A dagger that was made by people with the knowledge to undo the spell binding me together. The dagger broke the spell that made his body obey his will, then Eowyn killed him. May I suggest you re-read the Battle of the Pelennor Fields. This dagger came from a barrow wight mound.
What a gigantic pile of steaming FUD. You win the FUD award of the decade.
I tried hard, but I could not find a single factual statement in anything you wrote. Every single statement is a lie. Wow.
It's not a talking point if it killed hundreds of thousands of people.
RBMK reactors do not have a reactor vessel anyway. It's a POS pressure tube design, the above pots never applied to it.
No; dedication and professionalism are fine. However, paranoia and an inability to communicate and discuss risk are not. The perfect example is point d). I'm clearly making a point in favour of new reactors. I'm precisely saying that reactors are improving and that that's a good thing. Instead you seem to take it as an attack on the nuclear industry. I am sorry, but I wouldn't want you to be the person judging if a new reactor is safe or not.
And also the fact that no one knew about Wigner energy at the time those graphite cores were designed, so no method for efficient annealing was designed in.
It's been done numerous times already jackass. It's called electromagnetic heating. You offload the core, remove the vessel internals, and lower essentially a big electricmagetic coil to generate currents in the vessel wall to heat it up. It's not rocket science, it's not even nuclear science, it's basic metallurgy.
So? There is nothing new scientifically here, you design for a level of neutron damage and periodically verify your assumptions are correct. And you can always anneal the reactor vessel in place to remove much of the neutron damage and regain operating margins. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annealing_(metallurgy)
Complete B.S. Radiation hardened underwater camera systems have been available for 30 years. And there are fiber optic methods available for remote inspection as well.
More B.S. The most likely parts to fail in a reactor are never in the core. The nuclear industry is well away of which parts are closest to their long term operating margins and which require the most frequent inspection and repair. And the stuff inside the reactor vessel ain't it.
Nuclear power is the only industry that is not permitted to improve, it must be perfect from day one. FYI, hydro has killed more people than multiples of all other power generation methods combined. It's not even close. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam
Ehh? High capital costs are from what? High interest rates. Delays in plant construction and operation many times a result of frivilous lawsuits DESIGNED by environmental organizations to intentionally run up costs. Talk about self fulfilling criticisms. The current generation of plants are avoiding this by getting all that crap doen up front and also by self financing. We'll see.
This is true, but to put some context on this, the volumes are simply insignificantly small. We have many many many times the volume being buried from nasty municipal waste that have chemicals in it that do not decay away, but thats ok right?
Obviously a), b) and c) push in the opposite direction from d), e) and f). What this means is that basically we should have a smaller number of safer nuclear reactors run for longer by people who we can trust to ensure that a) and b) don't become a problem. Unfortunately people who support nuclear power tend to be in denial about the potential risks and so aren't the right people. I guess it's like politicians. Anybody who wants to be a politician should probably be ruled out from the job / anybody who wants to run a reactor should probably be banned from doing so
This makes no sense at all. So you are saying the people who you recruit who show the proper dedication and professionalism cannot be trusted to be nuclear plant operators BECAUSE of that professionalism? What B.S. Wow.
"but you can't just pull a reactor core (along with all its infrastructure) and swap in a totally different design as part of an upgrade. Changes like that generally call for outright replacement anyway."
Of course you can.
"Eventually you get to replace the reactor vessel, which for all practical purposes involves disassembling nearly the entire plant, and reassembling it, "
Or you can just anneal it in place to remove much of the neutron damage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annealing_(metallurgy)
You can also choose to anneal the reactor vessel in place. This will restore much of the original ductility.
A school board member who is fighting tooth and nail against standardized testing as a means of evaluating the quality of staff and schools fails the standardized test and holds that up as proof said test is invalid. Color me not surprised.
Sodium reacts violently to moisture and air. Yes youcan have all these engineered safeguards to prevent that, but IMHO it's better to avoid having to do that. One less thing to worry about.
No I wasn't looking for that term.
All of our current coal/gas/nuclear power plants are heat engines hooked up to an Rankine cycle steam plant. The maximum theoretical efficiency of any Rankine cycle is a function of the maximum temperature of the working fluid.
Thee is work going on to move to a Brayton cycle power plant. That one change can conceivably double plant efficiencies. But a Brayton cycle needs much higher temperatures than a Rankine cycle.
Look up Rankine and Brayton cycles on wiki.
"Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company." -- Mark Twain