Forgot your password?

Comment: This actually makes sense (Score 1) 188

by MrKaos (#47797623) Attached to: Feds Want Nuclear Waste Train, But Don't Know Where It Would Go
This is a real positive step for no matter what you think of Nuclear power. It would seem this debate is so polarized that people forget that there are structural problems that need to be solved and this is certainly one of them. If transport infrastructure to move pu-239 and other highly energetic radionuclides can be devised, tested and solved then this is one less problem to resolve.

It is in no-one's interests to have a spent fuel containment accident such as the one threatening Fukushima right now (fortunately TEPCO are working on it) so reducing this threat is a really good step no matter if you are pro or anti nuclear.

Planning infrastructure for long term containment is going to come down to the science of the facility and the DOE has found that Yucca mountain is not acceptable in terms of their 'Defense in Depth' policy to containment. Science conducted by the Australia's CSIRO found that granite has the capacity to capture radioisotopes leaking from a facility via ground water.

Additionally, any long term, development of any future reactor technology will depend on a place to store an manage fuel. This is the type of long term planning required to manage these types of materials and is a real positive step to resolving a critical infrastructure issue. Train lines can be built later when a suitable location for a spent fuel containment facility can be assessed based on good science and engineering practices. Both pro and anti nuclear folk should be supporting these forms of initiatives.

Any development of new reactor technology is going to depend on this form of infrastructure because implementing a new reactor technology goes beyond a flippant "just use xyz' technology". Our generation may just have to face that we have been handed down a few turds in terms of energy technology because they weren't forced into thinking long-term the way our generation has been forced to. The responsible thing to do is for our generation to try to solve those problems so we have additional technology options available in the mix.

There is nothing wrong with using nuclear in the future if it is done properly, but it needs proper infrastructure to work and any honest assessment of today's nuclear industry will reveal that it could be done a whole lot better. In the meantime use of solar, wind and geothermal today are a requirement to develop good nuclear infrastructure in the future.

Comment: Re:customer-centric (Score 1) 374

by MrKaos (#47794117) Attached to: Microsoft Defies Court Order, Will Not Give Emails To US Government

Except it isn't European data, Its an American's data stored under a European account in European servers. Small difference.

It is not the data that is the issue.

MOD PARENT UP - this is the most clarifying description of the problem at hand and the poster has a good point.

I had the same thing in mind and, whilst I'm normally a critic and suspicious of MS, in this case I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Comment: Re:Spent fuel containment is required infrastructu (Score 1) 173

by MrKaos (#47794085) Attached to: New NRC Rule Supports Indefinite Storage of Nuclear Waste

And yet, silicon valley is now funding Transatomic who can burn up 'waste' in a far simpler reactor. This makes them DIRT CHEAP.

So what. Same problem - different fuel cycle. Thalluim 233 a very nasty gamma emitter and a whole new set of radioisotope analogues in the environment. It doesn't matter what type of reactor technology is focused on it's the rest of the Nuclear industry that has infrastructure problems. Were you even aware of that type of reactors spent fuel product?

Therefore the only way to progress *any* reactor technology is with associated spent fuel containment facilities to manage it. To put it into economic terms, the metal itself is quite valuable AND dangerous. No one leave piles of gold just lying around, it's carefully stored and managed. The difference is that gold doesn't cause human health issues on top of being dangerous.

Think about it.

Comment: Re:Spent fuel containment is required infrastructu (Score 1) 173

by MrKaos (#47792963) Attached to: New NRC Rule Supports Indefinite Storage of Nuclear Waste

Only a fool thinks that Nukes are dead, or for that matter, wants them dead.

Well I don't think I'm a fool and I did say that it "seems like the figures prove nuclear is dead then". I do support reactor development, however I think the current nuclear industry is in such a mess that it's going to take a lot of money and some very big infrastructure project to fix it, and I don't see any political figures anywhere that are going to get involved with multi-decade infrastructure projects.

Yep, I said it was great news, because its such a mess and if it isn't going to be fixed, which is what the capital expenditure seems to indicate, then it may as well be shut down before any more of the old aged reactors have a serious accident, I don't think that is foolish either. So, since you have said something like that, do you support a spent fuel containment facility?

Heck, with JUST the nuke waste ( both from nuke plants and from rare earth mining) that we have, if we use transatomic and flibe reactors, we would have enough ENERGY (not just electricity, but full energy) to do 100% of America's Energy for over 100 years.

Well, actually, there is enough there for 5000 years of energy needs to be supplied - but do you seriously think there is a politician or company or even an economy with that kind of forward planning capacity?

And note that we got into the mess that we are, because we took coal to over 60% of our electrical usage.

No, Nuclear is in the mess it is in because it did not look after its house and put infrastructure in place when it had money to do so. More importantly when it had the political and financial support to do so. Now it is being slapped in it face for its own arrogance and, frankly, it kind of deserves it. The Nuclear industries PR machine has been one of the most voracious in slapping down the criticism it received and is now harvesting the inability to answer that criticism.

We are in the mess we are in because we heavily biased our subsidies in favour of Nuclear, Coal and Oil. Renewable energy puts too much control in the consumers hands and no company wants it's customers to have any control.

So I think that it is probably dying, not dead yet, but this is a big sign that it is over.

Comment: Re:Spent fuel containment is required infrastructu (Score 1) 173

by MrKaos (#47781925) Attached to: New NRC Rule Supports Indefinite Storage of Nuclear Waste

> Not that it matters. Only oil and coal companies have the financial clout to pay for reactors

If an oil and gas company could do it, so could Apple or Google. But they're installing solar.

Because they know a good investment when they see it.

Why? PV is $1.79/W in 2013, and nukes were around $8 to $10

Great, PV is more viable than nukes! thanks for the info.

There is exactly one reason nukes are in the dumps now: CAPEX. As long as it remains north of $6/W, its dead. That simple.

Well it seems like the figures prove nuclear is dead then. Great news, thanks!

Comment: Re:Ridiculous (Score 0) 173

by MrKaos (#47772541) Attached to: New NRC Rule Supports Indefinite Storage of Nuclear Waste

Not far from Yucca Mountain..

Totally irrelevant.

Once people wake up to the fact that global warming is a vastly greater threat than nuclear power, and that nuclear power is just as essential as wind, solar, geothermal and hydro in combating it, people will realize that "spent" fuel from light water reactors is far too valuable to just throw away.

I don't think you posses all of the facts, no one is proposing to throw the fuel away.

For the Nuclear industry to have any viability it has to *start* with sound containment facilities and infrastructure to support and regulate the distribution of fuel. Fukushima showed exactly why on-site fuel storage is so dangerous. The fuel may be valuable but the reactor technology only extracts .3%, yes one third of one percent of the fuel's energetic potential over it's trivial 30-60 year life span.

Fast neutron reactors are notoriously more difficult to control than PWR and much more toxic. I certainly support the development of reactor technology however materials technology doesn't exist to support viable fission power plants. The only thing the Nuclear industry can do is resolve the infrastructure issues but there isn't a single politician who will support the billions of dollars that has to be spent over a minimum of 3 decades. This is the beginning of end of the nuclear industry, if you want to blame someone blame the nuclear fanbois who never lobbied for the required infrastructure to sustain the industry because their dogmatic skepticism pooh poohed anyone who didn't just believe it was safe, that these things are all unnecessary.

You seem to think that the facility would only contain spent fuel however, there are oodles of radioisotopes from weapons production that also needs storage. This is an admission by the NRC that this problem clearly belongs in the "Too Hard" basket.

Comment: Re:Spent fuel containment is required infrastructu (Score 1) 173

by MrKaos (#47772473) Attached to: New NRC Rule Supports Indefinite Storage of Nuclear Waste

How ironic that this dodge is an expedient to try to license new plants.

It will appear that way but it won't be the result. The 2005 energy act disassembled the PUCHA put in place after the depression. Companies are now free to come in and make plans for locating pre-approved reactors and despite the claims of NIMBYism the same 2005 act denies local residents the right to have any involvement in the considerations for placing those reactors.

Not that it matters. Only oil and coal companies have the financial clout to pay for reactors and this is a clear way for those companies to plunder ratepayers with the tax credits they will receive even if they don't build the reactor, as they drive America into another depression.

Comment: Spent fuel containment is required infrastructure (Score 1) 173

by MrKaos (#47771571) Attached to: New NRC Rule Supports Indefinite Storage of Nuclear Waste

I'll probably be modded down for expressing my opinion however this is a disappointing outcome for the Nuclear Industry.

When Dixie Lee Ray was the head of the Atomic Energy Commission he proclaimed that the disposal of nuclear fuel would be “the greatest non-problem in history” and would be accomplished by 1985, yet here we are in 2014, almost thirty years past that date and still there is no acceptable high level waste disposal site anywhere. The closest anyone has come is the Swiss and even thier project is a multi-decade test project and extremely expensive.

Nuclear power is energy intensive *after* the energy has been produced simply because material technology is not adequate to produce a Nuclear reactor that has a life span that matches the geological time frames of the fuel. This exposes the facility to all the issues associated with decommissioning reactor sites every 4 decades or so. A reactor design that lasts at least 1000 years and is a closed loop, i.e. the plutonium goes in and nothing comes out (except electricity and possibly hydrogen) and avoids all the energetic costs associated with mining, enrichment and decommissioning/demolition of the reactor is the reactor technology issue that has to be solved for Nuclear Energy to be viable because otherwise it can never realize the full energetic yield of the fuel.

This looks like the authorities are effectively giving up on producing the solutions that the Nuclear industry requires to be viable. The first step is a geologically spent fuel containment facility, with appropriate infrastructure to support it is the first step in reviving the nuclear industry. It doesn't matter whether you are for or against Nuclear power this is a basic structural issue that need to be solved. If you're for Nuclear Power then it is a requirement to develop new reactors, if you're against Nuclear Power then it is a requirement to keep radionuclides out of the environment.

Just leaving it around existing reactor sites is a admission that a proper solution is too hard and that further investment in the Nuclear Industry is pointless, when in actuality investment in containment infrastructure is essential.

Comment: Re:Ridiculous (Score 1) 173

by MrKaos (#47770963) Attached to: New NRC Rule Supports Indefinite Storage of Nuclear Waste

I agree that waste in casks at nuclear power plants is reasonably safe but it would still be better to move it to Yucca Mountain. If nothing else, security would be a lot cheaper. It's utterly ridiculous that all that money was spent on a waste repository that, thanks to NIMBYism on the part of Nevada politicians, doesn't look like it'll be used any time soon. At least nuclear waste is the one form of toxic waste that will eventually go away on its own. Arsenic, mercury, lead, thallium and other chemical poisons remain toxic forever.

Yucca mountain is not a suitable site because it is made of pumice and geologically active evidenced by recent aftershocks of 5.6 within ten miles of a repository that is supposed to be geologically stable for at least 500000 years. The DOE's own 1982 Nuclear Waste policy Act reported that Yucca Mountain's geology is inappropriate to contain nuclear waste, and long term corrosion data on C22 (the material to contain the Pu-239 and mitigate the ingress of water revealed by Studies of the Yucca mountain hydrology ) is just not available.

We need something made of granite. The only human made structures we've seen that last 10000 years resembles the pyramids, and it is an engineering project of that scale, because the logistical problems of transferring the 70000 odd tons of Pu239 to the spent fuel containment facility are so involved that you want to get it right the first time and only do it once. The design of the Swedish facility shows how a reactor facility that complies with the industry designed improvements could be implemented.

IIRC, NIMBYism is how the project ended up in Nevada in the first place because one Nevada politician did not show for the vote and that was enough to place the facility at Yucca. This is not the way to place a spent fuel containment facility. A location evaluated by science and engineering practices is.

Comment: Re:Not really new. (Score 1) 216

by MrKaos (#47765307) Attached to: NRC Analyst Calls To Close Diablo Canyon, CA's Last Remaining Nuclear Plant

There are a lot of destroyed countryside, villages, and lives along the northern cost of Japan due to the tsunami. I find it interesting that so many people seem to care primarily about only the small percentage near the nuclear plant, simply because it gives them platform.

According to the US Geological Survey an earthquake of magnitude 9 will occur once every 500 years.

This means in up to a decade, maybe two, the population will rebuld, as there have indeed been earthquakes and tsunamis before.

The radio isotopes released by Fukushima also decay in geological timeframes. Picking a sample of sr90, one of the shorter lived radioisotopes has a 600year*20 half lives as it decays through its daughter products. Being generous in allowing extra time for another eruption that roughly means there will be 20 magnitude 9 earthquakes before that radio active effluent will become benign in the environment.

For the toxic pu-239, its oxides and chlorides it will decay in 25000years*20 half lives as it decays, which means there will be 1000 magnitude 9 earthquakes before that radioisotope becomes benign in the environment. There will be 50 magnitude 9 eathquakes before it decays into its first daughter product. Though I expect that the organic binding of pu-239 into biota will accelerate the process.

This is the long scale of nuclear accidents, they are mind numbingly slow. Most people can't see a year into the future, so it's completely understandable why the earthquake seems like a greater impact. Perhaps you hadn't considered it that way.

Long after everyone alive today is dead, those radioisotope will remain toxic to life in the environment for up to 500,000 years. Bioaccumulation of these radioisotopes will ensure that it has a significant impact on the birthrate of human beings over time with genetic and transgenic disease for those born, so in comparison, the impact of the earthquake and tsunami is quite small.

Comment: Re:Seriously, we're not rapists.... (Score 1) 585

by amias (#47764795) Attached to: New Nail Polish Alerts Wearers To Date Rape Drugs

be glad you don't have to worry about this sort of thing when you go out and stop pretending you have be wronged because you haven't

maybe they are sick of being told they have to do things to stop men raping then instead of you know , men doing things to stop other men raping because its men raping thats the problem not women inviting it , they are not , ever inviting it , regardless of how you think about it, they are never inviting it

Comment: Re: Seriously, we're not rapists.... (Score 1) 585

by amias (#47764749) Attached to: New Nail Polish Alerts Wearers To Date Rape Drugs

just being somewhere is not an invitation to rape , nor is wearing particular clothes , nor is being cute

there is no valid reason ever to rape or trick someone into sex , stop defending bad people you are sounding like one.

how does this sound - "You know wearing that outfit and posting on slashdot is just asking to be raped"

you can argue all you like but if you provide excuses for that kind of thinking you are helping it happen.

Comment: Re:Seriously, we're not rapists.... (Score 1) 585

by amias (#47764681) Attached to: New Nail Polish Alerts Wearers To Date Rape Drugs

if it prevents one woman being raped then its worth it , seriously women are having their lives ruined , it would behove you to do some research before posting about this subject.

If women where date raping men in anywhere near the amounts the men do there would be an outrage.

We need to redress this balance and stop behaving like sex starved teenagers , then maybe we wouldn't be sex starved teenagers

Philogyny recapitulates erogeny; erogeny recapitulates philogyny.