bill gates and warren buffet building nuclear reactor in Wyoming

[cst1992]

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]

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.

Afterall Obituaries

Access stories of a life well-lived. Search and read obituaries from across the U.S. Preserve memories, discover family history, and connect with legacy.

funeralalternatives.org

 

[Deleted member 24505]

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

 

[FordGT90Concept]

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]

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]

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

 

[freeagent]

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]

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]

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]

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

This is true.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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).

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.