any chance to turn Nuclear reactors around with a safer Reac

[whit3rd]

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 6:42:28 PM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:

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:

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.

Historiically, the earthquake damage that did in the Nakashima site (reactor and stored spent
fuel) was of that size. Lesser quakes won't result in a significant release from any containment
vessels, just damage to working parts (and a retire-it-now episode is a loss, but NOT life-threatning
to the community). Your earlier reference wasn't about mechanical damage, but THREAT TO THE
COMMUNITY.

No other such earthquake damage and release of radioactive material is available for observation,
and 'worst-case' analysis is not credible (by design). So, release-of-isotopes is not associated
with tiny little quakes.

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 2:19:23 AM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 6:42:28 PM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:
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:

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.

Historiically, the earthquake damage that did in the Nakashima site (reactor and stored spent
fuel) was of that size. Lesser quakes won't result in a significant release from any containment
vessels, just damage to working parts (and a retire-it-now episode is a loss, but NOT life-threatning
to the community). Your earlier reference wasn't about mechanical damage, but THREAT TO THE
COMMUNITY.

You didn't read my quote of the probability. They specifically said that was the risk of damage to the reactor core that would result in the release of radiation to the public.

I also pointed out that the North Anna reactors were designed to take the shaking of the earthquake we actually experienced... except that the shaking that resulted was twice what they expected from such an earthquake. There was the type of damage you describe to piping that was repairable. Had it been ten fold larger it would have clearly done much more damage.

The point is the design of reactors near faults in California where large earthquakes are not unusual are designed to withstand those larger earthquakes without damage to the nuclear core. In other locations where there is much less chance of such an severe earthquake the design is done to match the risk. So the release of radiation does not require a magnitude 9 earthquake.

BTW, the earthquake at Fukushima was a 9, but it wasn't the earthquake that caused the problems. The plants went offline and shutdown the reactors as intended. The earthquake epicenter was actually 95 miles away, so the actual effects of the earthquake magnitude were not so significant.

No other such earthquake damage and release of radioactive material is available for observation,
and 'worst-case' analysis is not credible (by design). So, release-of-isotopes is not associated
with tiny little quakes.

"Tiny little quakes" is pretty funny. LOL

Ok, so you know more than the NRC. Got it.

The fact remains that in the US the average risk to each nuclear plant from earthquake damage that would damage the core and release radiation to the public is about 1 in 70,000. Considering the typical life of such reactors and the number of reactors, the risk is more like 1 in 10 or 20 that we will have such an accident at some point. Trying to hide this issue behind a wall of FUD that this will be a trivial problem compared to the earthquake is absurd.

You sound like Butch Cassidy telling the Sundance Kid who is worried that he can't swim, "Why, you crazy — the fall'll probably kill ya!"

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Jeroen Belleman]

Jasen Betts wrote:

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.

Oh really? With all the controls surrounding the handling of even
very slightly radioactive stuff, somebody would have noticed that
before it ended up in bullets, I should think. This sounds fake,
or at least distorted. Do you have a reference?

Jeroen Belleman

 

Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote in
news:qg985g$aue$1@gonzo.revmaps.no-ip.org:

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.

Since they are sold without specialized containment, any bad
manufacture would have contaminated the entire facility.

Can you site a story about these "highly radioactive bullets
found"?

And I doubt seriously that any were ours. I can the the idot
ruskies doing it, but not any of the allied nations.

It would have contaminated the guns, the aircraft... anything they
became proximal to. The pilots and the ground crews.

It is eather another lie you "believed" as truth, or there are a
lot of enemy hardware pieces out there jacked by your special "highly
radioactive bullets". I could see Russia trying to compete with us
and trying to make their own version of them and failing, but I
cannot see the US as having ANY radioactive ANYTHING in direct
contact with ANY of our forces. Unless you refer to some failed
Russian projectiles, I do not believe your claim.

You sound like you heard this from Trump and then believed it.

Oh wait... not Trump... some lame greentard.

I am green, but I have common sense. I am not 'a greenie' though.

I do not, nor did not ever see ANY articles about the hundreds of
thousands of DU rounds expended in Iraq showing ANY that were
radioactive at all, much less "highly radoioactive".

Maybe you read "fake news". Flipping chunks of radioactive
material around would make the news at a pretty high profile level.

Sounds like something Russia would have done when they invaded the
Ukraine.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 5:34:59 AM UTC+2, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

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.

Sadly, you are th dope. If the plasma hits the walls of the container it gets cooled and contaminated, which wipes out any chance of m]nuclear fusion happening.

If the containment field fails, THE CONTAINER breeches where the
plasma contacts it.

What makes you think that?

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.

You'd have difficulty detecting any damage to the container wall.

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.

As soon as the plasma has any contact with the container, it stops being hot enough to be be any kind of heat engine

> Currently containment is paramount.

The containment provided by the magnetic field. The rest of the structure protects the plasma form the outside world.

Then getting it to produce enough to power itself AND a turbine.
Then deciding on a workable form factor.

The container walls get hot, and that heat could be used to boil water and power a turbine.

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

It's primary purpose to protect the plasma from the container walls.

The plasma may be hot,

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

We all know that. I worked with one of the sons of the guy who worked out how hot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawson_criterion

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.

Don't be silly.

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.

Contact means even more rapid cooling.Fusion stops instantly.

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

Probably not.

Absolutely SO.

Based on your ever-so-reliable intuitions?

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

What I actually posted was

"Probably not. It isn't the kind of arrangement that lends itself to being scaled down, and all the development machines have been as small as possible - which is still quite big.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER"

which you snipped without marking the snip. This is text-chopping.

<snipped the mindless reiteration>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in news:e224bce4-1621-4912-
bf5b-ecfd17d461cb@googlegroups.com:

> This is text-chopping.

Only because your head is out of reach.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 4:45:42 PM UTC+2, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in news:e224bce4-1621-4912-
bf5b-ecfd17d461cb@googlegroups.com:

This is text-chopping.

Only because your head is out of reach.

You could go to work on your own head, which does seem to need some restorative surgery. Do it-yourself brain implants haven't got a great track record, but you haven't got a lot to lose.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[bitrex]

On 7/11/19 8:23 AM, trader4@optonline.net wrote:

On Wednesday, July 10, 2019 at 2:47:47 AM UTC-4, John Doe wrote:
Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

whit3rd wrote:

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.

What you don't understand is that while the chances of an accident
at a nuclear power plant is slight, the resulting impact is
catastrophic.

That's idiotic. The chance of catastrophic accident is not slight,
it is almost ZERO.

That depends on your definition of catastrophic. I'd say what
happened at Chernobyl and Fukashima qualify as catastrophic.
I sure would not advocate putting nukes near high population areas.




A nuclear reactor generates hundreds of
megawatts, so of course you cannot compare it to a solar panel.
Nuclear power has saved thousands of lives.

The fact that the US has not had a significant nuclear accident
since Three Mile Island does in no way mean the risk of an
accident is so small as to be avoided.

But of course it does, that's how it's been avoided. Not a single
person has been killed in the United States by a nuclear power
accident. Nuclear power has saved thousands of lives.


They used to just say not a single person has been killed by nuclear power
period. That went out the window with Chernobyl, but then that was a
half-assed Ruskie piece of crap too. Their planes were and are a
disaster too, following the logic that because of Chernobyl we should
abandon nuclear power would mean that because the Ruskies can't build
planes, all airplanes are unsafe too.

The Soviets alternated between designing terrible aerospace products and
best-in-class high reliability/low cost aerospace products like e.g. Soyuz

 

[bitrex]

On 7/11/19 8:23 AM, trader4@optonline.net wrote:

The fact that the US has not had a significant nuclear accident
since Three Mile Island does in no way mean the risk of an
accident is so small as to be avoided.

But of course it does, that's how it's been avoided. Not a single
person has been killed in the United States by a nuclear power
accident. Nuclear power has saved thousands of lives.


They used to just say not a single person has been killed by nuclear power
period.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Thresher_(SSN-593)>

The reactor wasn't likely the initial cause but was a contributing
factor to the total loss of the submarine

 

On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 11:49:48 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 7/11/19 8:23 AM, trader4@optonline.net wrote:
On Wednesday, July 10, 2019 at 2:47:47 AM UTC-4, John Doe wrote:
Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

whit3rd wrote:

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.

What you don't understand is that while the chances of an accident
at a nuclear power plant is slight, the resulting impact is
catastrophic.

That's idiotic. The chance of catastrophic accident is not slight,
it is almost ZERO.

That depends on your definition of catastrophic. I'd say what
happened at Chernobyl and Fukashima qualify as catastrophic.
I sure would not advocate putting nukes near high population areas.




A nuclear reactor generates hundreds of
megawatts, so of course you cannot compare it to a solar panel.
Nuclear power has saved thousands of lives.

The fact that the US has not had a significant nuclear accident
since Three Mile Island does in no way mean the risk of an
accident is so small as to be avoided.

But of course it does, that's how it's been avoided. Not a single
person has been killed in the United States by a nuclear power
accident. Nuclear power has saved thousands of lives.


They used to just say not a single person has been killed by nuclear power
period. That went out the window with Chernobyl, but then that was a
half-assed Ruskie piece of crap too. Their planes were and are a
disaster too, following the logic that because of Chernobyl we should
abandon nuclear power would mean that because the Ruskies can't build
planes, all airplanes are unsafe too.


The Soviets alternated between designing terrible aerospace products and
best-in-class high reliability/low cost aerospace products like e.g. Soyuz

The Soyuz first stage is essentially the same as the RR-7 ICBM or
Sputnik booster of 1957. This rocket was huge for its time, since the
initial Soviet nuclear bomb was very heavy. This also meant that when
launching manned missions, there was not much need for minimizing the
weight of every component.

US ICBMs like Atlas and Titan were comparatively small, so there was a
large requirement to minimize every component weight.

 

On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 10:01:23 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

Jasen Betts wrote:
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.



Oh really? With all the controls surrounding the handling of even
very slightly radioactive stuff, somebody would have noticed that
before it ended up in bullets, I should think. This sounds fake,
or at least distorted. Do you have a reference?

That accurate bookkeeping may be true for civilian nuclear users, but
do we really know, what the US government is doing ?
,

 

On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 06:08:48 -0000 (UTC), Jasen Betts
<jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

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.

t least after the Balkan war, there were questions of destroyed tanks
containing some strongly radiating isotopes in the dust that are only
produced in a nuclear reactor, not in processed natural uranium. When
a group of people tried to bring evidences to the IAEA, they were
arrested, since they were handling some highly radioactive material.
That should not have happened, if the dust was truly DU.

 

[George Herold]

On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 1:00:47 PM UTC-4, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:

On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 06:08:48 -0000 (UTC), Jasen Betts
jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

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.

t least after the Balkan war, there were questions of destroyed tanks
containing some strongly radiating isotopes in the dust that are only
produced in a nuclear reactor, not in processed natural uranium. When
a group of people tried to bring evidences to the IAEA, they were
arrested, since they were handling some highly radioactive material.
That should not have happened, if the dust was truly DU.

Depleted Uranium is still radioactive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-238
4 billion year half life, vs ~0.7 billion years for U-235.

George H.

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2019-07-12, Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

Jasen Betts wrote:
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.

Oh really? With all the controls surrounding the handling of even
very slightly radioactive stuff, somebody would have noticed that
before it ended up in bullets, I should think. This sounds fake,
or at least distorted. Do you have a reference?

No. Some documentary on telly in the early 2000s claimed spent DU
rounds were more radioactive than they should have been.

The thing is spent fuel goes to reprocessing, and that's the same sort
of equipment as used for enrichment so it's conceivable that there
could be cross-contamination or deliberate malfeasance.

Not sure I believe this one:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/depleted-uranium-weapons_b_32654

Guardian seems to be on the ball though,
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jan/17/armstrade.unitednations

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

 

[whit3rd]

On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 12:49:15 AM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:

On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 2:19:23 AM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

No other such earthquake damage and release of radioactive material is available for observation,
and 'worst-case' analysis is not credible (by design). So, release-of-isotopes is not associated
with tiny little quakes.

Ok, so you know more than the NRC. Got it.

The fact remains that in the US the average risk to each nuclear plant from earthquake damage that would damage the core and release radiation to the public is about 1 in 70,000.

Again, so what? Release of radiation isn't disaster, doesn't imply a mass of injuries or problems.
We're all carbon-based lifeforms, living on a planetary surface that gets carbon-14 contributions
from a big reactor in the sky... radioactives have ALWAYS been released to the public.
It matters how much. Estimated injury to Nakashima residents is dominated by
the wave, not the rads. Why ought we expect this to be anomalous?

The old Rasmussen report assumed that all or most of the core contents get volatilized
(and boil off into a plume) escaping containment; we know better now, from Three Mile Island.

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 11:02:53 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 12:49:15 AM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:
On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 2:19:23 AM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

No other such earthquake damage and release of radioactive material is available for observation,
and 'worst-case' analysis is not credible (by design). So, release-of-isotopes is not associated
with tiny little quakes.

Ok, so you know more than the NRC. Got it.

The fact remains that in the US the average risk to each nuclear plant from earthquake damage that would damage the core and release radiation to the public is about 1 in 70,000.

Again, so what? Release of radiation isn't disaster, doesn't imply a mass of injuries or problems.
We're all carbon-based lifeforms, living on a planetary surface that gets carbon-14 contributions
from a big reactor in the sky... radioactives have ALWAYS been released to the public.
It matters how much. Estimated injury to Nakashima residents is dominated by
the wave, not the rads. Why ought we expect this to be anomalous?

The old Rasmussen report assumed that all or most of the core contents get volatilized
(and boil off into a plume) escaping containment; we know better now, from Three Mile Island.

Yeah... I don't think you get it. Even if any given accident doesn't kill thousands of people, the reactor will be scrap like Three Mile Island.

You can live with your head in the sand. If the likelyhood of an accident like this was improbable enough so my death in a car accident is more likely then I say, fine, I'm happy with that. But with a number more like 1 in 10 or 20 only from an earthquake, not including the many other ways an accident can happen, is too high a risk in my opinion.

But it literally doesn't matter. Nuclear plants are far too expensive to use to make electricity from competitively. The simple fact is they are not cost effective without even considering the cost of an accident. Heck, I just did a back of the envelope calculation and got about a billion dollars of real estate on the lake alone. Compared to the $19 billion to add a third reactor that seems like chump change. lol

--

Rick C.

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

 

[whit3rd]

On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 8:47:31 PM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:

On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 11:02:53 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 12:49:15 AM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:

The old Rasmussen report assumed that all or most of the core contents get volatilized
(and boil off into a plume) escaping containment; we know better now, from Three Mile Island.

Yeah... I don't think you get it. Even if any given accident doesn't kill thousands of people, the reactor will be scrap like Three Mile Island.

Three Mile Island had more than one reactor on-site; a multiplicity of small reactors keeps
the fiscal pain lower when/if a core fails. A dam failure is more destructive, and equally
costly as 'scrap'. The solution: try to make dams fail-safe.

> ... Nuclear plants are far too expensive to use to make electricity from competitively.

That depends on what kind of alternatives are available; coal plants are also now
noncompetitive, but only because of a variety of side issues. There's
multiple ways to craft reactors and situations - like a submarine - where nuclear
power is preferred.

New designs have different costs and benefits, the 1970s-era units'
designs are NOT the last word on the subject.

 

>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.

No, USING it like in Iraq.

 

bitrex <user@example.net> wrote in
news:x_1WE.89212$KQ6.61719@fx47.iad:

The Soviets alternated between designing terrible aerospace
products and best-in-class high reliability/low cost aerospace
products like e.g. Soyuz

Baikonur Cosmodrome was the most active satellite deployment launch
site in the world, for many many customers.

They also launch a lot (if not all) of ISS crew/swap missions.

Low cost? ViaSat had to pay a LOT of bucks to put te fastest com
satellite in the world up.

 

[Rick C]

On Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 4:53:18 AM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 8:47:31 PM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:
On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 11:02:53 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 12:49:15 AM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:

The old Rasmussen report assumed that all or most of the core contents get volatilized
(and boil off into a plume) escaping containment; we know better now, from Three Mile Island.

Yeah... I don't think you get it. Even if any given accident doesn't kill thousands of people, the reactor will be scrap like Three Mile Island.

Three Mile Island had more than one reactor on-site; a multiplicity of small reactors keeps
the fiscal pain lower when/if a core fails. A dam failure is more destructive, and equally
costly as 'scrap'. The solution: try to make dams fail-safe.

Uh, how many dams cost $19 billion to construct? "Trying" is not a solution when you know it is not possible. The history of safety in the nuclear industry shows we are very good at kidding ourselves about how well we have done.

... Nuclear plants are far too expensive to use to make electricity from competitively.

That depends on what kind of alternatives are available; coal plants are also now
noncompetitive, but only because of a variety of side issues. There's
multiple ways to craft reactors and situations - like a submarine - where nuclear
power is preferred.

New designs have different costs and benefits, the 1970s-era units'
designs are NOT the last word on the subject.

Let me know when you come up with affordable reactor designs. The industry can't seem to do that anymore and they know a lot more about it than you do.

--

Rick C.

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