Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Spent fuel containment is required infrastructu (Score 1) 154

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: perspective.... (Score 1) 675

by smash (#47776345) Attached to: Russian Military Forces Have Now Invaded Ukraine

Media slant - beware. Russians will likely tell you that this is because the humanitarian aid convoy they sent got attacked. Presumably, they are sending more supplies and defending them this time.

Which version is true? Probably the truth is somewhere in the middle. Both sides use propaganda in any confrontation - not just "the bad guys".

Comment: Re:Ridiculous (Score 0) 154

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) 154

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) 154

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) 154

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: 8 Windows (Score 1) 251

by MrKaos (#47756667) Attached to: New Windows Coming In Late September -- But Which One?

Is Windows 8 bombing so hard they have to rush the successor that quickly?

Happened with Vista, ME, Windows 2, DOS 4 (iirc). Everyone has to shit a real steamer sometimes look at people in stores trying to use it, it's hilarious but they kept annoying people with UI changes and moving things around so it's really turned into Windows H8 now.

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

The fundamental flaw in your response is that the Fukushima units had no design features to deal with a tsunami from the start, so analysis was never part of the equation.

The report commissioned by the Diet specifically pointed to active resitance on the part of TEPCO to resist documentation efforts that would support an increase to the height of the sea wall because they relied on historical data instead of geological data and more modern techniques for assessing the risk.

If you postulate a tsunami that breaches the wall, then you must analyze the plant to ensure it can withstand, and this was never done.

Exactly. Like an aircraft crash, more than one thing has to go wrong to produce the failure. This is reactor failure caused by long term mis-management of the technology, not the actual technology. No enhancement to the sea wall or improving back-up power redundancy, operator training, more intensive drills and simulations - the list goes on. In the 60's Fukushima was state of the art and the sea wall was built according to what was reasonable at the time.

Over time a belief system, 'Nuclear is Safe', developed. That produced a dogmatic skepticism, re-inforced by social proof so no actual challenges to the beleif system, even those based in science, were accepted. No machine is immune to human foley. And this is a point made in the official report into the Fukushima disaster:

The Nuclear industry learned nothing from the lessons of Chernobyl.

In the case of Diablo, they designed the plant with the ability to withstand an earthquake from the start. They postulated the earthquake, performed the analysis, then obtained new earthquake information and validated that the existing analysis enveloped the new data.

Great. I haven't looked at Diablo Canyon. I was more concerned with San Onofre, Palo Verde, Davis Besse and, Indian Point but for different reasons. I'm glad SONGS is being decommissioned, it was on the other side of the Pacific in a fault zone with a greater density of fuel rods. It looks like the people who actually matter making the decisions about operating them in the US are smart enough to understand the dangers and not affected by social proof, but actual scientific proof.

None of this happened at Fukushima.

That's right - we all lost. The collusion between TEPCO and the regulator meant doing that work was actively resisted. It looks like there is a real movement in the NRC to grow some and challenge the operators of the reactors to shut them down if they can't be re-certified. This is a positive thing and the NRC should be commended for protecting the US from an accident caused by the same collusion that caused Fukushima to explode and melt down.

It looks like a really beautiful countryside from the pictures in the wiki too.

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

The basis for the inspectors complaint is, in large part, not that the plant is not capable of withstanding the quake, nor that the analsyis is faulty or incorrect, but rather that the licensing basis document has not been revised to require a higher peak acceleration design level. It is debateable whether such a would make any difference, since they are already required to analyze for the higher levels. Meanwhile, the concern is being handled through the appropriate processes.

The documentation is the beginning of the process to either revise processes or install modifications. This was the primary issue at Fukushima as the documentation to improve the sea walls was resisted and stopped. This meant the process to improve the seawalls there did not commence planning or other things required to improve the safety of the plant.

The author probably understands this because he has a deep understanding of reactors and the processes under which they operate. The belief system that surrounded operating processes at Fukushima was the real danger, more than likely the reason why he has reacted the way he has.

Comment: Re:Nooooo!!! (Score 1) 51

by MrKaos (#47746541) Attached to: Aussie Airlines To Allow Uninterrupted Mobile Use During Flights

If someone speaks loudly on their phone during a long journey, shit your pants. Just let it all out.

It's an interesting idea however I think I might choose to fart instead since it still smells like shit but it won't make me uncomfortable. Besides I usually let a good steamer go before I fly so I'm usually empty before take-off so it takes a while for one, you know, to be in the chamber.

The experience of shitty pants isn't as unbearable as hours next to a babbling cunt - you already know how your shit stinks - but their flight will ruined with an indelible memory for your seat-neighbour.

Thanks for the advice. It must have been some experience to smell your own shitted pants next to a babbling cunt.

* * * * * THIS TERMINAL IS IN USE * * * * *

Working...