any chance to turn Nuclear reactors around with a safer Reac

[Chris]

On Friday, 12 July 2019 09:56:42 UTC+10, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:

Actually no one has a long term solution.

Well if we put too much of it on the moon that will start flying away

LOL! OT but...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space:_1999

[snip]
--
Cheers,
Chris.

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 7:51:26 PM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 9:12:19 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 8:23:06 AM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

They used to just say not a single person has been killed by nuclear power
period. That went out the window with Chernobyl,

That was wrong as well. The SL-1 accident happened in the 60's. To be accurate you have to add another qualifier or two.

The issue is not that there is a history of fatalities littering the development of nuclear power. The issue is that it poses great risks from the potential of accidents, but also from improper storage of nuclear waste, which no one has addressed. Of course this has all been discussed here before and I don't think anything new will come of it.

--

Rick C.

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

That was an experimental military reactor, not a commercial power plant.
And you're wrong, the 3 that died were killed by a steam explosion, not
from radiation. Two died instantly, one died of his injuries a
few hours later. If you want to harp about that, then add up all the
fatalities at coal plants, nat gas driven plants, hell even workers who
fall off windmills or roofs putting up solar panels.

Yes, it was a reactor accident. While the three deaths were due to the explosion, none would have lived anyway because of the massive doses of radiation they received.

Is that clear now?

The only way you can claim there have been no nuclear reactor deaths is to qualify it in several ways.

--

Rick C.

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

 

>Actually no one has a long term solution.

Well if we put too much of it on the moon that will start flying away Well that would take alot but it is opposite what most people think, that the moon would start falling in toward us.

Anyway, someone is working on it. I don't need a link or anything, it is simply that this is something that can be profitable so someone who wants profits is trying to do something.

They already reuse it some and I guess it becomes DU ? There are only so many people we want to shoot with that shit.

I give it ten years. Of course by then solar and wind will have gotten better but still there are advantages to have at least part of it supplied by nuclear. Let's put it this way, I'd like to see NYC go totally solar and wind. All they would have to do is get rid of the people.

 

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 8:42:18 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:cc0319e5-c378-4ea0-a76f-e6d39ff4d859@googlegroups.com:


You want China to stop sending bullshit toys, then WE need to
reject them AT THE BORDER, and watch how fast they quit arriving
when they pay to ship them back.

is calling Trumps actions on trade with China retarded. ROFL.


So you are saying that poisonous plastic products should not be
stopped at the border, th epoint at which they were discovered?

First time you said anything about poisonous. You said bullshit toys,
dipshit. And if you know of such poisonous toys that are currently
being shipped in, just let the Consumer Product Safety Commission know
and they will act on it. Of course you're just blowing your usual BS.

Wrong, always wrong.

 

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 9:12:19 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 8:23:06 AM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

They used to just say not a single person has been killed by nuclear power
period. That went out the window with Chernobyl,

That was wrong as well. The SL-1 accident happened in the 60's. To be accurate you have to add another qualifier or two.

The issue is not that there is a history of fatalities littering the development of nuclear power. The issue is that it poses great risks from the potential of accidents, but also from improper storage of nuclear waste, which no one has addressed. Of course this has all been discussed here before and I don't think anything new will come of it.

--

Rick C.

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

That was an experimental military reactor, not a commercial power plant.
And you're wrong, the 3 that died were killed by a steam explosion, not
from radiation. Two died instantly, one died of his injuries a
few hours later. If you want to harp about that, then add up all the
fatalities at coal plants, nat gas driven plants, hell even workers who
fall off windmills or roofs putting up solar panels.

 

[whit3rd]

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 3:34:16 PM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 5:20:10 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

So what? In such a major earthquake the 'broken core' isn't going to be the killer, structural
and other damages will dominate. Such an event occurred a few centuries ago, and one native
village vanished beneath the salt water in that one (1700, Cascadia subduction zone).
The Hanford, WA waste/leakage (wartime rush nuclear promects)
a few hundred miles away will never do that much damage.

So your rationale is that since people will die in an earthquake, we should not worry about contaminating the area with radioactive materials? That's just weird.

No, that's realistic. There's no way to stop a magnitude-9 earthquake from damaging ALL SORTS
of items, and persons. Therefore, no particular urgency to treat nuclear power units as 'THE' problem
associated with such. The Japanese (Nakashima) solution is burial of the low-level stuff,
and collection of high-level items (which are in known locations). Expensive, but
rebuilding Berlin after WWII was expensive, too. Damage done, repairs, then life as usual.

After 9/11, recall that atmospheric dusts caused a substantial cancer risk. Ought we prohibit
concrete/masonry construction because it contains silicates?

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 8:42:26 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 3:34:16 PM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 5:20:10 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

So what? In such a major earthquake the 'broken core' isn't going to be the killer, structural
and other damages will dominate. Such an event occurred a few centuries ago, and one native
village vanished beneath the salt water in that one (1700, Cascadia subduction zone).
The Hanford, WA waste/leakage (wartime rush nuclear promects)
a few hundred miles away will never do that much damage.

So your rationale is that since people will die in an earthquake, we should not worry about contaminating the area with radioactive materials? That's just weird.

No, that's realistic. There's no way to stop a magnitude-9 earthquake from damaging ALL SORTS
of items, and persons. Therefore, no particular urgency to treat nuclear power units as 'THE' problem
associated with such.

Your logic is very convoluted. I'm not sure why you think it will take a 9..0 earthquake to damage a nuclear reactor. The reactors here in Virginia were built to withstand an earthquake about the magnitude which it survived, 5.8 magnitude. Had it been a "real" earthquake of 7 or so it is very possible the reactor would have been damaged. That is not strong enough to level all or even most buildings in the area. The risk evaluation was raised after the quake. This is one of the many reactors that are in the 70,000 to one per year chance of damage to the reactor by an earthquake.

The Japanese (Nakashima) solution is burial of the low-level stuff,
and collection of high-level items (which are in known locations). Expensive, but
rebuilding Berlin after WWII was expensive, too. Damage done, repairs, then life as usual.

Again, poor logic. I am of the ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure. How are property owners going to be compensated for their losses? You don't think they will ever be able to sell their property at anywhere near the same as before the accident do you?

If you add up the value of homes within 30 miles of North Anna, you will get many billions of dollars. Heck, Fredericksburg is about 25 miles away and is in the direction of the prevailing winds. Many billions.

After 9/11, recall that atmospheric dusts caused a substantial cancer risk. Ought we prohibit
concrete/masonry construction because it contains silicates?

Again, a pointless comparison. But it doesn't matter what you think about the risks or what anyone thinks about the problems disposing of nuclear waste. The bottom line is that unless electrical rates start increasing dramatically, nuclear will remain too expensive to build and maintain. It has come a long way from "too cheap to meter".

I guess the market will decide.

--

Rick C.

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

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:83eb7772-0502-425e-9c5a-3d9c6c18d5e1@googlegroups.com:

On Wednesday, July 10, 2019 at 4:07:58 AM UTC+2,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
jurb6006@gmail.com wrote in news:edec368b-11ab-47d4-8d61-
8d7a78180d9c@googlegroups.com:

that if one of those coils fails

That 'containment' is to keep it off the walls of the
'container'.

If one fails, the shutdown sequence would halt the reaction
likely
way before a burn through event. But regardless such a failure
would probably trash the vessel, and require replacement.

Keeping the plasma off the wall of the container is to protect the
plasma, not the walls of the container.

No, it is not. It (the containment field) is to CONTAIN the
plasma, and PROTECT the containment vessel FROM the heat of the
plasma. There is no "protect the plasma", ya dope. The field is
about controlling the plasma. The vessel is the superstructure onto
which the field coils are built, and the steam production heat
exchange superstructure elements.

If the containment field fails, THE CONTAINER breeches where the
plasma contacts it. So, unless the reaction is halted, the hot
plasma WILL do damage where it contacts surfaces the system was
designed to keep it from contacting. In fact, that is the entire
paradigm of fusion reaction. Where the output energy is so much more
than the energy required to contain the sun level heat source that it
becomes a useable heat engine. Currently containment is paramount.
Then getting it to produce enough to power itself AND a turbine.
Then deciding on a workable form factor.

So yes, the field is to contain the plasma and thereby PROTECT the
CONTAINER.

> The plasma may be hot,

Fusion reaction plasma is as hot as the sun. 100 million degrees.

but there's not a lot of it, and it isn't
going to burn through the walls of the container, or have enough
effect on them to require their replacement.

Perhaps on the experimental version where containment refinement is
the job right now. In a real, producing reactor, I am sure the
plasma wad will be substantially larger as will the sphere.

If it shuts off (discontinues fusing) immediately, sure. Nothing
happens. Except that you are not thinking very well. There will be
a larger amount than the experimental and it may not stop fusing
immediately (will not). Contact means instant breech.

Might be a better design to have a series of smaller vessels
than
the current, single containment of fission method.

Probably not.

Absolutely SO.

It isn't the kind of arrangement that lends itself
to being scaled down,

The experimental vessels are almost large enough to make steam
levels needed for a turbine. A series of them certainly would and
being individually serviceable would be a feature.

The only logistics in the 'arrangement' would be that each gets
their own field coils.

One large reactor failure is more catastrophic than 1/20th of your
system having a problem which does not affect the remaining 19/20ths.
Far less catastrophic, if at all. Perhaps you should look the word
up.

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:9d9dcd40-83b0-4c95-8d96-
c51eb02e4dba@googlegroups.com:

> That went out the window with Chernobyl,

TraderTard4's logic is beyond retarded.

You take lack of intelligence to an all new low.

You sit right at the bottom of the total retard totem pole, child.

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 12:18:44 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

All that stupid shit just to finish with this last stupid shit.
I should have simply ignored the whole post.

The world would be a better place if you ignored all the posts.

--

Rick C.

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

 

jurb6006@gmail.com wrote in
news:2406e797-756f-49c5-a844-5268ce408c21@googlegroups.com:

Actually no one has a long term solution.

Well if we put too much of it on the moon that will start flying
away Well that would take alot but it is opposite what most
people think, that the moon would start falling in toward us.

Nope. Any "tonnage" (of anything) we put up there means that we
*should* be sending back Moon soil of equal weight.

Anyway, someone is working on it. I don't need a link or anything,
it is simply that this is something that can be profitable so
someone who wants profits is trying to do something.

Pre accelerated rail gun push of parcels would work if the rail
accel part was after a speed ramp up. A Mag lev up a mountain side
into the rail gun segment at the end for the final accell and push.

They already reuse it some and I guess it becomes DU ? There are
only so many people we want to shoot with that shit.

I guess you ignored the explanation given of what DU is and where
it comes from. Likely also what it is used for.

I give it ten years. Of course by then solar and wind will have
gotten better but still there are advantages to have at least part
of it supplied by nuclear. Let's put it this way, I'd like to see
NYC go totally solar and wind. All they would have to do is get
rid of the people.

All that stupid shit just to finish with this last stupid shit.
I should have simply ignored the whole post.

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:3884bca3-e2fe-420f-9ec6-7863fb611a35@googlegroups.com:

ust let the Consumer Product Safety Commission know
and they will act on it. Of course you're just blowing your usual
BS.

That is for in country products, you fucking stupid twerp.

My usual bs?

You are the fucking idiot. Tons of out of standard products enter
this country every day, you retarded putz. And do so unchecked.

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:3884bca3-e2fe-420f-9ec6-7863fb611a35@googlegroups.com:

First time you said anything about poisonous. You said bullshit
toys,

Look at what I responded to. Bullshit toys means toys made with
plastics WE DO NOT ACCEPT here. IOW, plastics that exhibit toxins.
It is just that simple. We do not make them, so they need also to
not be allowed in from elsewhere.

We ALREADY have the laws on the books. It is simply a matter of
customs not doing their jobs at the ports.

Chase bank got caught bringing a ton of coke in a container. The
entire bank's assets should be siezed, and they should be rendered
defunct.

I get spam from the retarded bastards and I do not even have an
account with them.

We need to look at and reject the unacceptable items. Period.

One is not allowed to export into the EU any electrical product
that does not have CE certification. And they seem to be doing a
pretty good job of enforcement.

America's problem is that we do not look at tons of "trusted
source" parcels that come in. That needs to stop.

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:732b05a2-30cc-48b4-a824-cef8df95056e@googlegroups.com:

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 5:20:10 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Wednesday, July 10, 2019 at 4:05:27 PM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:

"It turns out that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has
calculate
d the odds of an earthquake causing catastrophic failure to a
nuclear plant here. Each year, at the typical nuclear reactor in
the U.S., there's a 1 in 74,176 chance of an earthquake strong
enough to cause damage to the reactor's core, which could expose
the public to radiation. No tsunami required. That's 10 times more
likely than you winning $10,000 by buying a single ticket in the
Powerball multistate lottery, where the chance is 1 in 723,145."

Do a little math and you will find the total risk over the
lifetime of
the 100 or so nuclear plants in the US is not so small after all
and a long way from "zero".

So what? In such a major earthquake the 'broken core' isn't
going to b
e the killer, structural
and other damages will dominate. Such an event occurred a few
centuries
ago, and one native
village vanished beneath the salt water in that one (1700,
Cascadia subdu
ction zone).
The Hanford, WA waste/leakage (wartime rush nuclear promects)
a few hundred miles away will never do that much damage.

So your rationale is that since people will die in an earthquake,
we should not worry about contaminating the area with radioactive
materials? That's just weird.


Then there is the issue of disposing of nuclear waste.

Not a safety problem, a political one. Dominated by fear,
uncertainty,
doubt, but NOT
by any hard data; with modern safeguards, burial should be safer
than ran
dom (and
we don't see lots of movement of radioisotopes in
naturally-occuring depo
sits).

Burial works; safety discussion dominated by politicians does
not.

Actually no one has a long term solution. We believe we can store
it for some hundreds of years. We are much less certain about
storing it for a couple thousand. After that is a long term
unknown area where we are punting to future generations to deal
with.

I'd fire parcels of it off to Jupiter.

 

whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in
news:2ece568a-4500-45f8-9dec-a0874283dd7e@googlegroups.com:

After 9/11, recall that atmospheric dusts caused a substantial
cancer risk. Ought we prohibit concrete/masonry construction
because it contains silicates?

I think that carbon fiber and foamed concrete "blocks" should get
used.

They already build houses from it 2 foot by 1 foot by 20 foot slabs
They weigh a lot less the full density concrete.
I would also honeycomb pocket it as well.

I would introduce carbon fiber or Kevlar into the matrix to improve
strength.

No need to erect a 500,000 ton structure when we can use less than
100,000 tons and have greater strength and support capacity.

For reference, the Empire State building weighs 360,000 tons and
has a 37 million cubic foot volume (I assume to be internal).

It could be done far lighter.

But antigenius dopes like Trump like cheap construction materials.
So the entire world is slow to use, much less adopt modern, advanced
materials.

 

jurb6006@gmail.com wrote in news:78406294-a394-46b4-8679-
bfa9686b7c2a@googlegroups.com:

You take lack of intelligence to an all new low.

That would be high dude, you fucked up again.

The BOTTOM of the stupidity totem pole is where you reside, child.

And I will BET you don't know shit about totem poles or positions
thereon either. So we'll see more of your utter stupidity soon on that
one too.

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in news:026f9f47-ea54-
4b6e-a6d9-1c71bf037984@googlegroups.com:

The world would be a better place if you ignored all the posts.

I always strive for whirled peas.

To get there, I feel that a large number of folks need to be fed to
a tree branch eater.

Start with death row convicts.

Then pharma company execs.

Then Insurance company greedy policy authors in front of and then
also their bosses.

Then their attorneys.

And finally the politicians that sucked up to the pharma folks.

And a lot of fraudulent claim doctors too.

And a lot of bad piggys as well.

These guys can shit on the world and get away with it and we get
reamed our entire life over a traffic ticket.

 

> You take lack of intelligence to an all new low.

That would be high dude, you fucked up again.

 

>LOL! OT but... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space:_1999

I just had a look, and I did watch it some. What I wonder now is who was that Woman who was there but from another planet who always beat the computer in a calculation and explained to Landau that her mathematics is based on an ellipse ? They did not specify.

I do not know calc but I do know WHAT it is and it appears to me we are moving toward something like that.

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2019-07-11, jurb6006@gmail.com <jurb6006@gmail.com> wrote:

Actually no one has a long term solution.

Well if we put too much of it on the moon that will start flying away Well that would take alot but it is opposite what most people think, that the moon would start falling in toward us.

Anyway, someone is working on it. I don't need a link or anything, it is simply that this is something that can be profitable so someone who wants profits is trying to do something.

They already reuse it some and I guess it becomes DU ? There are only so many people we want to shoot with that shit.

DU is supposed to be U238 with only a little U235, but yeah there have been
highly radioactive bullets found, so someone is selling nucelar waste
as ammo.


--
When I tried casting out nines I made a hash of it.