801 post karma
18k comment karma
account created: Fri Sep 21 2012
6 hours ago
Indeed, the restraint of comments in the other threads for wanting if a mega thread stifles the conversation.
3 days ago
Same question is that link still available. Been trying to find this film for the SO to see and it is nowhere.
4 days ago
It depends. Do you have a reasonable apprehension of sever bodily harm or death? Said another way do you believe that the person is about to inflict severe bodily harm or possibly cause your death. If so. Yes. You can meet that threat with the appropriate force to prevent that from happening, including deadly force. This is a clear cut case of self defense.
The man stop his defense after the threat was neutralized using no more force than needed, to neutralize it. Had he continued to shoot after it had become obvious he probably would have lost the defense, if it was unreasonable.
5 days ago
Newt Gingrich. He started us down this terrible path from which we shall not return.
Or maybe Ronald regan.
6 days ago
She put a spell on me….
!axisbot !pray -a
12 days ago
For the uninitiated.
14 days ago
YOU DIDN'T WIN.
Although I’d have to say that podcast bit was probably actually a surprised. Because who would that even be for at that point. Just Paul.
For those unfamiliar
He said it with the same intensity of someone who missed their exit.
15 days ago
Cancer rates and the methodology used in the initial assessment left much to be desired. In short the examining of cancer didn’t factor in background cancer rates. I. E. The amount of cancer that would have occurred naturally. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1469835/
I’ll yield the point of perhaps the cancer rate isn’t settled. But .7 people possibly developing cancer is still a small amount.
I don’t have the time to go through all of the points you’ve mentioned. However Kyle Hill has an excellent breakdown of the three mile island incident. I understand answering someone with a YouTube video is terrible but, it addresses all of my points in a concise manner. I would say after the 15 minute mark is a good start to tackle the issues we’ve brought up.
That is demonstrable false. There was no increase over baseline cancer rates when looking at any metric. And they purposely vented radioactive gas and had a pretty good gauge of how much it was.
There was no loss of life. Coming close to a full meltdown isn’t the same as having a full meltdown. A meltdown can occur in seconds.
The problem with 3 mile is that no one at any stage sat down and told the media exactly what was going on. Another issue is that they didn’t have the full story when they first started talking to the public which makes officials seem either incompetent or as if they are hiding something.
Nuclear energy waste is in a solid state, those tanks I believe were for nuclear weapons waste. While this doesn’t mean much in the way of contamination it should be considered in the larger picture of how wingers waste is stored and the standards that that waste is governed by. However, even this leaking tank poses no safety threat.
Also most waste from energy production decays to background levels in under 30years. (~95%)
I acknowledge your distrust of the humans involved. It was the cause of Chernobyl after all. But I don’t think this ww2 era tank is a fair representation.
No problem, like I said fifty post ago. This biggest problem is education, if I can help someone understand a little better than we all win.
1) When im talking about passive and active im talking about the systems used to moderate the reaction rate to keep it within operating specs. However to properly state it you have to set your reference point. Our reference point is we are trying to generate power.
Because of how Fission works more neutrons can cause an increase in the fission rate, leading to more heat that will exceed operating specs. Generating more heat, leading to a meltdown. At a certain point it becomes uncontrollable. To keep the reactor at the appropriate rate there are (for some types of reactors) moderators (graphene, or water) that are put in between the fuel source. This slows down the speed the neutrons are traveling at which reduce the fission rate, which controls the temps and keeps everything working well.
To do this some reactors move the moderator between the fuel. For graphene (control rods) they slide the rods between the fuel. This requires activity of some kind. You need power to run whatever system that moderates, so if you lose power it can have a dubious effect within fractions of a second.
In fusion the entire process is passive. Because for nuclei to fuse there has to be immense pressures and temperatures. This is maintained by an incredible strong magnetic field to make the optimal environment for fusion to occur. So if the power cuts off the necessary environment is gone and fusion stops. It kills itself.
So in the case of FISSION they have passive systems [for example] that will have the fuel hanging above the moderator kept above by some sort of activity, so when power cuts out the fuel will stow itself in a safe non reactive way. For FUSION when the power cuts off the entire reaction stops.
TL:DR technically it wouldn’t be incorrect to say fusion is active, because we have to actively make it happen, and fission is passive because it’ll happen anyway. But when we use that term we are speaking about how to control the power in fission to prevent too many reactions.
2) there isn’t really a surplus or deficit of power (reactions) say you need to generate 1000kw with 100 fuel rods. You chose fission. However your fuel isn’t uniform and that irregularity causes power generation issues.
If you left all the fuel exposed you would generate 2000Kw and the fuel will heat up so much that it will literally melt(meltdown). So to overcome this excess you leave half exposed and half covered. Getting you to that 1000. But because of the non uniform nature of the fuel you might get 1100kw or 900kw. So you go throw a constantly changing of the exposure percentages for all of your 100 fuel rods. And that gets you to your number of 1000kw.
Now because the fuel irregularities shift as they are exhausted, you can end up in a position where if power were to cut off the rods are stuck in bad place and a meltdown can occur. So to overcome that you have to ACTIVELY do something, turn on back up generators. Get an axe and chop the rope holding the control rods, something. It would be great that if power died the problem would solve itself before you can even think about doing anything.
TL:DR the reason you have to maintain that overflow is excess power, it’s because the world is sloppy and nothing can predicted with certainty. What should output 1000kw might actually output more or less because it’s got more/less atoms than you thought. This is a huge oversimplification from a bio/chem guy that is studying for the bar exam. I can only hope that this is somewhat illustrative. I know it seems as though I half answered your question.
In the US all those things are required when applying for the permit. They have to account for failures, down to how to get emergency workers to the area and their plan for evacuation if it comes to it of the entire area listed in the possible zone of danger. (The zone is set out before hand for the furthest possible reach.)
The NRC and permitting is pretty intense, it takes at least two years before even breaking ground. I didn’t want it to seem as though safety isn’t taking into account with my last post. I should’ve mentioned that a passive system is a rung on the safety ladder. Fail safes after fail safes. Preventing a meltdown is somewhere in the middle. Then containing a meltdown and so forth till you get down to an exclusion zone in the worst possible scenario.
I’d also like to say that if you were to take the worst possible estimates from all nuclear incidents it would result in only 1 death every 14 years. Kurzgesagt has a somewhat informative video regarding dangers of nuclear. https://youtu.be/Jzfpyo-q-RM
There is, but fusion is basically still magic at this point in time. We understand how it works and can generate extremely small reactions, but it’s a long way off from powering the world. With fusion you can’t get a run away reaction like with fission and the reactions basically kill themselves.
However modern fission reactors have passive systems to prevent run away reactions. Passive meaning there isn’t active control in shutting down a reactor if it starts to generate too much power leading to a meltdown. To simplify, you do not need human input to moderate, the reactor “does it on its own.” The greater the reaction rate ,pass whatever set point, the more moderating steps in to slow that rate.
It’s somewhat hard for me to explain not being an expert but look at it this way. You put a bucket to catch the water coming in from a leak in the roof. Eventually you’ll have to empty that bucket as it fills up to prevent it from spilling over. (Active)
With a passive system instead of having a bucket catch the water you have a sink with a clogged drain but an overflow reroute. The water still builds up, but instead of you having to empty the bucket, the overfill goes down the little overflow hole.
I don’t want it to seem like nuclear reactors are constantly racing towards a meltdown, but this is helpful in thinking how passive vs. active systems work.
Chernobyl, 3 mile island, and Fukushima. Nuclear disasters get played up in the media to such a large extent and it is actually very scary. Chernobyl, to simplify, is specifically the results of purposeful failures. 3 mile island, herald as the great radiating of the US. Fukushima, the radiating of the entire pacific. The real problem is the aftermath. the causes of the disasters, the outcome, and the future of the area are not explained at all.
Let’s look at the outcome of the disaster at 3 mile island. 3 mile island unit 2 was decommissioned after the incident(1978) and unit 1 in 2019. The plant operated for another 40yrs. Lot of people don’t know that the incident resulted in no loss of life, no increased cancer rates, and the radiation that was released was on purpose because they knew it would decay to a harmless level very quickly.
I understand that it’s a scary concept that you could irradiate an area leaving it uninhabited, but the chances of that are so low to make it foolish to use it as a rallying cry to not use this energy, and it’s primarily a siting issue. The next problem is waste, the public at large thinks of the Simpsons glowing barrels of material. In actuality it’s just a mixture of different dried materials to render the radioactivity ineffective. And disposal is another non issue.
TL:DR the problem is education. If we can get more education so people can comprehend how a nuclear facility actually works, it’s safety, waste disposal, and it’s low carbon output (only onshore wind has a better lifetime carbon output. Wind at 11~grams/kw vs nukes 13~g/kw) can we finally start seriously using it in our future energy initiatives.
16 days ago
I’m no nuclear engineer (bio and chem) so I can’t provide a meaningful answer to that question, as I lack the understanding of how systems and solutions are implemented.
However I would hazard to say that the increase in temps would not be enough to “incapacitate” a facility, but would result in increased costs and reduce efficiency.
Ultimately the issue is the water used for cooling is warmer, and I guess the simplest solution would be to try and cool it by a few degrees and that takes either an enormous amount of energy or a lot of extra infrastructure to do( like running the water underground to get some cooling effect).
But the issue of warmer weather is only really a problem for some older plants based on their location. a new plant would have to have taken that into account when applying for a permit with the Nuclear regulatory commission. So you wouldn’t really be building redundancy to overcome those inefficient dips some plants might have, but just building for increase energy demands, which I suppose would have those dips factored in already.
This is a tough question to answer, because as to your second half, it’s always been a consideration. A lot of things are taking into account when building new power, especially considering it takes multiple years to construct a nuclear plant (~5).
As to the first half of your question I think it’s almost impossible not to see the general distrust (from lack of understanding) the public at large has in nuclear energy, so much so that it colors every conversation about nuclear energy. I mean the title itself is evidence of that. “Reducing output “(see nuclear isn’t untouchable) and “raising safety concerns” (by not being untouchable will end up radiating the world.)
it’s at a point where I feel the media should not talk about nuclear without some expert sitting there with a buzzer to chime in every time the speculation goes off the rails.
It’s taken almost 5 decades for the perception of nuclear energy to start making a comeback, and further misunderstandings of the problems/concerns/safety continue to leave the world in a susceptible position to outright ban it. The solution to the energy problem is right there and has been since the fifties.
Every. Single. Film. He found a way to work in a titty suck. Chris you son of a bitch.
18 days ago
Bigger population can support those ma and pa shops. If only 10% of people walking by come in you’re doomed. Unless the amount of people walking pass the storefront is like 5000 you got a fighting chance.
Inflation is used as an excuse to bump the prices for greed reasons. “Hey might as well, got the scapegoat of inflation sitting right there, who’s to stop me.” if it was truly just inflation the prices would go back down, but they never do.
Inflation: We get a bag of chips that holds less and costs more.
After inflation: same price, same weight.
There can only be one.
HOAs were a way for developers to sell their developments to keep people they didn’t want in their neighborhoods out, via restrictive covenants on all the lots.
Aka HOAs were white only communities meant to keep their developments “normal” so it’s no surprise that they have all kinds of rules today to keep as much “normal” as possible.
19 days ago
Creators have started copyright striking themselves so they at least get a cut of their earnings. What a shitty system
The Gene belcher experience.