any chance to turn Nuclear reactors around with a safer Reac

On 7/6/19 12:07 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 20:30:17 -0500, amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/safer-nuclear-reactors-are-on-the-way/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScientificAmerican-News+%28Content%3A+News%29

A decently engineered nuke is already safe. Greenies have made nukes
too expensive because they don't want the people to have affordable
energy.

Public thinks all the wingnut lobbyists and engineers for the nuclear
energy biz are well-compensated professional liars who will gladly say
anything is safe for a buck.

If anything goes wrong they're off the hook and the taxpayer is on the
hook to cover it - by law!
 
On 7/6/19 2:25 PM, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 12:32:43 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 7/6/19 12:26 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 12:21:28 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 7/6/19 12:07 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 20:30:17 -0500, amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/safer-nuclear-reactors-are-on-the-way/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScientificAmerican-News+%28Content%3A+News%29

A decently engineered nuke is already safe. Greenies have made nukes
too expensive because they don't want the people to have affordable
energy.



nuclear energy has always had a shitty ROI, it's even shittier now with
natural gas as cheap as it is. Greenies didn't make natural gas cheap

They don't like NG either. Every 5th atom is carbon.


nuclear has only achieved high market penetration in countries with far
more socialist and environmentalist leanings than the US e.g. France and
Japan.

About 40% of France's fresh water reserves go to cool their reactors;
that water is not free-market available as fresh water to sell
immediately it is reserved as coolant by fiat, the plants get it first
and the market gets whatever is left over.

If you insist of building nuclear plants inland you need lake/river
fresh water, but as soon as you build the plants at the coast, there
are no such problems.

Yeah but then there are other environmental problems like the well-known
ones that was on display at Fukushima and that water-cooled reactor
efficiency is pretty sensitive to inlet temperature, and fresh water
from flowing river temperature is better regulated with respect to
seasonal changes than seawater.

Even up north near Cape Cod the ocean water inlet temp sometimes exceeds
federal regulation on the high side during the summer and Pilgrim had to
operate at reduced power sometimes and that means losing money, and may
have contributed to the decision to close it.
 
On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 12:55:12 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 7/6/19 12:07 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 20:30:17 -0500, amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/safer-nuclear-reactors-are-on-the-way/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScientificAmerican-News+%28Content%3A+News%29

A decently engineered nuke is already safe. Greenies have made nukes
too expensive because they don't want the people to have affordable
energy.



Public thinks all the wingnut lobbyists and engineers for the nuclear
energy biz are well-compensated professional liars who will gladly say
anything is safe for a buck.

You seem to use the same tactics like CO2 alarmists against people who
not blatantly accept IPCC claims. There might be other reasons for
questioning the greenie approach.

If anything goes wrong they're off the hook and the taxpayer is on the
hook to cover it - by law!
 
On Sat, 06 Jul 2019 09:26:22 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

> They don't like NG either. Every 5th atom is carbon.

That's not how they're counted. The carbons themselves are numbered
sequentially.



--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
 
On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 12:32:43 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 7/6/19 12:26 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 12:21:28 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 7/6/19 12:07 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 20:30:17 -0500, amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/safer-nuclear-reactors-are-on-the-way/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScientificAmerican-News+%28Content%3A+News%29

A decently engineered nuke is already safe. Greenies have made nukes
too expensive because they don't want the people to have affordable
energy.



nuclear energy has always had a shitty ROI, it's even shittier now with
natural gas as cheap as it is. Greenies didn't make natural gas cheap

They don't like NG either. Every 5th atom is carbon.


nuclear has only achieved high market penetration in countries with far
more socialist and environmentalist leanings than the US e.g. France and
Japan.

About 40% of France's fresh water reserves go to cool their reactors;
that water is not free-market available as fresh water to sell
immediately it is reserved as coolant by fiat, the plants get it first
and the market gets whatever is left over.

If you insist of building nuclear plants inland you need lake/river
fresh water, but as soon as you build the plants at the coast, there
are no such problems.
 
On 7/6/19 1:32 PM, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jul 2019 09:07:15 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 20:30:17 -0500, amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/safer-nuclear-reactors-are-on-the-way/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScientificAmerican-News+%28Content%3A+News%29

A decently engineered nuke is already safe. Greenies have made nukes
too expensive because they don't want the people to have affordable
energy.

Old nuclear weapon owners feared of the spreading of nuclear weapons
and thus allowed only low enrichment uranium to be used in commercial
reactors. For this reason, commercial reactors contains tons of
(contaminated) uranium.

Now that nuclear weapons have been spread all over the planet, is
there any sensible reason for low enriched uranium ?

That is to say if they'd actually "spread all over the planet" someone
would have used one (again) by now.
 
On 7/6/19 1:32 PM, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jul 2019 09:07:15 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 20:30:17 -0500, amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/safer-nuclear-reactors-are-on-the-way/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScientificAmerican-News+%28Content%3A+News%29

A decently engineered nuke is already safe. Greenies have made nukes
too expensive because they don't want the people to have affordable
energy.

Old nuclear weapon owners feared of the spreading of nuclear weapons
and thus allowed only low enrichment uranium to be used in commercial
reactors. For this reason, commercial reactors contains tons of
(contaminated) uranium.

Now that nuclear weapons have been spread all over the planet, is
there any sensible reason for low enriched uranium ?

Terrorists and the Islamic State et. al. don't have them yet and it
should stay that way, it was never about trying to make it impossible
for anyone but the Soviet Union and US to have them.

Even North Korea is in some sense a "rational actor" by comparison.
 
On 7/6/19 2:31 PM, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 12:55:12 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 7/6/19 12:07 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 20:30:17 -0500, amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/safer-nuclear-reactors-are-on-the-way/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScientificAmerican-News+%28Content%3A+News%29

A decently engineered nuke is already safe. Greenies have made nukes
too expensive because they don't want the people to have affordable
energy.



Public thinks all the wingnut lobbyists and engineers for the nuclear
energy biz are well-compensated professional liars who will gladly say
anything is safe for a buck.

You seem to use the same tactics like CO2 alarmists against people who
not blatantly accept IPCC claims. There might be other reasons for
questioning the greenie approach.

it's just called "follow the money" most times you find a paid-for hoe
paid to say what the money flow wants, at the end of it.
 
The tree hugger should know... Fukushima was not a disaster.
The tsunami that killed 20,000 was a disaster.

Someday a huge meteor will slam into the Earth, sending us
perilously out of orbit, and the tree huggers will scream
"The nuclear power plants are failing!"

--
bitrex <user example.net> wrote:

Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.dns-netz.com!news.freedyn.net!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx43.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
Subject: Re: any chance to turn Nuclear reactors around with a safer Reactor
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
References: <qfm97b$l22$1 dont-email.me> <vkh1iet4vs4tg705tnn5fntsuud8c7rgjg 4ax.com> <cU3UE.20151$ZC1.6360 fx24.iad> <7ri1ie12nmt8chb14ihc1tr1vtbdkdoq8e 4ax.com> <M24UE.18802$AC.4406 fx09.iad> <clp1ie1igl9hb67rjg7k8t04q1iladcs4g 4ax.com
From: bitrex <user example.net
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <clp1ie1igl9hb67rjg7k8t04q1iladcs4g 4ax.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <1V5UE.140613$qW.113917 fx43.iad
X-Complaints-To: abuse frugalusenet.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2019 18:38:53 UTC
Organization: frugalusenet - www.frugalusenet.com
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2019 14:38:52 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 3321
X-Received-Body-CRC: 3316850769
Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:556679

On 7/6/19 2:25 PM, upsidedown downunder.com wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 12:32:43 -0400, bitrex <user example.net> wrote:

On 7/6/19 12:26 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 12:21:28 -0400, bitrex <user example.net> wrote:

On 7/6/19 12:07 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 20:30:17 -0500, amdx <nojunk knology.net> wrote:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/safer-nuclear-reactors-are-on-the-way/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScientificAmerican-News+%28Content%3A+News%29

A decently engineered nuke is already safe. Greenies have made nukes
too expensive because they don't want the people to have affordable
energy.



nuclear energy has always had a shitty ROI, it's even shittier now with
natural gas as cheap as it is. Greenies didn't make natural gas cheap

They don't like NG either. Every 5th atom is carbon.


nuclear has only achieved high market penetration in countries with far
more socialist and environmentalist leanings than the US e.g. France and
Japan.

About 40% of France's fresh water reserves go to cool their reactors;
that water is not free-market available as fresh water to sell
immediately it is reserved as coolant by fiat, the plants get it first
and the market gets whatever is left over.

If you insist of building nuclear plants inland you need lake/river
fresh water, but as soon as you build the plants at the coast, there
are no such problems.


Yeah but then there are other environmental problems like the well-known
ones that was on display at Fukushima and that water-cooled reactor
efficiency is pretty sensitive to inlet temperature, and fresh water
from flowing river temperature is better regulated with respect to
seasonal changes than seawater.

Even up north near Cape Cod the ocean water inlet temp sometimes exceeds
federal regulation on the high side during the summer and Pilgrim had to
operate at reduced power sometimes and that means losing money, and may
have contributed to the decision to close it.
 
On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 7:11:33 AM UTC-7, bitrex wrote:
On 7/4/19 9:30 PM, amdx wrote:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/safer-nuclear-reactors-are-on-the-way/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScientificAmerican-News+%28Content%3A+News%29



"potentially including nuclear reactors, which emit no carbon but are
seen as risky because of a few major accidents."

And many many minor ones and close calls, not just the few major ones.

Any construction, any industry, has hazards. Nuclear plants are not
notable for injuries or protection failures.

And, you have never noticed that. It's a PR thing, and keeps
a lot of politicians... twitchy.

The problem, is you; you see no data on hazards, just characterizations
of people that seem slightly... impure. Purity tests are a variety
of pass/fail test, a kind of fail/fail test; meaningless but provide an excuse.
 
trader4@optonline.net wrote:

John Doe wrote:
amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/safer-nuclear-reacto
rs-
are-on-the-way/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign
=Feed% 3A+ScientificAmerican-News+%28Content%3A+News%29

There is nothing dangerous about nuclear reactors, relative to
other power producers. Responsible for ZERO deaths in the United
States. According to NASA, using nuclear power has saved
thousands of lives. It produces no carbon dioxide. It's total
waste from the beginning would fill a football field to less than
10 yards high. That's why our leaders act not very concerned
about Yucca Mountain and the like.

People who cry about the Fukushima nuclear disaster are just
weird, considering the tsunami itself killed 15,000.

Someday a huge meteor will strike the Earth, sending us
perilously out of orbit, and the freaks will scream "The nuclear
power plants are failing!"

I also find it amusing that most of the tree huggers who say CO2
emissions are going to doom us all soon are also against nuclear
power. Whatever risk there is from nuclear power, seems it should
still be far better than a global climate catastrophe. The same
folks are pretty much against everything else too. They talk
wind, but when it comes time to actually build a wind farm, that's
no good too. Offshore it will kill fish, kill birds, look ugly.
On land, NIMBY, it's ugly, it will kill birds.... Many of them
think electricity just comes out of the receptacle.

Except for the production cost and waste, solar power is a good thing.
But for those reasons and others wind is nonsensical. If global
warming is the concern, you do not want to decrease the wind flow
across the surface of the earth.

And Yes, people should be ignored when they promote electric vehicles
without promoting the most viable electricity production, nuclear
power plants.

Once again, Germany is acting like the Land of the Idiots. They are
dismantling all of their nuclear reactors. Intelligent people being so
badly misled. It will be a great lesson for the rest of the world.
What happens when it falls apart.









Meanwhile, has anyone figured out what's going on with cold fusion
yet? Last I recall, there seemed to be a lot of growing evidence
that something was going on to generate energy, but they also
renamed it from cold fusion to something else, because it doesn't
fit with our understanding of fusion and they haven't seen what
would be expected from actual fusion.
 
Actually there are non-efficiency reasons for nuclear power
being avoided. For example, if your leaders are planning World War
III, they don't want a bunch of easily targeted nuclear power plants
to disable the entire country. The reason nuclear power plants are
popping up all over China is because China isn't controlled by tree
huggers. And Yes, you "need _real_ money" to lobby effectively, real
money like BIG OIL has in abundance. This troll is a maroon...

--
bitrex <user example.net> wrote:

Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.dns-netz.com!news.freedyn.net!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx23.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
Subject: Re: any chance to turn Nuclear reactors around with a safer Reactor
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
References: <qfm97b$l22$1 dont-email.me> <qfouu2$6an$3 dont-email.me> <0107bf1a-0c0f-4644-86fd-23b2bfb7c400 googlegroups.com
From: bitrex <user example.net
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <0107bf1a-0c0f-4644-86fd-23b2bfb7c400 googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 63
Message-ID: <Rt2UE.4858$MM7.466 fx23.iad
X-Complaints-To: abuse frugalusenet.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2019 14:45:05 UTC
Organization: frugalusenet - www.frugalusenet.com
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2019 10:45:03 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 4414
X-Received-Body-CRC: 2464949246
Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:556645

On 7/6/19 10:24 AM, trader4 optonline.net wrote:
On Friday, July 5, 2019 at 9:53:11 PM UTC-4, John Doe wrote:
amdx <nojunk knology.net> wrote:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/safer-nuclear-reactors-
are-on-the-way/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%
3A+ScientificAmerican-News+%28Content%3A+News%29

There is nothing dangerous about nuclear reactors, relative to other
power producers. Responsible for ZERO deaths in the United States.
According to NASA, using nuclear power has saved thousands of lives. It
produces no carbon dioxide. It's total waste from the beginning would
fill a football field to less than 10 yards high. That's why our leaders
act not very concerned about Yucca Mountain and the like.

People who cry about the Fukushima nuclear disaster are just weird,
considering the tsunami itself killed 15,000.

Someday a huge meteor will strike the Earth, sending us perilously out
of orbit, and the freaks will scream "The nuclear power plants are
failing!"

I also find it amusing that most of the tree huggers who say CO2 emissions
are going to doom us all soon are also against nuclear power. Whatever risk
there is from nuclear power, seems it should still be far better than
a global climate catastrophe. The same folks are pretty much against
everything else too. They talk wind, but when it comes time to actually
build a wind farm, that's no good too. Offshore it will kill fish, kill
birds, look ugly. On land, NIMBY, it's ugly, it will kill birds....

there are differences of opinion even among the "tree huggers" there is
no "The Tree Huggers" who have a unified opinion on all topics.

There tends to be some skepticism about nuclear power there but probably
not that much more than the skepticism of the general public about it;
by themselves the greens have remarkably little political power.

If building many many new nuclear power plants in the US were at this
moment generally considered a cost-effective, safe and effective way to
make large amounts of $$$ selling energy by everyone but the greens,
then they would be popping up like daisies, the green lobby would have
little ability to prevent it. how would they do it? lobby Congress with
their whole _millions_ of dollars of available funding?
one...million...dollars! You need _real_ money to lobby effectively, not
Greenpeace-money.

Many of them think electricity just comes out of the receptacle.

Tree-huggers tend to have a better grasp of where power comes from than
the general public 50% of whom are of below average intelligence.

Meanwhile, has anyone figured out what's going on with cold fusion yet?
Last I recall, there seemed to be a lot of growing evidence that something
was going on to generate energy, but they also renamed it from cold fusion
to something else, because it doesn't fit with our understanding of fusion
and they haven't seen what would be expected from actual fusion.


Google is tossing some no-judgy money to some younger independent
researchers to investigate it lately, why not, it's a longshot but they
surely have disposable income to play with.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/05/cold-fusion-remains-elusive-these-scientists-may-revive-quest/
 
On 7/6/19 7:47 PM, whit3rd wrote:
On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 10:28:37 AM UTC-7, bitrex wrote:

The technological hurdles are substantial, the only groups with real
interest in funding overcoming them are the utility companies, and they
don't see a financial advantage in funding the R&D at this time.

This is true, but it's worse than it seems; utility companies are typically
regulated, literally CANNOT spend money without a power-generation
payback. EPRI gets a trickle of research money for industry, but
the big nuclear research was always government labs (and those have
been running on a shoestring and given other tasks).

The bureaucratic hurdles to innovation are unpredictable, just as
research is; investors hate that.

I don't think they need regulation or bureaucracy to not invest in
things that don't present a clear-cut next quarter advantage to the
bottom line, they can do that de-regulated just fine.
 
Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> wrote:

John Doe wrote:

People who cry about the Fukushima nuclear disaster are just weird,
considering the tsunami itself killed 15,000.

https://www.rt.com/news/417716-fukushima-radiation-level-lethal/

Since the disaster, numerous studies and reports have emerged showing
the operator’s failures in handling the now-crippled plant. In January
this year, a Japanese government research group revealed that nine years
before the tragic incident, TEPCO had rejected the advice of the Nuclear
and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) to carry out a tsunami simulation.
The company cited a lack of evidence regarding a tsunami threat.

According to research carried out by the University of Southern
California back in 2015, the tragedy was preventable. The scientists
claimed that design problems, negligence and inadequate pre-tsunami
surveys all contributed to the failure that led to the catastrophe.
 
On 7/6/19 7:36 PM, whit3rd wrote:
On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 7:11:33 AM UTC-7, bitrex wrote:
On 7/4/19 9:30 PM, amdx wrote:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/safer-nuclear-reactors-are-on-the-way/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScientificAmerican-News+%28Content%3A+News%29



"potentially including nuclear reactors, which emit no carbon but are
seen as risky because of a few major accidents."

And many many minor ones and close calls, not just the few major ones.

Any construction, any industry, has hazards. Nuclear plants are not
notable for injuries or protection failures.

And, you have never noticed that. It's a PR thing, and keeps
a lot of politicians... twitchy.

The problem, is you; you see no data on hazards, just characterizations
of people that seem slightly... impure. Purity tests are a variety
of pass/fail test, a kind of fail/fail test; meaningless but provide an excuse.

Sorry but I don't really follow the point of your post. I guess I fail
the test
 
On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 10:28:37 AM UTC-7, bitrex wrote:

The technological hurdles are substantial, the only groups with real
interest in funding overcoming them are the utility companies, and they
don't see a financial advantage in funding the R&D at this time.

This is true, but it's worse than it seems; utility companies are typically
regulated, literally CANNOT spend money without a power-generation
payback. EPRI gets a trickle of research money for industry, but
the big nuclear research was always government labs (and those have
been running on a shoestring and given other tasks).

The bureaucratic hurdles to innovation are unpredictable, just as
research is; investors hate that.
 
whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

bitrex wrote:
amdx wrote:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/safer-nuclear-reacto
rs-are-on-the-way/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_ca
mpaign=Feed%3A+ScientificAmerican-News+%28Content%3A+News%29

"potentially including nuclear reactors, which emit no carbon but
are seen as risky because of a few major accidents."

And many many minor ones and close calls, not just the few major
ones.

Any construction, any industry, has hazards. Nuclear plants are
not notable for injuries or protection failures.

Nuclear power has saved thousands of lives.

And, you have never noticed that. It's a PR thing, and keeps a
lot of politicians... twitchy.

The problem, is you; you see no data on hazards, just
characterizations of people that seem slightly... impure.
Purity tests are a variety of pass/fail test, a kind of fail/fail
test; meaningless but provide an excuse.

That's because the tree hugger is not a scientist.
 
On 7/6/19 7:47 PM, whit3rd wrote:
On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 10:28:37 AM UTC-7, bitrex wrote:

The technological hurdles are substantial, the only groups with real
interest in funding overcoming them are the utility companies, and they
don't see a financial advantage in funding the R&D at this time.

This is true, but it's worse than it seems; utility companies are typically
regulated, literally CANNOT spend money without a power-generation
payback. EPRI gets a trickle of research money for industry, but
the big nuclear research was always government labs (and those have
been running on a shoestring and given other tasks).

The bureaucratic hurdles to innovation are unpredictable, just as
research is; investors hate that.

there's some notion that industry wants to innovate for the sake of
innovation alone. what the fuk they wanna do that for. Innovation
involves money going out, it is not money coming _in_.

All things being equal I'd prefer money coming in 100% of the time and
none of it going out
 
On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 12:55:16 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 7/6/19 12:07 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 20:30:17 -0500, amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/safer-nuclear-reactors-are-on-the-way/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScientificAmerican-News+%28Content%3A+News%29

A decently engineered nuke is already safe. Greenies have made nukes
too expensive because they don't want the people to have affordable
energy.



Public thinks all the wingnut lobbyists and engineers for the nuclear
energy biz are well-compensated professional liars who will gladly say
anything is safe for a buck.

If anything goes wrong they're off the hook and the taxpayer is on the
hook to cover it - by law!

That's not exactly true. I researched this and it is the industry that insures itself. The first level of insurance is "$450 million in private insurance for offsite liability coverage for each reactor site". If that is depleted the industry as a whole kicks in coverage with each reactor licensee owing up to "$131.056 million per reactor" which provides another $13 billion. After that it is up to the good will of the industry or the government. No one is further obligated.

The real issue with compensating claimants of a nuclear accident, including accidents of moving fuel or waste, is the litigation. While the expenses of litigation can be recovered the time expended can not. Claims from Three Mile Island took up to 24 years to be finalized.

--

Rick C.

-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
 
On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 11:04:59 AM UTC-4, Wond wrote:
On Thu, 04 Jul 2019 20:30:17 -0500, amdx wrote:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/safer-nuclear-reactors-are-
on-the-way/?
utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScientificAmerican-
News+%28Content%3A+News%29

Ever since I read that book about using Thorium fuel, I've been watching
for some sort of announcement. Nothing yet (10 yrs.?)

The Chinese have said they will have a thorium reactor producing electricity in something like 10 years. Are you thinking the US will produce one? There are a handful of startups that are trying to get something off the ground.

In the US there is a problem with being the first company to produce a new reactor design. There is a huge startup cost associated with proving to the NRC it is safe. Once that is done for a new class of reactors, then others will follow in their footsteps. They refer to this by saying everyone wants to be "second" in the race to build a thorium reactor... well, in the US anyway.

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top