any chance to turn Nuclear reactors around with a safer Reactor

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.

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.

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.

Sorry but I don't really follow the point of your post. I guess I fail the test

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.

icAmerican-

The Chinese have said they will have a thorium reactor producing electricit y in something like 10 years. Are you thinking the US will produce one? T here are a handful of startups that are trying to get something off the gro und.

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 th e NRC it is safe. Once that is done for a new class of reactors, then othe rs will follow in their footsteps. They refer to this by saying everyone w ants to be "second" in the race to build a thorium reactor... well, in the US anyway.

That's not exactly true. I researched this and it is the industry that ins ures itself. The first level of insurance is "$450 million in private insu rance for offsite liability coverage for each reactor site". If that is de pleted the industry as a whole kicks in coverage with each reactor licensee owing up to "$131.056 million per reactor" which provides another $13 bill ion. After that it is up to the good will of the industry or the governmen t. 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 Thre e Mile Island took up to 24 years to be finalized.

Not sure what problems you are talking about. Whatever that is, it can't b e too hard to deal with. The North Anna river is not very large at all and

e 5 GW of power.

xcuse.

What you don't understand is that while the chances of an accident at a nuc lear power plant is slight, the resulting impact is catastrophic. The prod uct of the two is still quite significant.

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. The shutdown of North Anna was not so far from a meltdown. Th ey have a number of generators to cycle coolant when the outside electricit y is cut off. The generators fired up, one crapped out after about 20 minu tes. When they analyzed what had happened they found the installation proc edure for the head gasket was faulty which means each and every generator c ould have failed in the same way. The procedures in a nuclear power plant constitute many single point failures.

on-the- way/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScientificAmerican- News+%28Content%3A+News%29

Well, the French have been running gas-cooled reactors for a LONG time, like approaching 50 years, I think. They seem to have the technology down.

By getting rid of the water, you eliminate the corrosion issues that PLAGUE our reactors. Also, MASSIVE amounts of effort and safety systems are there to deal with loss of the water coolant, and being sure you have enough to keep it cooled even if there is a major leak. With gas (Helium) cooling, you can have the coolant at atmospheric pressure, so it won't escape very fast.

Seems to have worked out very well for them. But, "not invented here".

Jon

the river water surface temp may vary that much they don't take the water from just the surface.

wn

't be too hard to deal with. The North Anna river is not very large at all

some 5 GW of power.

Summer is just kicking into high gear and the intake temp is already 86?

In the winter we have had the lake covered with ice. While the intake may

Looks like the NA cooling lagoons are legally designated "waste treatment facilities" and not public waterways of the United States so they aren't covered by the Clean Water Act, they can pump in and out whatever temp hot water they want I guess, if they're OK with running at reduced power and stay within the reactor design limits. Can't do that everywhere.

I see how it works now I didn't know the lagoon-situation there prior. They have a large dam-created man-made reservoir "public side" source and a "private side" dumping-ground lagoon as the sink.

Basically the "natural" local environment is man-made to be integral part of the plant's cooling loop.

nown

an't be too hard to deal with. The North Anna river is not very large at a

es some 5 GW of power.

Nope, not correct. They have a limit to the temperature they can dump. On top of that, they wanted to add a third reactor which would mean higher te mps or larger heat exchangers. The higher temps weren't allowed by the cou rts, so they decided to go the air cooling route. With a total estimated c ost of $19 billion plans have been shelved. They have spent over half a bi llion dollars just getting it approved, but they don't really care. They a re billing most of that to the customers even though it will never produce even a single kWh.

John Doe wrote in news:qfrbg7$bmh$4@dont- email.me:

They were BOTH 'a disaster', you retarded piece of shit.

I think these bastards just want to see us go back to the stone age - and even then they'd find *something* to bitch about.

-- 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.

CD is at the cutting edge of shit posting technology, without his significant contributions the field would still be in the Dark Ages, at least.

The French reactors are PWRs.

Jeroen Belleman