many fixed neutron absorbers, increase of minimum number of control rods inside the core, and an increase of uranium enrichment.
> Improved emergency system: The system in the Chernobyl reactor was easily bypassed by the operator and lacked efficiency and speed. Change in design of the control rod inputs cut the insertion time from 18 seconds to 12 seconds, and the installation of a fast acting emergency protection system (FAEP) which introduced negative reactivity extremely fast.


----------



## R-T-B (Jan 26, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It no longer is.


It most certainly is.  The exclusion zone is still a controlled region and not just for fun.

The danger here is you calling a 1/14 hit rate of regional catastrophy over a 40 year period acceptable, and minimizing it's impacts.  You furthermore are far more convinced of the effectiveness of the changes than me.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jan 26, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> It most certainly is.  The exclusion zone is still a controlled region and not just for fun.
> 
> The danger here is you calling a 1/14 hit rate of regional catastrophy over a 40 year period acceptable, and minimizing it's impacts.  You furthermore are far more convinced of the effectiveness of the changes than me.



there are some people who live in te zone now, but not many, I bet there are areas that still very dangerous. Is it Pripyat hospital that has the basement with the firemen's uniforms in that are still highly radioactive?


----------



## R-T-B (Jan 26, 2022)

Tigger said:


> there are some people who live in te zone now, but not many, I bet there are areas that still very dangerous. Is it Pripyat hospital that has the basement with the firemen's uniforms in that are still highly radioactive?


Technically, the whole zone should be half as radioactive now more or less, because the chief isotope involved, cesium-137, has a half life of ~30.17 years.  But yes still half as toxic as the day it started, meaning large area is toxic and parts will still kill you.  Some of it may be survivable for sure, and there are indeed locals who stayed in Pripyat for example, but it's certainly not a good idea.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 26, 2022)

Just keep a Geiger counter on and have iodine pills handy.

Really not much different than having a CO2 detector to keep COVID at bay.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jan 26, 2022)

Apparently they are much stricter with intruders now though, because of people stealing metal and valuables that residents left behind. If i live in Ukraine i would probably go for a mooch.


----------



## looniam (Jan 26, 2022)

i'll just leave these here:








						In the race to cut coal, companies turn to nuclear power
					

Dominion Energy CEO Robert Blue says nuclear energy is going to have to be in the mix of power sources as the U.S. decarbonizes.




					fortune.com
				




however;








						Experts Say Nuclear Energy as Climate Solution Is Total 'Fiction'
					

"The reality is nuclear is neither clean, safe, or smart; but a very complex technology with the potential to cause significant harm," say four global experts.




					www.commondreams.org


----------



## 80-watt Hamster (Jan 26, 2022)

looniam said:


> i'll just leave these here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nuclear is definitely not without drawbacks.  But neither is anything else.  Solar and wind both take a lot of land and a lot of maintenance per MWH generated (nuclear does share the maintenance problem).  Geothermal is limited in viable sources.  Tidal is unproven.  What's left that's not going to have a significant impact?  Nuclear definitely has the strongest chance of catastrophe, and radioactive waste is still a problem.  We seem to be making progress on both those fronts, but what _won't_ get solved with nuclear, EVER, is cost. But maybe that's something we need to accept. For the grid to work, there needs to be a certain amount of turbine and rotor mass to keep the supply level, and those turbines need to be driven by something. If not nuclear, then what? ( Not a rhetorical question.)


----------



## looniam (Jan 26, 2022)

80-watt Hamster said:


> If not nuclear, then what? ( Not a rhetorical question.)


whatever is geographically feasible. 80% of sweden's electric is hydro.

though to address the production and use of alternatives; the environmental impacts _can be controlled or contained_ whereas nuclear has uncontrollable effects to the food chain.









						Fukushima Radiation in U.S. West Coast Tuna
					

After an earthquake and tsunami resulted in an accident at a nuclear power plant in Fukushima in March 2011, NOAA Fisheries tracked radiation levels in U.S West Coast tuna in order to better understand migration.




					www.fisheries.noaa.gov
				




how long or times before we see?


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Jan 26, 2022)

looniam said:


> how long or times before we see?





			https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/as-more-male-bass-switch-sex-a-strange-fish-story-expands/2014/08/03/89799b08-11ad-11e4-8936-26932bcfd6ed_story.html
		




> “I did not expect to find it quite as widespread,” said Blazer, a U.S. Geological Survey biologist who studies fish. Since 2003, USGS scientists have discovered male smallmouth and largemouth bass with immature eggs in several areas of the Potomac River, including near the Blue Plains Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant in the District.
> 
> The previous studies detected abnormal levels of compounds from chemicals such as herbicides and veterinary pharmaceuticals from farms, and from sewage system overflows near smallmouth-bass nesting areas in the Potomac.


Its not nuclear power plants that cause genetic defects in fish. Its actually the common pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizer we put into our farms. At least, here in my state, all known fish-mutations are caused by *farming*, and sewage. Two items that have nothing to do with nuclear power plants at all.

Honestly, I'm not sure if I've ever heard of a nuclear power plant causing nearby river pollution under normal operations, aside from the "heated wastewater" (which is certainly an issue, but nothing like the genetic-damage that fertilizers cause).


----------



## looniam (Jan 26, 2022)

dragontamer5788 said:


> https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/as-more-male-bass-switch-sex-a-strange-fish-story-expands/2014/08/03/89799b08-11ad-11e4-8936-26932bcfd6ed_story.html
> 
> 
> 
> ...


i understand what you're pointing out and agree agriculture chemicals have negative impacts. have the same thing happening here w/alge problems on lake eire.

but those are freshwater fish in rivers not migrating fish in the oceans.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 26, 2022)

looniam said:


> i'll just leave these here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Common Dreams is a progressive publication that would rather you freeze to death than produce heat from any source.

Keep in mind that billions of dollars sounds like a lot but you also have to remember these reactors produce power that retails in the millions per day.

Diablo Canyon (the sole remaining reactor on the west coast) has a 1138 MW and 1118 MW reactor for total generation capacity of 2256 Mw (2,256,000 kw), an annual capacity factor of 92% (0.92), 365.25 days per year, and 3600 seconds per hour (w = J/s).  Put all those numbers together and you get 2,729,101,248,000 kwh per year from that one facility.  In LA, electricity retails for $0.1203 per kwh. Multiply the two together and you get $328,310,880,134.4 per year of operation. Of course there's a lot of costs weighed against that gross production but any way you look at it, it's a lot of money.

Nuclear is among the cheapest sources of electricity barring hydroelectric.

Most of the ongoing costs with nuclear were staffing but new reactors have far fewer staff due to computer automation.  Ongoing costs are much lower for new reactors versus the old, retiring fleet.



80-watt Hamster said:


> If not nuclear, then what? ( Not a rhetorical question.)


Nuclear fusion is the end goal.  Nuclear fission is a stop gap until then.



looniam said:


> whatever is geographically feasible. 80% of sweden's electric is hydro.
> 
> though to address the production and use of alternatives; the environmental impacts _can be controlled or contained_ whereas nuclear has uncontrollable effects to the food chain.
> 
> ...


Never?  They're detecting a trace which hasn't had any documented impact on them.  Nobody really knows what number is safe or unsafe in regard to radiation.  Less is better.


----------



## looniam (Jan 26, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Common Dreams is a progressive publication that would rather you freeze to death than produce heat from any source.


maybe so but what about the former regulators open letter?
have another:








						Global debate over nuclear power's role in reducing greenhouse gases intensifies
					

As concerns grow about climate change, the global debate over nuclear power’s role in reducing greenhouse gases intensifies.  The latest volley came ...




					www.toledoblade.com
				



lol . .local.


FordGT90Concept said:


> Keep in mind that billions of dollars sounds like a lot but you also have to remember these reactors produce power that retails in the millions per day.
> 
> Diablo Canyon (the sole remaining reactor on the west coast) has a 1138 MW and 1118 MW reactor for total generation capacity of 2256 Mw (2,256,000 kw), an annual capacity factor of 92% (0.92), 365.25 days per year, and 3600 seconds per hour (w = J/s).  Put all those numbers together and you get 2,729,101,248,000 kwh per year from that one facility.  In LA, electricity retails for $0.1203 per kwh. Multiply the two together and you get $328,310,880,134.4 per year of operation. Of course there's a lot of costs weighed against that gross production but any way you look at it, it's a lot of money.


whatever. got a perry right in my backyard, been a money pit since built and the electric company has been trying to sell that white elephant for decades.


FordGT90Concept said:


> Nobody really knows what number is safe or unsafe in regard to radiation.  Less is better.


actually they do know. _zero is best._

the effects of radiation can and does take years to be symptomatic





						Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Long Term Health Effects | K=1 Project
					






					k1project.columbia.edu
				



it's ridiculous to draw conclusions so soon.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jan 26, 2022)

What if any proven genetic animal mutations did chernobyl cause? any two headed dogs or 5 legged sheep?

Also remember, the demand for electricity is possibly going up not down, imo only nuclear can supply the increasing demand.


----------



## R-T-B (Jan 26, 2022)

Tigger said:


> What if any proven genetic animal mutations did chernobyl cause?


The red forest has evidence of mutated plant life in the parts that survived, but generally, that's not what you fear.  In complex organisms, you fear cancer later in life or worst case, immediate threat of radiation poisoning.  Most of the time your offspring won't be your big worry.

Larger scale, it probably does cause an increase in mutations, but you'd never be able to track it.  That's just kinda what radiation does to DNA so it's a good guess.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 27, 2022)

looniam said:


> maybe so but what about the former regulators open letter?
> have another:
> 
> 
> ...


Goes to paywall immediately.

There is no debate over the cleanliness of nuclear, by the way.  The only greenhouse gas involved are in the fuel supply and construction.  It's minimal for both especially when given in the context of emissions versus Twh of production.



looniam said:


> whatever. got a perry right in my backyard, been a money pit since built and the electric company has been trying to sell that white elephant for decades.


No idea what a "perry" is.



looniam said:


> actually they do know. _zero is best._


Unrealistic on Earth:





						Radiation in Everyday Life | IAEA
					

» Types of Radiation | Radiation Dose | Radiation Protection | At What Level is Radiation Harmful? | Risks and Benefits Radioactivity is a part of our earth - it has existed all along. Naturally occurring radioactive materials are present in its crust, the floors and walls of our homes, schools...




					www.iaea.org
				






looniam said:


> the effects of radiation can and does take years to be symptomatic
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not. Really.  There are radiation burns and there is acute radiation syndrome.  Outside of that, radiation is just a treatable risk factor like any other.  For example, it's pretty rare to attribute lung cancer to radon exposure but radon exposure is a risk factor for getting lung cancer...but so is smoking, asbestos inhalation, and dozens of other chemicals.  It's nigh impossible to attribute cancer to a specific cause unless there was a direct connection between a known exposure (like industrial accident) and the death.  This is exactly the case with those that died at Chernobyl and FDNPP.



R-T-B said:


> The red forest has evidence of mutated plant life in the parts that survived, but generally, that's not what you *fear*.  In complex organisms, you *fear* cancer later in life or worst case, immediate threat of radiation poisoning.  Most of the time your offspring won't be your big worry.
> 
> Larger scale, it probably does cause an increase in mutations, but you'd never be able to track it.  That's just kinda what radiation does to DNA so it's a good guess.


*cough* "Fear." *cough*


FordGT90Concept said:


> It seems you're driven by fear.


You know what I fear? Not having heat in the winter (have an electric furnace/heat pump), not be able to afford to run my computer (if electricity becomes scarce, the price rises and the computers will go before the heat), not being able to cook meat (electric range).  You know...reasonable things.  I've been radiated enough by X-rays and CT scanners to know not to fear radiation.  I think about it but I do no _fear_ it.  Fear is mostly born of ignorance, and I am not ignorant.


Let's have some fun facts:
1) The going cost of new nuclear installations is approximately $10 billion per GW (see Vogtle).
2) Average capacity factor of nuclear is 92% (name plate energy generation is happening 92% of the time in a year).
3) 1 GW at 92% capacity factory = 8.06472 TWh annually
4) USA needs 4 PWh annually
5) USA is currently producing approximately 780 TWh of nuclear power (20%).
6) USA could reasonably raise that to 50% which would mean adding roughly 1,220 TWh of nuclear to the grid or 151.276 GW (see #3).
7) Combine the data in #1 and #6, it would cost roughly $1.5 trillion dollars.  Since these reactors have a 60 year life span, that's only a $25 billion dollar investment per year of operation.

Seems like a really good deal to me.  These power plants create very well-paid, long-lasting jobs which translates into an infusion of billions of dollars into the local economy and eliminating from the environment of the numerous pollutants spawned from natural gas and coal.

If you want to go beyond 50%, you're going to need reactors like liquid sodium that can respond to the daily ebbs and flows.  The price for these reactors is largely unknown at this point.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 27, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It was dangerous close to Pripyat (30km downwind): the area USSR evacuated. It no longer is.


That was 30+ years ago. However, it was then and remained so for 20+ years. The damage was quite literally so immense that it was immeasurable. Sure we can count death human bodies, but can we measure the environmental impact that is STILL going on? And in close proximity of the site it is deadly. Not to mention that the containment system in place is failing and is now leaking radioactive contamination into the environment again.


FordGT90Concept said:


> Radiation isn't some boogey man out to kill you while you sleep.


No, but it can and will do so if even one microscopic particle emitting ionizing radiation get into the body through air or consumption. It takes minimal levels of exposure to set off genetic degradation, which can be and often is deadly. Don't believe me? Look up the term "fallout syndrome" and have fun reading.


FordGT90Concept said:


> USSR has been running 16 reactors for 40+ years and only one of them had a major accident.


That's not a good ratio by anyone's standards. Just throwing it out there..


----------



## looniam (Jan 27, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Goes to paywall immediately.


chrome has an extention for that   but i understand the lack of effort.


FordGT90Concept said:


> There is no debate over the cleanliness of nuclear, by the way.  The only greenhouse gas involved are in the fuel supply and construction.  It's minimal for both especially when given in the context of emissions versus Twh of production.


radiation not greenhouses gases. and the fact _it is debated_  escapes you but i guess a paywall can stop you seeing that.


FordGT90Concept said:


> No idea what a "perry" is


perry nuclear power plant.


FordGT90Concept said:


> .Unrealistic on Earth:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


yeah, right. you know the context_ is exposure from nuclear power and it's waste. _keep the goal posts in one place.

as much as others may enjoy your uninformed opinions of the cleanliness nuclear power, i on the other hand, have worked in a nuclear propulsion plant, albeit briefly, that opened my eyes to the nuclear power will save the world indoctrination i received in elementary school in the 70's.  there is nothing safe about nuclear power, there is nothing clean about nuclear power.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 27, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> And in close proximity of the site it is deadly.


It is not.  USSR did a good job at clean up and containment especially close to the site.  Hence why they able to keep operating reactors at the location for almost a decade after the event.

Keep in mind that RBMK are the only reactor types without serious containment.  Chernobyl literally is the worst case scenario and the remainder of plants of that type are retiring over the next decade.  FDNPP are a much more common design which has serious containment and releases to the environment have been minimal.



lexluthermiester said:


> No, but it can and will do so if even one microscopic particle emitting ionizing radiation get into the body through air or consumption.


False.  You can be exposed to a great deal of ionizing radiation and be fine...if you take your pills.  If you don't, watch out for thyroid problems.



looniam said:


> perry nuclear power plant.


And the state of Ohio literally paid FirstEnergy to keep it running beyond 2018.  I'm sure FirstEnergy would _love_ to burn natural gas instead but is that really better for the people of the state?



looniam said:


> yeah, right. you know the context_ is exposure from nuclear power and it's waste. _keep the goal posts in one place.


The source of the radiation really doesn't matter, only the type.  Light is an example of radiation and exposure to extremes of it (blindness) have a different treatment than extreme exposure to infrared (burning).  The link covers all of the types of radiation that come from nuclear reactors and nuclear waste.  Goal post was not moved at all.  Nuclear radiation just isn't that serious of a threat unless you're within spitting distance of the fuel or the fuel is uncontained.


----------



## looniam (Jan 27, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> And the state of Ohio literally paid FirstEnergy to keep it running beyond 2018.  I'm sure FirstEnergy would _love_ to burn natural gas instead but is that really better for the people of the state?


nope. not when first energy gave kick backs. love to link you all the toledo blade, cleveland plain dealer and columbus dispatch articles but since you can't get by a paywall . . . .nevermind.


FordGT90Concept said:


> The source of the radiation really doesn't matter, only the type.  Light is an example of radiation and exposure to extremes of it (blindness) have a different treatment than extreme exposure to infrared (burning).


yeah the point is made in my last post


FordGT90Concept said:


> The link covers all of the types of radiation that come from nuclear reactors and nuclear waste.


that link was is only generally informative at best and doesn't give any detail into nuclear power waste. maybe try a few reports from both plants in my neighborhood:



			https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2111/ML21119A030.pdf
		




			https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2113/ML21134A070.pdf
		


yeah they start with the "you get more radiation getting an x-ray" crap. well hurr durr  

and btw, like i would expect the IAEA to be forthcoming in the hazards - just like coal companies saying that the black smoke belching out of the smoke stacks are no concern  ~200 years ago.

_something_ history _something something_ repeating . . .

nice chat. have a good day.


----------



## R-T-B (Jan 27, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> *cough* "Fear." *cough*


You can quit the name calling and read the science anytime you like.  Heck, I even gave you fun facts about isotope halflifes to play with.

And yes, I do fear carcengenic things like radiation, which yes, is linked to cancer.  Shocking.  It's almost like limiting my exposure to something harmful is a good idea.

I'm sure you would've visited the reactor meltdown site at Chernobyl too as I was offered to do, but declined out of "fear."  I hope you wouldn't have gotten cancer that kills you like my late professor who led the tours (no we can't medically link the two, but come on man...)



looniam said:


> yeah they start with the "you get more radiation getting an x-ray" crap. well hurr durr


The thing about that statement is radiation is about exposure over time.  Yeah, an x-ray is a lot of mrads...  for like half a second.  If it were longer, like a meltdown you can't move or a waste dump, you may be in trouble.


----------



## cst1992 (Jan 27, 2022)

I hope they've reduced the amount of nuclear fuel in new designs. 1.9 tons of uranium in a single core seems like a recipe for disaster to me.

Also, what about fusion power? The byproducts of that are not radioactive, so it should be a much cleaner alternative than any kind of fission.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 27, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It is not. USSR did a good job at clean up and containment especially close to the site. Hence why they able to keep operating reactors at the location for almost a decade after the event.
> 
> Keep in mind that RBMK are the only reactor types without serious containment. Chernobyl literally is the worst case scenario and the remainder of plants of that type are retiring over the next decade. FDNPP are a much more common design which has serious containment and releases to the environment have been minimal.


Oh FFS...


FordGT90Concept said:


> False. You can be exposed to a great deal of ionizing radiation and be fine...if you take your pills. If you don't, watch out for thyroid problems.


Are you serious? Are you actually so uninformed?


----------



## Assimilator (Jan 27, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I'd rather those 8 RBMK reactors keep running than start burning 8 GW worth of coal.  The former is far safer and more environmentally friendly than the latter.


I'd hoped better from you than the logical fallacy of false dichotomy. Just because RBMKs are less carbon-emitting than e.g. coal, does not mean that we should tolerate fundamentally unsafe reactor designs - especially when safer designs are available and have been for literally decades.

Arguably, the accident at Chernobyl is one of the primary reasons why nuclear power plant construction mostly stalled in the West after said accident. In other words, you shouldn't be lauding the RBMK for preventing carbon emissions; you should be blaming it for increasing them.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 27, 2022)

looniam said:


> https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2111/ML21119A030.pdf





> Dose to the general public from the plant’s liquid and gaseous effluent pathways were well below regulatory limits. The calculated maximum individual whole-body dose potentially received by an individual resulting from PNPP liquid effluents was 3.06E-03 mrem (0.1% of the regulatory limit). The calculated maximum individual whole-body dose potentially received by an individual resulting from PNPP gaseous effluents, excluding carbon-14 (C-14) was 9.24E-07mrem (1.8E-05 percent of the regulatory limit).






looniam said:


> https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2113/ML21134A070.pdf





> The results of the REMP indicate that Davis-Besse continues to be operated safely in accordance with applicable federal regulations. No significant increase above background radiation or radioactivity is attributed to the operation of Davis-Besse






cst1992 said:


> I hope they've reduced the amount of nuclear fuel in new designs. 1.9 tons of uranium in a single core seems like a recipe for disaster to me.


Breeders drastically reduce the volume of waste but what they spit out, albeit less volume, is far more radioactive (weaponized even).  No one has really worked on what you could do with that hyper radioactive waste from breeder reactors because there's so little material available for research.

Looks like there's no commercial interest in reprocessing now.  They'd rather just store what they have:





						Reprocessing
					






					www.nrc.gov
				






cst1992 said:


> Also, what about fusion power? The byproducts of that are not radioactive, so it should be a much cleaner alternative than any kind of fission.


Still struggling with the problem of containment.



Assimilator said:


> I'd hoped better from you than the logical fallacy of false dichotomy. Just because RBMKs are less carbon-emitting than e.g. coal, does not mean that we should tolerate fundamentally unsafe reactor designs - especially when safer designs are available and have been for literally decades.


Literal harm all the time due to normal operating exhaust versus chance of harm in the event of a disaster.  RBMK has _proven_ safe since 1986.



Assimilator said:


> Arguably, the accident at Chernobyl is one of the primary reasons why nuclear power plant construction mostly stalled in the West after said accident. In other words, you shouldn't be lauding the RBMK for preventing carbon emissions; you should be blaming it for increasing them.


It stalled after Three Mile Island (accident) which coincided with The China Syndrome (public hysteria), both in 1979.





						The Politics of Independence: The China Syndrome (1979), Hollywood Liberals and Antinuclear Campaigning
					

This article draws, among other things, on press clippings files and scripts found in various archives to reconstruct the complex production history, the marketing and the critical reception of the nuclear thriller The China Syndrome (1979). It shows that with this project, several politically...




					www.alphavillejournal.com


----------



## looniam (Jan 27, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Literal harm all the time due to normal operating exhaust versus chance of harm in the event of a disaster.  RBMK has _proven_ safe since 1986.


i figured why all that testing is necessary wouldn't enter your mind nor that either of them never operated anything near full capacity. the point is both of them points out nuclear waste is a hazard that you keep denying.

i bet you're a hoot at safety meetings.

btw, no reactor in the u.s. is based off of russian tech. who btw, still hasn't fessed up to the 6 nuclear subs they "lost" between 1980-1990. but the u.s. navy found their radiation signatures on the seafloor.
but not like the u.s. isn't guilty:








						USS Calhoun County sailors dumped thousands of tons of radioactive waste into ocean
					

They asked the dying Pasco County man about his Navy service a half-century before. He kept talking about the steel barrels. They haunted him, sea monsters plaguing an old sailor.




					www.tampabay.com
				




what some people such as yourself can't wrap their head around is _nuclear fission was developed as a weapon_, not as an alternative energy source. fusion on the other hand, is being developed as an alternative energy source and poses 1,000 times less risk. since you* like iea:*


> Nuclear fission power plants have the disadvantage of generating unstable nuclei; some of these are radioactive for millions of years. Fusion on the other hand does not create any long-lived radioactive nuclear waste. A fusion reactor produces helium, which is an inert gas. It also produces and consumes tritium within the plant in a closed circuit. Tritium is radioactive (a beta emitter) but its half life is short. It is only used in low amounts so, unlike long-lived radioactive nuclei, it cannot produce any serious danger.
> . . . .
> A prototype of a fusion reactor (DEMO) is expected to be built by 2040.


but go figure, 6 years to make a weapon but over a hundred years later and still dragging their feet.

in the meantime, electric companies are more than happy to accept government handouts and tax breaks building hazardous material producing power plants to line their and whatever politicians  pockets with money (kickbacks happening in my own backyard) and not care about the future _because by that time, they'll be long dead._


----------



## the54thvoid (Jan 27, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It stalled after Three Mile Island (accident) which coincided with The China Syndrome (public hysteria), both in 1979.





FordGT90Concept said:


> The Politics of Independence: The China Syndrome (1979), Hollywood Liberals and Antinuclear Campaigning
> 
> 
> This article draws, among other things, on press clippings files and scripts found in various archives to reconstruct the complex production history, the marketing and the critical reception of the nuclear thriller The China Syndrome (1979). It shows that with this project, several politically...
> ...



So far I have respected your input, and supported it - I believe Nuclear is a necessary stop gap (albeit *hugely* expensive). But using a media and film studies source in a nuclear science debate is a stretch. The article is quite clearly more about Jane Fonda and her activism than Nuclear issues. Please stick to the science, not opinion from an Irish Film studies media course.


----------



## R-T-B (Jan 27, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> Are you serious? Are you actually so uninformed?


I think he means be fine in the immediate term.  You probably won't be fine in the long term.



FordGT90Concept said:


> RBMK has _proven_ safe since 1986.


Or in other words, it's been 40 years since the last accident regional catastrophe...

The irony to this is people in my social group think I'm pro-nuclear to a nutty degree.  I don't even know if they could comprehend you.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 27, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> I think he means be fine in the immediate term. You probably won't be fine in the long term.


Well of course. Degraded DNA is the cause of cancer and all it takes is one strand to be degraded, but not destroyed, to set off a chain reaction that results in premature death. Ford seems to be short-sighted on that matter. His notions indicate to me that his understanding needs *drastic* improvement.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 28, 2022)

the54thvoid said:


> So far I have respected your input, and supported it - I believe Nuclear is a necessary stop gap (albeit *hugely* expensive). But using a media and film studies source in a nuclear science debate is a stretch. The article is quite clearly more about Jane Fonda and her activism than Nuclear issues. Please stick to the science, not opinion from an Irish Film studies media course.


What? Jane Fonda was literally at the forefront of the anti-nuclear movement (so was Sierra Club).  That was literally the point of that reply.  You had an anti-nuclear film and then Three Mile Island happens and everyone, much to the pleasure of Big Oil and Big Coal, jumped on the anti-nuclear bandwagon which effectively began the nuclear power moratorium in the United States years before Chernobyl.  Chernobyl was just another "SEE!?!" moment which was the final straw that broke the camel's back: people didn't have to protest anymore; the executives simply pulled the plug on all nuclear ambitions. Illustrating the point (keep in mind that there's a roughly 5 year lag between starting construction and commissioning the reactor):





Explosive growth 1963-1976, slump in 1977 and 1978 due to 1973-1975 recession, big growth in 1979 (the year of TMI/China Syndrome), then falling until it hit a roughly flat line in 1986.  Interest grew again in the 2000s because of "global warming" but interest plummeted again when access to natural gas became cheap and reliable.  None of the reactors "under construction" in this picture were actually started as far as I know.  Vogtle's two units are the only ones that will most likely be finished.

The science then and now was in support of nuclear power.  The difference is that public opinion has swayed with the focus on greenhouse gas emissions.  And on that note, all of the budgets for research for both fission, fusion, and waste reprocessing vanished at roughly the same time for the same reasons.  Countries like Japan and France, joined by China later, didn't abandon nuclear and, look where we are today: A coal state (Wyoming) is bringing in Japanese engineers and money to build a 4th gen nuclear reactor because USA literally has a 40 year gap in nuclear knowledge because of TMI/China Syndrome.

It's a sad state of affairs, but at least the corner appears to have been turned...for now.  If the plant going up in Wyoming turns out to be the only one, then the corner really hasn't been turned.  Time will tell.



looniam said:


> what some people such as yourself can't wrap their head around is _nuclear fission was developed as a weapon_, not as an alternative energy source. fusion on the other hand, is being developed as an alternative energy source and poses 1,000 times less risk. since you* like iea:*


Factually inaccurate.  Fission was developed as a weapon (Trinity, *1945*), then military energy (USS Nautilus, *1954*, and Project 627, 1957), then civilian energy (Shippingport Atomic Power Station, 1958, and Obninsk Nuclear Power Plant, *1954*).

Fusion was developed as a weapon (Ivy Mike, *1952*) and because of the technical problems, it's never become a viable energy source to date because of engineering challenges related to containment.

Note the years: we detonated a fusion bomb (1952) two years before the first nuclear powered submarine launched/nuclear power plant was commissioned (1954).  Making things explode is much easier than containing said explosion.  Case in point: we were blasting rock long before we managed to create an internal combustion engine to harness the rapid increase in pressure of burning fuels to power drills to accomplish the same goal...less explosively.  Trapping a very heavy metal (uranium) is much easier than a gas (deuterium) heated into a plasma state.

Also on that note: BWR are practically giant versions of what was found in Nautilus. It is not the best design for producing grid electricity we could come up.  It was just the easiest to get done quick and cheap because the US government already knew what it was.  Unlike submarines, grid power plants don't have the luxury of being surrounded by cold sea water; hence, accidents like Three Mile Island happened.  Vogtle is the only 3rd gen nuclear power plant being built right now in the USA...and it literally has a passive heatsink to cool the reactor should a worst-case scenario unfold.  This is something a submarine design would never comprehend, yet it's kind of a "duh" for grid installations.


----------



## R-T-B (Jan 28, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I see that the "The Politics of Independence: The China Syndrome (1979), Hollywood Liberals and Antinuclear Campaigning" reference was deleted.


Why you see fit to tie us in with it at all frankly is kinda weird.  We aren't hysterical, hollywood liberals.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 28, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> Why you see fit to tie us in with it at all frankly is kinda weird.  We aren't hysterical, hollywood liberals.


It wasn't deleted, my mistake.

I did no such thing.  The China Syndrome came out, 12 days later, Three Mile Island has an accident.  That's the point.  The former fed hysteria surrounding the latter.  Nuclear skepticism turned into anti-nuclear overnight. Anti-nuclear sentiment for the energy industry was not Chernobyl, as Assimilator alleged, it was the combination of China Syndrome and Three Mile Island.

Don't read into it any more than that...unless you want to, you know, understand Fonda's activism and how it undeniably worked in killing the nuclear industry.  ...to be fair, China Syndrome wouldn't have had the impact it did if Three Mile Island didn't decide to have an accident 12 days later... <insert sabotage conspiracy here  >


----------



## R-T-B (Jan 28, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It wasn't deleted, my mistake.
> 
> I did no such thing.  The China Syndrome came out, 12 days later, Three Mile Island has an accident.  That's the point.  The former fed hysteria surrounding the latter.  Nuclear skepticism turned into anti-nuclear overnight.


Maybe.  But I don't think you're finding that audience here at all.

I'm pro-nuclear...  modern nuclear, anyways.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 28, 2022)

Here's an example from the article:


> American television and press reports about Three Mile Island drew extensively on The China Syndrome, using the film’s title, story and imagery to illustrate and explain developments at the nuclear power plant and to explore their implications (“Pa. Crisis a Powerful Trailer” 126; Rafferty, “Crisis and Consumption” ch. 3). This led the New York Post to declare on 30 March: “many citizens will go to the movies for their information about nuclear safety. Jane Fonda … is at last shaping national policy. The public believes her more than [Energy Secretary] James Schlesinger” (McGrory 28).


The film and the event were intrinsically tied in shaping public perception of nuclear energy at the time.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 28, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> I'm pro-nuclear... modern nuclear, anyways.


Same here. As long as it's done right and done safely, I'm all for it.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jan 28, 2022)

As far as I am concerned nuclear all the way, imo nothing else can supply as much with such low immediate pollution


----------



## looniam (Jan 28, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It wasn't deleted, my mistake.
> 
> I did no such thing.  The China Syndrome came out, 12 days later, Three Mile Island has an accident.  That's the point.  The former fed hysteria surrounding the latter.  Nuclear skepticism turned into anti-nuclear overnight. Anti-nuclear sentiment for the energy industry was not Chernobyl, as Assimilator alleged, it was the combination of China Syndrome and Three Mile Island.
> 
> Don't read into it any more than that...unless you want to, you know, understand Fonda's activism and how it undeniably worked in killing the nuclear industry.  ...to be fair, China Syndrome wouldn't have had the impact it did if Three Mile Island didn't decide to have an accident 12 days later... <insert sabotage conspiracy here  >


cute story based on another person's perspective and i doubt that either were there, at the time. how about instead of reading one person's interpretation you read the history itself:








						Nuclear Experts Debate ‘The China Syndrome’ (Published 1979)
					

6 nuclear experts comment on The China Syndrome, film about possible nuclear accident; they are Dr Norman Rasmussen (MIT), Daniel Ford (Union of Concerned Scientists), John Taylor (Westinghouse Elec Corp), Anthony Roisman (Natural Resources Defense Council), David Rossin (Commonwealth Edison Co)...




					www.nytimes.com
				



as anyone can see all the nuclear proponents said it couldn't happen


> Frankly, I don't believe a serious accident could ever happen,” Mr. Rossin said. “I am a scientist, and I don't believe in zeroes. But I do believe in redundant systems and the capability of people and systems to take preventive action.


but yet just days later it did!  that is what fed the hysteria, experts assuring people it would never happen and being proved wrong.

the movie had disappointing attendance, considering the "star power" until the accident happened.no movie attendance, no public sway of opinion. valid mistrust will sway public opinion. and speaking of which. i'm old enough to remember that jane fonda was still "hanoi jane" and most people thought she should have been locked up in leavenworth for treason.

don't worry, it won't be too long before i'm gone and you can write what history you like.  



FordGT90Concept said:


> Factually inaccurate.  Fission was developed as a weapon (Trinity, *1945*), then military energy (USS Nautilus, *1954*, and Project 627, 1957), then civilian energy (Shippingport Atomic Power Station, 1958, and Obninsk Nuclear Power Plant, *1954*).
> 
> Fusion was developed as a weapon (Ivy Mike, *1952*) and because of the technical problems, it's never become a viable energy source to date because of engineering challenges related to containment.
> 
> ...


the manhattan project start in 1939 buddy, get you facts straight and the fusion bomb _was a proof on concept._

and as a former boiler tech in the u.s. navy*, as much as i want to appreciate the little history lesson; quite a bit of that was covered and bootcamp and more extensively in marine engineering school. and believe me, the navy loved to tout how much better their nuc subs were compared to anyone else, _esp the u.s.s.r.'s_.

*_that has worked in a nuclear propulsion plant! so yeah - tell me how it is   _


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 28, 2022)

looniam said:


> the manhattan project start in 1939 buddy, get you facts straight and the fusion bomb _was a proof on concept._


Trinity was the result of the Manhattan project which ended in 1946.

I intentionally omitted the "proof of concept:" Operation Greenhouse in 1951.  The second test, Ivy Mike in 1952, was a weapon-scale test: the detonation was over 10 Mt.  Like "Little Boy" it could have been used in anger (luckily it wasn't); they were certain it would work _very well_ because of the Operation Greenhouse result.



Anyway...I'm disappointed that there isn't a whole lot of public information on the natrium reactor.  I want to know how many people are expected to operate and maintain the reactor but I haven't seen any information on that.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jan 28, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Anyway...I'm disappointed that there isn't a whole lot of public* information on the natrium reactor.*  I want to know how many people are expected to operate and maintain the reactor but I haven't seen any information on that.



This quote is pertinent to the thread. The discussion from the OP is about the NEW reactor being built and as Ford points out, we have little info on it (likely due to private interest and IP). Let's get away from the irrelevant discussion of older reactors. This is a developing tech and there's no point going back and forth, especially as far back as the 40's, in a thread related to a POC plant yet to be built. Of course, with scant info about the natrium sience, there's not a lot more to say on the matter, unless someone can dig it up. And if you do, you might get taken away by the feds...

This isn't a nuclear power technology thread. If someone wants to start one, feel free.


----------



## looniam (Jan 28, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Trinity was the result of the Manhattan project which ended in 1946.


yep. and no one woke up in 1945 with triny in their bed. the manhatten project started developing two types nuclear fission weapons (bombs) years before.


FordGT90Concept said:


> I intentionally omitted the "proof of concept:" Operation Greenhouse in 1951.  The second test, Ivy Mike in 1952, was a weapon-scale test: the detonation was over 10 Mt.  Like "Little Boy" it could have been used in anger (luckily it wasn't); they were certain it would work _very well_ because of the Operation Greenhouse result.



not only did you intentionally withhold that info but also intentionally spread misinformation claiming technical problems and containment issues which certainly wasn't the case:


			Ivy Mike: How to Wipe Out an Island
		



> *Ivy Mike was the test created to prove Teller-Ulam's brainchild.* It used a TX-5 fission bomb as the primary stage, and a secondary stage consisting of liquid deuterium fusion fuel stored in a cylindrical Dewar flask. Surrounded by a natural uranium tamper weighing more than 5 metric tons, the Dewar had a plutonium "spark-plug" rod running down its center that ignited the fusion reaction.





			OPERATION IVY - 1952
		



> The device detonated in the Mike ("m" for "megaton") test, called the Sausage, was the first "true" H-Bomb ever tested, that is -* the first thermonuclear device built upon the Teller-Ulam principles of staged radiation implosion.* The device was designed by the Panda Committee directed by J. Carson Mark at Los Alamos (Teller declined to play a role in its development).
> . . .
> *Powered mostly by fission*, Mike showered high levels of radiation over the atoll. Below is a fallout map showing radiation intensities (in rads/hour) an hour after the test.








						"Mike" Device is Tested
					

The first fusion bomb was tested by the United States in Operation Ivy on November 1, 1952, on Elugelab Island in the Enewatak Atoll of the Marshall Islands. Scientists had to work faster and harder in order the meet the short deadline to complete the weapon, but their work paid off when "Mike"...




					www.atomicarchive.com
				





> The first fusion bomb was tested by the United States in Operation Ivy on November 1, 1952, on Elugelab Island in the Enewatak Atoll of the Marshall Islands. Scientists had to work faster and harder in order the meet the short deadline to complete the weapon, but their work paid off when "Mike" was successfully completed on the target date. "Mike" used the Teller-Ulam configuration, liquid deuterium as its fusion fuel and a large fission weapon as its trigger.* The device was strictly an experimental, prototype design and not a deliverable weapon: standing over 20 ft. high and weighing at least 140,000 lbs., with an additional 24,000 lbs. from its refrigeration equipment, it could not have been dropped from even the largest planes.*



so, an entirely new picture than the one that was painted previously with technical and containment issues, eh?



FordGT90Concept said:


> Anyway...I'm disappointed that there isn't a whole lot of public information the natrium reactor.  I want to know how many people are expected to operate and maintain the reactor but I haven't seen any information on that.


there is the start of problems, thinking things are "public." how about instead of expecting the IAEA, NRC or any other capitalist government agency to spoon feed you their propaganda that you go look for answers in academia.

thats where all the cool kids are.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jan 28, 2022)

the54thvoid said:


> This quote is pertinent to the thread. The discussion from the OP is about the NEW reactor being built and as Ford points out, we have little info on it (likely due to private interest and IP). Let's get away from the irrelevant discussion of older reactors. This is a developing tech and there's no point going back and forth, especially as far back as the 40's, in a thread related to a POC plant yet to be built. Of course, with scant info about the natrium sience, there's not a lot more to say on the matter, unless someone can dig it up. And if you do, you might get taken away by the feds...
> 
> This isn't a nuclear power technology thread. If someone wants to start one, feel free.



Just fyi, for anyone interested in original topic, the Netflix series with Bill Gates talks about this new nuclear reactor. It's actually been a concept since the 1960's they mention in the documentary. Lot of innovations since then is allowing it to be a reality.

Also, now that Japan has announced they are going to help with the building of it, I am very intrigued where this takes us as a species... Fusion is still a dream of dreams, but this is here and now and already being built and much higher probability of working on day one when they are finished.









						Inside Bill's Brain: Decoding Bill Gates (TV Mini Series 2019) - IMDb
					

Inside Bill's Brain: Decoding Bill Gates: With Bill Gates, Alex Bueermann, Davin Orness. A documentary that tells Bill Gates' life story as he pursues solutions to some of the world's most complex problems.




					www.imdb.com


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 28, 2022)

looniam said:


> not only did you intentionally withhold that info but also intentionally spread misinformation claiming technical problems and containment issues which certainly wasn't the case:


Containment is required for fusion power, as in electricity.  I never talked about containing a weapon--which intentionally destroys its containment vessel.



looniam said:


> so, an entirely new picture than the one that was painted previously with technical and containment issues, eh?


Fair, Ivy Mike wasn't practically transportable.



lynx29 said:


> Just fyi, for anyone interested in original topic, the Netflix series with Bill Gates talks about this new nuclear reactor. It's actually been a concept since the 1960's they mention in the documentary. Lot of innovations since then is allowing it to be a reality.


Fast breeder reactors often use a liquid sodium loop but the uranium is arranged differently in order to enrich it.  Natrium Power is effectively taking a fast breeder reactor design, simplifying it, and designing it solely for energy generation.  It's kind of a marriage between FBR and BWR.  It has the safety features/materials of FBR (can't practically meltdown) but the basic design concept of BWR.


----------



## Voodoo Rufus (Feb 1, 2022)

Left this thread alone for a while but I'm a bit of a nuclear twitter junkie.

An older article on years of supply of uranium, which covers fuel recycling life extensions at the end: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/

I recently read an article on how seawater extraction efficiency just doubled with some new tech that's viable, essentially giving us an indefinite supply.


----------



## Space Lynx (Feb 1, 2022)

Voodoo Rufus said:


> Left this thread alone for a while but I'm a bit of a nuclear twitter junkie.
> 
> An older article on years of supply of uranium, which covers fuel recycling life extensions at the end: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/
> 
> I recently read an article on how seawater extraction efficiency just doubled with some new tech that's viable, essentially giving us an indefinite supply.



can you enlighten me on what the amount of years left is said to be in that article. I am to lazy to read today. lol


----------



## cst1992 (Feb 1, 2022)

"Indefinite supply"?
You can always put a number on things. If you were to take it literally, how much would it be?
(Yeah I know that currently humanity is at that stage where a small corner of the US covered with solar panels would be enough to power the world, but still - who knows what'll happen in the future?)


----------



## Space Lynx (Feb 1, 2022)

cst1992 said:


> (Yeah I know that currently humanity is at that stage where a small corner of the US covered with solar panels would be enough to power the world, but still - who knows what'll happen in the future?)




is this really true? the math has been done?  i had no idea... what are we waiting for? how much would it cost? could the 5 trillion spent on covid paid for all of it?  what an odd species we are....


----------



## skates (Feb 1, 2022)

Remember the 3 mile island accident in the US?  That pretty much killed nuke plants in the US.  Would we have as many coal fired plants as we do today because of 3 mile?  I don't know, but it seems clear to me Nuclear is the way forward.

Shame what Germany did, now they are largely beholden to Russia for their power needs and if Russia wanted to turn off their power in mid-winter, they could, which could bring the world to the brink of WW3.  Russia would move into Poland should Germany compel the world to saber rattle Russia via the UN Security council in the hopes of getting their power turned back on and believe me, the Russian oligarchs will have container ships full of US dollars shipped to them to pull back.  If you think this is an exaggeration, it's not, even if it seems highly unlikely.  Think tanks have been all over this.

The ability of a country to provide for all it's power needs is not just national security, but also strategic national security.  Germany has neither.


----------



## Voodoo Rufus (Feb 2, 2022)

cst1992 said:


> "Indefinite supply"?
> You can always put a number on things. If you were to take it literally, how much would it be?
> (Yeah I know that currently humanity is at that stage where a small corner of the US covered with solar panels would be enough to power the world, but still - who knows what'll happen in the future?)



By indefinite I'm going with the dictionary definition - "lasting for an unknown or unstated length of time."

Basically more fissile material available than we know what to do with. And similarly to oil and gas (my industry), people tend to get better at finding more resources as the technology gets better. The more expensive a resource gets, the more we find as well.

Unfortunately wind and solar are not likely to scale by taking a "small corner of the US". The ecological impact would be tremendous. There's no free lunch.


----------



## Space Lynx (Feb 2, 2022)

Voodoo Rufus said:


> There's no free lunch.



Extreme heat in oceans ‘passed point of no return’ in 2014

_Other scientists reported in 2019 that the number of heatwaves affecting the planet’s oceans had increased sharply, killing swathes of sea life like “wildfires that take out huge areas of forest”._

That article was posted today. *No free lunch indeed.* As Elon Musk said one time, burning fossil fuels is the dumbest human experiment ever done. Though, I wish he used his genius for hyperloop instead of Spacex and Tesla.

The new nuclear reactors from bill gates and warren buffet, combined with hydrogen, needs to happen overnight... sometimes I do wonder if we really are to late and in 50-80 years the world is going to start resetting itself and a few million years after that a new species will come. Who knows such things. It is rather frustrating knowing we had a chance... and were self-aware enough... but still did not follow through as a species due to our baser animal instincts. We should have listened to a lot of the ancient philosophers imo, there is something about virtue ethics and controlling ones desires that makes a lot of sense.


----------



## Voodoo Rufus (Feb 2, 2022)

Even the IPCC's worst case scenarios do not forecast an uninhabitable earth. There is no evidence we are in a "mass extinction event". Anyone who says otherwise is just a participant in the death cult and should proceed to the next plane of existence at their earliest convenience, and not breed in the meantime. The rest of us have work to do. My work is keeping the lights on long enough for others to build the next best power resources with less environmental and land impact. After that, hopefully the stars.


----------



## Space Lynx (Feb 2, 2022)

Voodoo Rufus said:


> Even the IPCC's worst case scenarios do not forecast an uninhabitable earth. There is no evidence we are in a "mass extinction event". Anyone who says otherwise is just a participant in the death cult and should proceed to the next plane of existence at their earliest convenience, and not breed in the meantime. The rest of us have work to do. My work is keeping the lights on long enough for others to build the next best power resources with less environmental and land impact. After that, hopefully the stars.



Let me know when I can buy fresh healthy seafood at my local markets for a decent price then, if you don't see the overfishing going on you don't understand. Killer whales have recently started killing giant humpback whales, a first in history from what I remember reading about it.

Our reliance on a single species of corn for an entire supply chain of our main food source is another major issue for example, top soil running out of proper nutrients in less than 60 years, billions of birds dead from disease/cats/plastics, and the bird poop is needed for its nitrogen content spreading into various ecosystems to act as a fertilizer.

I am sorry but I disagree with you, it may not be mass extinction, but there is mass upheaval incoming, mass migration, mass famines, among other terrible things. There are so many variables it is impossible to calculate one way or the other, this is one thing I am willing to concede, but my hunch is... those studies don't include all the variables... for it is impossible to do so.


----------



## claes (Feb 2, 2022)

Voodoo Rufus said:


> An older article on years of supply of uranium, which covers fuel recycling life extensions at the end: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/


With respect, and assuming you’re responding to the OECD study I posted, this a) assumes theoretical technologies can be put into practice and b) doesn’t account for the increase in consumption over the past decade.


Voodoo Rufus said:


> Unfortunately wind and solar are not likely to scale by taking a "small corner of the US". The ecological impact would be tremendous.


I don’t know much about these things — what ecological impact? Let’s assume we don’t mean literally putting all power sources in one place — are we talking transportation costs and resource extraction, or something else?


CallandorWoT said:


> Let me know when I can buy fresh healthy seafood at my local markets for a decent price then, if you don't see the overfishing going on you don't understand. Killer whales have recently started killing giant humpback whales, a first in history from what I remember reading about it.
> 
> Our reliance on a single species of corn for an entire supply chain of our main food source is another major issue for example, top soil running out of proper nutrients in less than 60 years, billions of birds dead from disease/cats/plastics, and the bird poop is needed for its nitrogen content spreading into various ecosystems to act as a fertilizer.
> 
> I am sorry but I disagree with you, it may not be mass extinction, but there is mass upheaval incoming, mass migration, mass famines, among other terrible things. There are so many variables it is impossible to calculate one way or the other, this is one thing I am willing to concede, but my hunch is... those studies don't include all the variables... for it is impossible to do so.


I agree with voodoo that we’ll survive, but also with you in that we’ll be eating kelp and artificial meats. Not that I’m opposed to that, but this is why sociopaths like Musk are also idiots. I’d hate to live in the future they imagine, and can’t afford to anyway.


----------



## the54thvoid (Feb 2, 2022)

Voodoo Rufus said:


> There is no evidence we are in a "mass extinction event".



Unfortunately, there is.









						Vertebrates on the brink as indicators of biological annihilation and the sixth mass extinction
					

The ongoing sixth mass extinction may be the most serious environmental threat to the persistence of civilization, because it is irreversible. Thousands of populations of critically endangered vertebrate animal species have been lost in a century, indicating that the sixth mass extinction is...




					www.pnas.org
				




HOWEVER, this is not linked to climate change in the main, rather, it's our resource culling effect on the ecosystem. It's sort of like plastic pollution (one of the markers for our own anthropocene) where we're at a point (without climate change) we are adversely affecting out planet's ecology.

----


Moving forward - please stick to the topic. This is verging away from the Nuclear technology of what the OP is about.


----------



## the54thvoid (Feb 5, 2022)

Keep it on topic please. Some posts removed. Natrium reactrors, modular Nuclear power, or similar. This is the science forum and I think people expect science.

Of note, and fair warning: the thread's on my shutdown radar.

Edit: Locked (given the four deleted posts bring me back to my previous request to stay on topic). I'll reopen if anyone PM's me with a good reason that is linked to the specific opening post.


----------

