FORUM: General Nuclear Issues Discussion Thread — New as of April 2016

Published: January 1st, 2016 at 11:06 am ET
By

11,518 comments


Thread Guidelines:

  • This is a discussion thread intended for general Fukushima information and all other matters related to nuclear power.
  • For all other topics, please use the off-topic discussion forum.

Previous General Nuclear Issues Discussion Threads can be found here:

 

Published: January 1st, 2016 at 11:06 am ET
By

11,518 comments

Related Posts

  1. FORUM: Off-Topic Discussion Thread (Non-Nuclear Issues) — New as of January 2017 January 2, 2016
  2. FORUM: Fukushima Webcam Discussion Thread — New as of April 2016 January 1, 2016
  3. FORUM: Post Your Radiation Monitoring Data Here January 1, 2016
  4. FORUM: Upcoming meetings, gatherings, & demonstrations about energy issues September 1, 2015
  5. FORUM: Petitions, Ballot Initiatives, Other Signature Drives (VIDEO) September 1, 2015

11,518 comments to FORUM: General Nuclear Issues Discussion Thread — New as of April 2016

  • Jebus Jebus

    SMR -160 Unconditionally Safe & Economical Green Energy Technology for the 21st Century

    http://www.uxc.com/smr/Library%5CDesign%20Specific/SMR-160%20(HI-SMUR)/Presentations/2012%20-%20Unconditionally%20Safe%20and%20Economical%20Green%20Energy%20for%20the%2021st%20Century.pdf

    Is there a pdf available to apologize to our grandchildren?

    • slandermen Deadboy

      "SMR -160 Unconditionally Safe & Economical Green Energy Technology for the 21st Century "

      Wait what? Unconditionally safe? Really? I don't think these guys actually know what the words they use mean.

      So, let's see if I bomb that fucker with some tungsten/DU shells, I dunno, something like that, who knows maybe some hacking or software to sabotage the thing…fuck maybe even just some guy with a bunch of c4.

      I'm guessing, the result won't be so safe.

    • That a joke right?

      Belongs on the tonight show's opening monologue.

      Here's a simply precious quote.

      "When we enhance nuclear security, we’re in a
      stronger posiEon to harness safe, clean nuclear
      energy. When we develop new, safer
      approaches to nuclear energy"

      Who said that?

      Obama said that.

      Wowsers… So it's already safe and clean Mr. Obama? Really?

      Tell that to the people in Japan…

      But we need to make it safer? I thought you said it was safe already!

      Propaganda on a child like level.

      Here's another dandy.

      "It is SMR-160’s mission to light up the ill- lit areas on the globe with affordable pollution free energy"

      Pollution free? Really?

      http://www.wise-uranium.org/uwai.html

      Analysis showed significant differences in water consumption, depending on the type of mining operation and particularly on the quality of the ore grade. This ranged from under 50 to over 8,000 KL/t U3O8.

      Energy consumption was calculated based on direct energy input, for example diesel and electricity consumption and was typically in the region of 200-400 GJ/t U3O8. This is around two and a half times the amount of energy used
      by the average EU citizen each year

      It takes about 200 tonnes of U3O8 per year to keep a large (1000 MWe) nuclear reactor running; mining and milling uranium to feed such a plant would, therefore, emit 2000-50000 tons of CO2 each year. This is similar to the total CO2 emission from the Falkland Islands in 2004…

      • Cont.

        Exploiting uranium reserves suggests that these environmental costs will increase over time as high grade ore deposits decline and the industry turns to lower grade ore or deeper deposits. Extracting uranium from lower grade
        ore not only means higher energy costs and greater CO2 emissions, but is likely to increase pressure on water resources.

        Water resources? Every drop of water remains on earth and is recycled by the earth so just what does the term "pressure on water resources" mean?

        Polluted water from mining is the pressure… The water remains on earth but becomes unusable.

        Now there's another simple example of pollution free nuclear energy huh…

        http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/109na4_en.pdf

        I guess if ya want to pull the wool over peoples eyes all you have to do is fail to mention the true facts and back up the small (minute) portion of the truth you want them to hear with omissions and child like propaganda.

        And we didn't even get into refining and transportation and storage mine construction.

        Nuclear power is pollution free? I guess the aliens have landed too.

        What a completely unbelievable crock of SHIT.

  • PlowboyGrownUp

    "Study: Traces of radioactive contamination found in homes of six Hanford workers…The levels are low, but if some microparticles are inhaled or ingested by nuclear-site workers or their families, the radioactive dust is a “potential source of internal radiation exposure,” the study’s author writes." https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/study-traces-of-radioactive-contamination-found-in-homes-of-six-hanford-workers/

  • PlowboyGrownUp

    "TEPCO to decommission Fukushima No. 2 nuclear plant" http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201806140063.html

  • PlowboyGrownUp

    Nuclear weapons warning from scientists: beware of environmental blowback

    Possessing more than 100 nuclear weapons is pointless and unsafe, a study claims.
    A major clash involving the use of 1,000 nuclear warheads by the US would result in 50 times more deaths of Americans than occurred in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, said the researchers.

    And this was without a single nuclear strike on the US."
    https://home.bt.com/news/science-news/nuclear-weapons-warning-from-scientists-beware-of-environmental-blowback-11364277800283

  • PlowboyGrownUp

    "US to spend USD 1 million abandoned uranium mines cleanup" https://steelguru.com/mining/us-to-spend-usd-1-million-abandoned-uranium-mines-cleanup/511959 That won't make a dent, just sayin.

    • danger kitty danger kitty

      "There still are over 500 abandoned uranium mines on Navajo Nation territory, but funds available to begin the clean-up process could currently only cover about 200 of them.

      It’s believed a complete cleanse of the area could take decades and exceed USD 1 billion"

      Yeah, it's probably lip service.
      Maybe a little prospecting, too.
      For recoverable ore.
      That's how they roll…

      • slandermen Deadboy

        1 Billion to clean up 500 uranium mines sounds like a bargain to me. I mean if you leave that shit for 50 years, what's the damage gonna be?

        I'd sponsor that, on the condition that it is actual clean up, assuming I had 1 billion dollars. Like, neutralizing with fuckloads of hydrogenated silica and lead crystal shit (I mean it should be cheap enough) and planting FUCKLOADS of trees and plants in and around those areas and sequestering or quarantining of, especially, water sources where possible. That sort of shit.

        • danger kitty danger kitty

          Just saw this, Deadboy. Sounds like a good plan, so of course the powers-that-be won't do it that way.
          They've got to find a way to enrich their cronies.

          Side note: To get trees growing in the area where the mines are will require water, pumps or wells. Also, careful selection of species. And a plan for harvest and what to do with the logs full of radiation. Then plant more…
          Once tree habitat is established, fungi/mushrooms could help cycle rads faster into a more compact volume. Still got to have a plan for what to do with the harvest.
          This is all possible NOW.

  • PlowboyGrownUp

    "We aren't ready for a solar storm smackdown…Damage from the solar storm, called the Carrington Event, was pretty limited — chiefly because the world didn't have a lot of very long wires that are susceptible to disruption. But that was then, and a massive solar storm will come our way again." https://www.cnet.com/news/we-arent-ready-for-a-solar-storm-smackdown/

  • PlowboyGrownUp

    It's big money
    "Radiosurgery And Radiotherapy Robotics Market Size, Key Player, Regions, Manufacturers Analysis, Application and Specification, Cost Analysis, Price and Gross Margin by 2017-2021" https://www.military-technologies.net/2018/06/14/radiosurgery-and-radiotherapy-robotics-market-size-key-player-regions-manufacturers-analysis-application-and-specification-cost-analysis-price-and-gross-margin-by-2017-2021/

  • unincredulous unincredulous

    They say CO2 is sooo bad. Humans are adding more CO2 than volcanoes.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/06/06/how-much-co2-does-a-single-volcano-emit/#64f715435cbf

    But… hey… waitaminute…

    There is CO2 everywhere. Shouldn't we just get over it? Forgettabodit?

    Like the nuclear industry argument: radiation is everywhere, so don't don't get excited. What?

    Just rhetorical comment. I'm off to long overdue sleep. Hey sleep is ubiquitous. Dead people do it all the time. 'night

  • slandermen Deadboy

    Just spamming wise-uranium stuff.

    "Cameco requests permit amendment to place all mine units of mothballed Crow Butte in situ leach uranium mine in restoration phase (Nebraska)"

    http://wise-uranium.org/umopusa.html#CROWB

    "Violation of criticality rules at GNF Wilmington nuclear fuel plant (North Carolina)"

    http://wise-uranium.org/epusaf.html#GNFWILMINGTON

    This is kinda rad and fucked up too, though.

    "Yarn-like material yields first grams of yellowcake from seawater"

    http://wise-uranium.org/upusa.html#SEAWATER

    • slandermen Deadboy

      GNF was also related to Holtec SMR stuff, right?

      So, cameco. I mean I've read a lot, but I don't know much about them or their political associations. Any Scott Pruitts or Rick Perries to point at?

      • slandermen Deadboy

        I'm pretty sure I mentioned the uranium investment opportunities earlier in 2017. But I do have to remind you, you may invest in miners, but let me make it perfectly clear, physical uranium is STRICTLY related to not only gold, but government regulation.

        As you obviously agreed to them being an exception in environmental and social liarbillity, you do not want to fuck with my operations, or bad men will make your shit go away.

        https://www.outsiderclub.com/an-insiders-view-the-biggest-news-since-fukushima/2548

        • slandermen Deadboy

          Sick of your bullshit.

          "I mentioned just now that we have a physical capacity of two million pounds at Hobson in Texas, our Reno Creek project in Wyoming has a permit for two million pounds per year as well. So between Texas and Wyoming, UEC can be looking at four million pounds of U.S., low-cost ISR production. Now, the Reno Creek project, not only is it fully permitted, it has that measured and indicated resource of 22 million pounds. It was a Pre-feasibility study-stage project that was completed in 2014 and since then we've looked at adding other areas that were part of this project historically that were helped by different owners. So recently, we've announced the addition of North Reno Creek, which will add another four to five million pounds of uranium. This deal hasn't closed yet, but by the time it does, we will have one of the largest projects in the Powder River Basin in Wyoming. This is another key jurisdiction for low-cost ISR in the U.S. This is where Cameco and Uranium One are situated."

          How american does Amir Adnani sound, if you're not a globalist?

          I just blew that the fuck up. Saudi Arabia AND Russia dominating american uranium mining and propagation.

  • Trump plan ends research on uranium mining near Grand Canyon

    “…Without the study to document the effects of mining, some fear industry supporters would point to a lack of evidence of environmental harm to reopen the area to mining….

    “The ban provided an avenue for the Geological Survey to study uranium-bearing pipes, groundwater flow, windborne dust, and plants and animals near mines. Of particular concern for the Obama administration was the Colorado River, a lifeline for millions of people in seven Western states that runs nearly 300 miles (483 kilometers) through the Grand Canyon.

    “Those supporting the ban have pointed to the legacy of death and disease on the nearby Navajo Nation, the country’s largest American Indian reservation, from Cold War-era uranium mining….”
    https://www.denverpost.com/2018/03/08/donald-trump-uranium-mining-research-grand-canyon/

    • email from Beyond Nuclear:

      “SEND YOUR SUPPORT: A local election with international importance

      “The dirtiest, most unnecessary and proliferation risky phase of the nuclear fuel chain is nuclear fuel reprocessing. The sites in England and France have already contaminated the air and water, as far as the Arctic circle and leukemia clusters have been found around both sites. Reprocessing releases some of the most carcinogenic of all radioactive isotopes, including carbon-14. In Japan, the still unopened Rokkasho reprocessing plant has been "underway" since 1985. Now, a candidate for mayor in the June 24 Rokkasho Village election, Ms. Junko Endo, could stop the plant for good. Reprocessing is in any case redundant since Japan's breeder reactor program collapsed. Therefore, opponents fear the push to complete it is connected to the ability it allows to manufacture nuclear weapons. People from around the world are encouraged to send their support to Ms. Endo who opposes the reprocessing plant. Facebook users can post directly to her page, and in any language, here. Or you can leave a comment at the end of this blog article and it will be forwarded to her. Or you may email your words of support via activist Kolin Kobayashi in France….”

  • PlowboyGrownUp

    "57 Mutant Monkeys Murdered Near Fukushima to Protect Environment 🙈🙉🙊"
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-08CRJrrcxU

    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

      mankind always turns to murder for a solution. His trail stinks from the smell of death

      Our game and fish agencies that are supposed to 'manage' wildlife, often do this by killing 100s of thousands of animals.

      Its really disgusting. homo sapiens, the killer ape who calls himself civilized man

    • unincredulous unincredulous

      I don't see them murdering TEPCO execs for the good of the environment. GE execs still breeding…

  • Nuclear power DOES NOT provide 11% of the world's total energy. It only provides 11% of the TOTAL ELECTRIITY.

    “…Nuclear energy now provides about 11% of the world's electricity…”
    http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/nuclear-power-in-the-world-today.aspx

  • slandermen Deadboy

    I have high unicorn tolerance. I'll link that soon. But first, fairy tales.

    So sweden banned (kinda) uranium mining in sweden. Luckily they can get uranium from Kazakhstan. And there's some fucking interesting shit there.

    http://wise-uranium.org/umopasi.html#KZGEN

    Just below that.

    "Miracles of Kazakh uranium in situ leach technology – continued
    After having learned about the "unique capability of self-restoration" of Kazakh soils rendering superfluous any restoration efforts after the shutdown of uranium in situ leach mines (view details), the gentle reader is now presented with another mystery:

    "In our country, many uranium mines are being developed in the basin of the main waterway of the south of Kazakhstan – the Syr Darya. Historically, in these areas, for example, in Kzyl-Orda, rice growing is also developing. We extract uranium virtually between rice paddies flooded in water, and never once did a drop of PR solutions fall onto the agricultural land," Yuri Vazhinskiy [department head at NAC Kazatomprom] said. (ARMZ Dec. 5, 2017 – emphasis added)
    In view of the long list of spills of in situ leach uranium mines all over the world, this constitutes another miracle."

    • slandermen Deadboy

      Also remember to visit the babylonian constructions in and around astana, particularly. You may find all kinds of strange symbolic things related to…I'm not sure what exactly, but it's probably shit.

  • Russia floats new nuclear power station—and new risks

    As world-first platform makes its way east, international watchdogs raise concerns.

    “…Russia’s nuclear regulator has not overseen construction, testing, fueling, or transport of the ship from its home port to its final destination. “Insufficient regulatory oversight plays a role in most severe nuclear incidents,” he said, noting that Greenpeace has “demanded” that Rosatom, the ship’s manufacturer, and the Russian government allow the nuclear supervisory body, Rostechnadzor, access to the project. It has also requested peer review from international organizations.

    “Environmental and nuclear watchdogs worry the station could hit an iceberg and sink while crossing the Arctic, spilling nuclear fuel into the fragile northern ecosystem. Or it could run aground, fouling the landscape, or be tossed by waves in a storm, or even—once installed in the remote coastal town of Pevek, 53 miles across the Bering Strait from Alaska—be attacked by terrorists or fail for any number of other reasons. One need only look at Japan’s Fukushima plant to see that water and nukes don’t always mix.

    “Nevertheless, the blocky power station now sits in in Murmansk, Russia, after being towed there from a Saint Petersburg shipyard where it was built. …[cont.]

    • [cont.]…Workers in Murmask are now loading it with nuclear fuel. When it reaches Pevek sometime next year, it will commence its first mission: Providing power to the surrounding region of Chukotka, population 50,000.

      “The platform is to be the first of a series of floating nuclear power stations that will be introduced into the Arctic, explained Jan Haverkamp, a nuclear energy expert with Greenpeace. ‘This is in support of the further development of oil, gas, and coal extraction in that region,’ he says. ‘This has now become more easily feasible because of the retraction of the ice due to climate change, and it will introduce increased nuclear risk in the region as well as increase carbon emissions.’

      “Due to a lack of transparency surrounding the project, this progress is ringing alarm bells anew among nuclear watchdogs. The most immediate concern is the vessel’s movement once fueled. Akademik Lomonosov is not considered a nuclear installation under Russian law until it’s actually moored and made operational in Pevek, says Haverkamp. As a result, Russia’s nuclear regulator has not overseen construction, testing, fueling, or transport of the ship from its home port to its final destination. 'Insufficient regulatory oversight plays a role in most severe nuclear incidents,' he said, noting that Greenpeace has 'demanded' that Rosatom, the ship’s manufacturer, and the Russian government allow the nuclear supervisory body, Rostechnadzor, access to the project. …[cont…

      • [cont.] It has also requested peer review from international organizations.

        “Floating nuclear power plants face a variety of risks that ground-based stations do not. While seaworthy reactors themselves are not new—they’ve existed for decades in military ships and submarines—floating reactors generating the power levels of the Akademik Lomonosov, at 70 megawatts, are new, and the risks are higher. ‘On the ground, the orientations of the pumps, and valves, and pipes are all known,’ said Dale Klein, a former head of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ‘Everything moves in a known direction. You don’t have the rocking and rolling like you do at sea, so you could have unusual natural events, like storms, where if the platform starts oscillating or flips on its side or goes upside-down. How do you make sure the reactor core does not melt?’

        “What experts like Klein want to know is how Russia executed its safety analysis for the project, including its susceptibility to events like security breaches and terror attacks. Those breaches can be more readily and stealthily executed stealthily from water than from land. Klein also wants to know how strong the containment system is for radioactive material. “When you design those systems on a ship, they have to be very heavy, but the ship’s designers want their vessels to be very light,’ he said. ‘Those two concepts are in opposition, and one should ask how did Russia balance those.’
        …[cont.]

        • [cont.] “Russia, Klein noted, is not under any legal or international regulatory obligation to provide this information. During his own leadership of the NRC between 2006 and 2009, Klein says he noted a disconnect between Rostechnadzor, which strove to boost its regulatory capabilities, and the Russian government, which resisted such efforts.
          “The fact that Rostechnadzor only has been able to visit to plant after pre-announcement and then only once a year is a severe concern for us,” said Greenpeace ’s Haverkamp. “It would be good if Rostechnadzor could get full access to the power plant, and also would once more go over all the documentation and have the mandate to give approval, or withhold it, on the basis of the safety case.”

          “Haverkamp also noted that beyond the risks such a station would pose at it’s mooring site, there are gauntlets of concern surrounding the fueling in Murmansk—a city with a population of 300,000 people—transportation, and refueling after 12 years of operation. “The transport is an almost 5,000 km voyage through potentially stormy weather in an area that also knows heavy ice,” he said. “Any Titanic-type scenario would be a nightmare, but also if the barge were to lose contact with the tugs and be thrown on the rocks. This could lead to emissions of radioactive substances into the environment. …[cont.]

  • PlowboyGrownUp

    "Biologist reveals surprising insights into the effects of nuclear accidents on wildlife…
    In 2011, biologists Timothy Mousseau and Anders Moller were collecting flowers in Pripyat, a ghost town close to the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant. While there, they came across a firebug (Pyrrhocoris apterus) with a “deformed” red-and-black pattern on its back. Mousseau and Moller encountered over a hundred more firebugs bearing unique colorations as they widened their exploration to the Red Forest and other abandoned villages. The higher the contamination rate of an area, the more common these types of insects.

    “This is just one of many similar anecdotes about the deformed critters of Chernobyl,” Mousseau told DW.com. “Literally every rock we turn over, we find a signal of the mutagenic properties of the radiation in the region.”…
    Shockingly, that’s only a small fraction of the mutations abound within and around Chernobyl. Back in 1990, just four years after the meltdown, roughly 400 disfigured animals were born, with many being so extreme that the animals died within hours of birth. As per ThoughtCo.com, these deformities ranged from extra limbs to odd coloration to distorted faces." http://medicine.news/2018-06-16-biologist-reveals-surprising-insights-into-the-effects-of-nuclear-accidents-on-wildlife.html

  • Nuclear Questions And Answers!

    In response to a challenge by AST to ask a round of questions to us all, here are the first 2 of 10 rounds of 2 questions each….

    This is a great idea and should be a learning experience for all who answer, comment and read it…

    So let's get started in this 10 round match….

    Keep it clean and come out fighting :-).

    • AST Writes:

      We could open with 2 questions, if your up to it? Maybe 10 total, over a few posts?

      Lets do it!

      1) Nuclear power production is approx. 11% of world power totals. They require significant power over a period of time for spent fuel cooling pools. A good estimate would be?

      a) 100% of their power for 100yrs
      b) 5%-10% for 5-10yrs
      c) 20% for 20yrs
      d) 50% for 50 yrs

      A lot of heat is created with power production. Some like to think 'cradle to grave'. It is appropriate.
      Would you consider the point of use, the consumer, and associated heat gain/loss to the planet as part of that process?

      a) yes, it would be significant
      b) no, has nothing to do with it.

      Now, you can take exception, explain, show links/proof, about anything goes, but, it may create a follow up question.

      The point is to demonstrate how you think and reason. It is important to an employer

      Good Luck! 3 or 4 rounds to go!

      • Ok so question one is kind of vague in respect to fuel pools because the fuel pools are used for spent fuel long term storage in most of these plants (something they were not designed for).

        So the answer to question 1 would be somewhere between?

        b) 5%-10% for 5-10yrs
        c) 20% for 20yrs

        The text book answer would seem to be…

        b) 5%-10% for 5-10yrs

        But with fuel being kept in these pools for the entire life of the plant, it's a little hard to pin that down to a simple percentage number or time frame number…

        Question 2:

        "Would you consider the point of use, the consumer, and associated heat gain/loss to the planet as part of that process"

        Answer?

        Well yes and no.

        Since the heat generated by transmission and end use will be the same no matter what the generation source the answer would be.

        b) no, has nothing to do with it.

        Electricity is electricity, voltage is voltage and amperage is amperage regardless of what is used to make it be it coal hydro or nuclear or solar or wind.

        The researchers and manufactures can help solve this problem with more efficiency and better products and this issue desperately needs to be addressed! But power flowing through the lines is all the same and thus the end point use is all the same regardless of source production. So end point should not be considered in the question of warming from nuclear heat versus coal heat or hydro heat or solar heat or wind heat.

        • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

          total power production from decay heat after a week is 0.1% of shutdown power and after a month its 0.01%. So if you integrate that exponential decay over 100 years or whatever and compare it to the life time energy output of the reactor…it seems much less than 5 to 10%

          • You can't look at it in those terms…

            The heat produced and cooling required are 2 completely different equations…

            So you have the cooling pumps, the replacement water pumped into the pool, etc. etc. etc…

            And nothing is 1 to 1 (100%) so those pumps may only be 60 or 70% efficient on power in relation to the actual cooling taking place…

            There is always power loss on any machine, even more so on a mechanical action like pumping/circulating water.

            So if you try to figure from heat produced, a good rule is to double the input necessary to cool it. In this case I think it's even a little more than double (60 to 70%) using impeller pumps.

            • AirSepTech AirSepTech

              Most All plants use 2 different modes of cooling.

              The pumps are just moving BTU's, to a body of water or cooling tower. Some losses on the "exchangers".

              We know heat is created, any source. What does it take to cool it, reject heat to planet earth?

              5% of many plants would be close to 50MW, over 60,000 hp
              A number as CS eludes to that is greatly exaggerated, in the perspective of SFCPools pumping/cooling capacity in particular.

              ___________________________________________________

              Now, find the MW capacity of this plant, and feel the joy.

              The spent fuel pool has 120hp of circulation.

              120 Horsepower. 1000's of fuel assemblies.

              They even provides some heat load numbers.

              https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1122/ML11223A323.pdf

              Consider the 'running' plant lifetime, lower temps than conventional thermo's, things get even tighter.

              I wonder what Harvey was thinking? 😆

              The more difficult learning method, no one likes it.

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

              Anyone care to take a guess of the total BTU 'loss' on a SF assembly after removal from reactor?
              Move things along?

            • AirSepTech AirSepTech

              HD?

              "the replacement water pumped into the pool"

              Closed Loop?

              "So if you try to figure from heat produced, a good rule is to double the input necessary to cool it."

              I have a 27,000hp compressor, 22f heat rise on C/water.

              I need 54,000hp to cool back down 22f?

              Really?

              • Not sure I follow.

                "I have a 27,000hp compressor, 22f heat rise on C/water.
                I need 54,000hp to cool back down 22f?"

                So out of that energy produced how much is going to cool the actual machine? That machine produces heat as a byproduct of operation so the equation is a completely different principle. Cooling something that sits around making heat while doing nothing productive? all inputs with out any productive output of any kind is 100% of what is required.

                Better to use BTU/watt comparisons on that subject I think.

                Spent fuel pools have 0 horsepower. And before someone says something, that's the pool with the spent fuel sitting in it, the circulating pumps are not included in that equation because spent fuel doesn't produce ANY energy to run anything other than the temperature up.

                So a spent fuel pool requires 100% inputs and produces 0 outputs of usable energy, 0% to maintain itself.

                One horsepower is equal to 745.7 watts. When you multiply 745.7 watts by 2.5 hp, you get 1,864.25 watts. Energy costs are calculated in kilowatt-hours, and to get kilowatt-hours, you multiply watts by hours and divide by 1,000. So, if you run your home pool pump for 8 hours in one day, 1,864.25 multiplied by 8 and divided by 1,000 equals 14.9 kilowatt-hours. If you run your pump every day for an average of 30 days per month — 30 multiplied by 14.9 — your pump uses 447 kilowatt-hours in a month.

                Try that math with spent a fuel pool running pumps 24/7.

              • "HD?

                "the replacement water pumped into the pool"

                Closed Loop?"

                Surely you know that they loose water…

                And "closed loop" How about "open top"?

                What about water boiling (not rapid of course) for a month after a fuel change?

                Here's some things to think about…

                How many rods are already in that pool when a fresh load is placed in there?

                How is it arranged? Is is mixed in with older cooler fuel and in what dispersion (checker boarding)?

                How cool was the water before the change?

                What will the temperature rise to after the change?

                Gonna be water loss.

                Your indoor swimming pool and or Jacuzzi even looses water and you will have to add water regularly. And those are closed loop systems aren't they? And the average Jacuzzi is covered 90% of the time with a thick padded and insulated cover yet it looses water that must be added regularly to keep it at the correct level right?

                Now think about that closed loop spent fuel pool again.

                Here's some things to considerate:

                And how much water does a simple swimming pool loose?

                https://www.risingsunpools.com/uncategorized/water-pool-lose/

                Scroll down and read the comments like (this guy did a bucket test to see if he had a leak in his swimming pool)…

                "in about 20 hours I have lost an inch" in BOTH the pool and the bucket sitting out.

                Now look at this one…

                Spent Fuel Characteristics:

                https://youtu.be/bBD8Y9SiaXw?t=3m10s

                So how much water do they…

        • AirSepTech AirSepTech

          I did not see this yesterday! shameful

          Getting to it….
          "Now, you can take exception, explain, show links/proof, about anything goes, but, it may create a follow up question."

          Your answer:
          So the answer to question 1 would be somewhere between?

          b) 5%-10% for 5-10yrs
          c) 20% for 20yrs

          Ok, I will not twist your words, just a question.

          Does it take 15% plant power for 15 years to cool spent fuel?
          Please provide some documentation so we can use this info.

          We are talking about 'heat' into the environment.
          How much, and who is doing it.

          _________________________________________________________________

          Question 2:

          "Would you consider the point of use, the consumer, and associated heat gain/loss to the planet as part of that process"

          Your answer:

          b) no, has nothing to do with it.

          Again, heat gain to the planet. The consumer receives 25-30% or so of the original production, regardless of source, as you stated.

          The thought that is missing for many, is that the 'consumer' is directly responsible, for a massive amount of heat. The only way to decrease this is through 'conservation'. Responsibility.

          If we are worried about heat gain to the planet, and elevated water vapor, conserve.

          They can't make, what we don't take.

          New questions down page!

          • Shameful?

            First, the proper thing to do is to reply to my answer in the original thread and reply to the top message I created with your next questions so they don't get spread out.

            Second, if the question is "is nuclear a global warmer as compared to coal and other global warmers" getting into end use seems to just complicate the subject as all end use heat is the same no matter what created the power.

            They say nuclear is not a global warmer like coal, I say they are full of it. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that all the energy that goes into building the plants, mining the ore, transporting it around the world, making the rods, operating the reactors and cooling spent fuel that is good for nothing and makes heat for 50+ years contributes to "so called" global warming. Then there's the heat from digging a 1000 foot deep hole to put the waste in and heat from smelting the metals to make storage containers too.

            So the nuclear industry makes a huge contribution to global warming. That's a obvious fact, if you can add…

            And those facts have nothing to do with end use heat, that's another subject entirely.

            Is this a honest discussion or some game of yours…

            • AirSepTech AirSepTech

              Remove the chip on your shoulder it's not shameful about you shameful I didn't see it

              • No chip, just struck me funny because I didn't know what you were shamming…

                Not mad nor upset in the least, sometime hard to know that when it's written instead of said in person huh…

                Any way this is my busiest time of year as you can imagine and I'll sometimes get interrupted and hurry a statement to get it posted…

                So on we go :-).

            • AirSepTech AirSepTech

              Look circular logic goes both ways.

              Are all of the other types of power plants not required to have a fuel?
              What goes into moving massive mountains of coal?
              The fracking the pumping losses the pipeline necessary to move natural gas everywhere? Not to mention the methane loss greenhouse gas Global heating thing

              They do not have to be built commissioned and decommissioned?

              We can then consider there's three times as much of that from them, based on total load to the environment. We can further consider that many of those plants are very small in capacity, which makes nothing better about the environmental impact of it all.
              That's the US View, the worldview is even worse, with 11% nuclear. Don't you think?

              Yes nuclear is not safe, clean, green, or pollution-free.

              It is also not the leader in heating up the planet.
              That's what this is all about. Heat.

              You know, who's cooking your goose? Really

              • "Look circular logic goes both ways. Are all of the other types of power plants not required to have a fuel?"

                Well duh of course they do.

                But watt per watt nuclear is a prime example of a warming contributor. You just have to honestly look at ALL the inputs it takes to produce power with nuclear.

                For instance with coal (not saying I like coal) you dig the stuff crush it and pile it in the fire.

                Try that with uranium ore! And so the refining and manufacturing process is MUCH more involved and requires loads more energy (electric, gas and chemical) to make it into a from that you can use.

                Add those processes into a energy in energy out equation?

                What is a efficient energy producer? The one that requires the least amount of energy to get into the plant to produce the heat to boil water with.

                Nuclear is dead last in that fact. It requires the most energy and effort and waste disposal of all water boiler sources on the planet.

                So if you are going to be honest you have to calculate ALL that energy and effort into the equation, not just the finished product for the small amount of time it's boiling water to make power.

                These are the facts that the nuclear industry (very conveniently I might add) leaves out of their calculations of…

                Units of energy produced over its working lifetime (output) – (minus)

                Units of energy required to produce the fuel and dispose of the fuel waste (inputs) =

                The true efficiency of the energy source.

      • 3) Considering, in the USA, Nuke power is about 20% of supply, and rejects as much as 100,000,000,000 gallons of warmed water, how much water might be rejected by Fossil Fuel power plants, with about 63% of the production supply?

        a. It has no effect because they do not have spent fuel to cool.

        b. As much as 300,000,000,000 gallons, possibly more.

        c. I will answer with a link/explanation (may lead to debate)

        4) 'BTU' is a well used measurement tool/conversion in thermodynamics.
        About how many BTU's would be required to raise 1 gallon of water 20f?

        a. 761 btu

        b. 167 btu

        c. none of the above

        d. I will answer w/link/explanation

        Daily bonus question:

        Why do most NPP operate at 'lower' temperatures and pressures than coal fired plants, and does this affect their efficiency?

        a. They are stupid, and have no clue what they are doing.
        b. Safety concerns
        c. the good ol' link/explanation
        d. I don't care, beating a drum helps my credibility and the furthers the cause.

        Good Luck and remember, this… is about 'heat'.

        • I'll get to answering this one this evening or tomorrow for ya AST…

          To busy right now…

            • Climate news network…I used to read Alex Kirby, one of the reporters, when he was with the BBC. I liked his work so much I contacted the BBC and demanded they give him a raise. I seem to remember that there was a time when his life was threatened because of his work. Great site, great reporting. These guys know what they write about, they live it.

              • Great site Taffy!!!

                I particularly like this short but sweet truth on the C02 scam…

                https://climatenewsnetwork.net/light-from-plant-growth-shows-carbon-budget/

                We've found the cure to the multi billion dollar C02 distraction scam…

                No more wasted money and time required for C02 (and don't know how anyone fell for that simple and obvious crap to begin with).

                …The cure? It's called trees, grass and other plants!

                • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

                  Chuckles!

                  Does it look like any capitalist, like the Rumpster and his buddies are going to plant trees? All these people know is the removal of all trees and then the installation of concrete over everything that is alive.

                  What ever scam you think is going on..nothing tops the concrete everything in sight Earth scam. People actually invest in the death of this planet..they yearn for the green..of the buck.. that is.

                  Funny how few see it or understand it for what it really is..

                  • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

                    Does this look like anyone out here are planting any trees?

                    Capitalists!

                    15 Before & After Photographs Of Cities From Around The World That Show Unrecognizable Difference
                    https://www.scoopwhoop.com/world/before-after-pics-world-cities/

                  • You got that right obewan…

                    The whole idea of bulldoze it, haul it off and bury it or burn it and then pave over it has to stop!

                    While they fund C02 studies and whine about something they are helping to create? Did any of these people even go to school?

                    Too obvious to be a mystery.

                    The mystery is why people will believe anything they see on TV.

                    Is it the mesmerizing effect of the flashing screen?

                    Sleep…. Your eyes are getting heavy…

                    You will believe anything we say on the flashing idiot box.

                    Wooooooo…

                    When we show you a commercial you will buy it no matter how stupid and useless it is.

                    Weeeeee….

                    The news that is not news but is actually hearsay is coming on and you will study that fake opinion crap instead of real life.

                    Waaaaaa….

                    You will now cry like a baby over nothing while the world dies from the real stuff you let pass you right by even though it's proven, free for you to study and do something about and real proven science.

                    Wowowowowowwwwoo…

                    The basket ball throwers just made another 2 points and are sucking up all the money that you should have but they need it to pay for a 10 million dollar home and some more rap recordings for their 9 thousand dollar stereo in the basement. And you will like it.

                    Eeeeeeeeee…

                    You are broke because you study my little pony cartoon style lives and don't even know it.

                    HeheHe, it just doesn't get any dumber (or more real) than that huh.

        • And the answer to question 3?

          d. I will answer w/link/explanation

          These guys can give you some of the in's and out's!

          Just by careful to scrutinize the material, not sayin I agree with everything stated here, but it's a great read to get started with.

          https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876610216314400

          On to question 4…

          Q=m⋅Cp⋅ΔT
          Where …

          m = mass of water heated

          Cp= the heat capacity of water (1 BTU / lb ºF)

          ΔT = temperature difference.

          To calculate the heat required, determine the variables:
          m = mass of water heated = 700 gallons = 5810 lbs
          Cp is the heat capacity of water = 1 BTU/lb ºF (given)
          ΔT = temperature difference = 120 ºF – 55 ºF

          So your question is too vague to give you a absolute answer.

          But I'll give it a try anyway…

          Approx. 150 BTU

          Based on the calc of:

          1 BTU changes 1 lb of water @ 32 F to 33 F with dynamic losses included for 1 gal. and attempting to take unspoken variables of pressure, ambient temperature and vessel construction into consideration.

          • Bonus question?

            Coal plants have major fluctuations on heat because of loading the coal and the differences in flammability of one load versus another.

            Also the predicted demand for power will effect how much is loaded at any given fueling.

            A refined nuclear fuel pellet is not only more predictable on heating, it's also more dangerous so the methods are completely different.

            Ya don't just dump a bunch of nuclear fuel pellets onto a existing fire for refueling…

    • AST , where are the next 2 questions?

      Been waiting for your rebuttal on the last 2 answers and to continue with the next question for a while…

      • AirSepTech AirSepTech

        Rebuttal? No, Grading an answer, and the ability to reason.

        3) Considering, in the USA, Nuke power is about 20% of supply, and rejects as much as 100,000,000,000 gallons of warmed water, how much water might be rejected by Fossil Fuel power plants, with about 63% of the production supply?

        a. It has no effect because they do not have spent fuel to cool.

        b. As much as 300,000,000,000 gallons, possibly more.

        c. I will answer with a link/explanation (may lead to debate)
        ————————————————
        b. As much as 300,000,000,000 gallons

        Your answer:

        Power Generation from Condenser Waste Heat in Coal-fired Thermal Power Plant Using Kalina Cycle

        Not sure how this correlates, Explanation?

        4) 'BTU' is a well used measurement tool/conversion in thermodynamics.
        About how many BTU's would be required to raise 1 gallon of water 20f?

        a. 761 btu

        b. 167 btu

        c. none of the above

        d. I will answer w/link/explanation
        —————————————-
        b. 167 btu

        Your answer:

        Approx. 150 BTU

        1 gal H2O+ 8.345 lbs, well documented/easy to find

        Part of you answer/explanation was even correct
        "700 gallons = 5810 lbs"
        5810/700=8.3 8.3*20=166

        Why would you choose to guess? You could not possibly want to be wrong on purpose, could you?

        On to the bonus question

        • AirSepTech AirSepTech

          Daily bonus question:

          Why do most NPP operate at 'lower' temperatures and pressures than coal fired plants, and does this affect their efficiency?

          a. They are stupid, and have no clue what they are doing.
          b. Safety concerns
          c. the good ol' link/explanation
          d. I don't care, beating a drum helps my credibility and the furthers the cause.

          Good Luck and remember, this… is about 'heat'.
          ———————————————-

          b. Safety concerns

          Your answer:

          Coal plants have major fluctuations on heat because of loading the coal and the differences in flammability of one load versus another.

          Also the predicted demand for power will effect how much is loaded at any given fueling.

          A refined nuclear fuel pellet is not only more predictable on heating, it's also more dangerous so the methods are completely different.

          Ya don't just dump a bunch of nuclear fuel pellets onto a existing fire for refueling

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

          Currently most of the nuclear power stations must operate below the temperatures and pressures that coal-fired plants do, in order to provide more conservative safety margins within the systems that remove heat from the nuclear fuel rods. This, in turn, limits their thermodynamic efficiency to 30–32%.

          A prudent person, with good thought process, would see a little 'win' as an anti-nuke, seeing even more heat loss on efficiency, regardless of other factors.

          WTF was your rant…

          • AirSepTech AirSepTech

            About?

            As to more questions, 95% is the pass, 10 questions, you can miss 1/2 a question. Yes, I would give a half, if it was a clear and compelling explanation.

            Why continue at this level? More appropriate would be Big Chief crayons or maybe sidewalk chalk.

            Never-the-less, 1 more.

            Has this exercise been any different than the day HippieDog showed up on this site?

            It is an open to all/non-nuke question.

            Good Luck!

            • So I can miss half a question?

              I would expect the problem with you reading comprehension has to do with your comprehension of reality.

              How do you miss half of a question? The same way you figure percentages I'd guess.

              Is the sky blue? Nahh it's blue, green and even black depending where you are and what time it is huh… Dang I missed half a question huh.

              Just had to go on a rant after accusing me of ranting didn't ya AST…

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

            • danger kitty danger kitty

              "Has this exercise been any different than the day HippieDog showed up on this site?"

              Nope.

              He still sounds like a bs slippery accountant pretending to be stupid.

                • Here's a 3/4 question…

                  Martin, a heavy smoker, was diagnosed with lung cancer at Cedars Sinai Medical Center in September 1993, and was told that he would require surgery to prolong his life, but he rejected it. He retired from public life in early 1995 and died of acute respiratory failure resulting from emphysema at his Beverly Hills home on Christmas Day, 1995 at the age of 78

                  Guess how many nonsmokers he outlived?

                • AirSepTech AirSepTech

                  I would agree 100% with this statement:

                  "I'm not pretending…"

                  Re: danger kitty
                  June 22, 2018 at 9:29 pm · Reply
                  "Has this exercise been any different than the day HippieDog showed up on this site?"

                  Nope.

                  He still sounds like a bs slippery accountant pretending to be stupid.

                  A gem in almost every post. 😆

                  • Wow the trolls just keep on with noithin. Doin nothin good too…

                    • danger kitty danger kitty

                      You have no/and or unintelligible content, HDog.
                      As for the troll comment, don't forget you are a newcomer to this board.
                      You have not covered yourself in glory in your first impression nor your thousandth impression.

                    • Not here to cover myself in glory…

                      And learning is painful, especially to the learning disabled…

                  • AST, are you really able to read any of those posts? Since the posting of being able to eat apples from Chernobyl I have had to scroll past and ignore the wasted space. Granted, we all waste space to some degree but my-gawd it gets old and older too fast. Most of it that I have seen is babble, incoherent babble.

                    Hey hd, how much is that pay-check?

                    • AirSepTech AirSepTech

                      I speak 4 languages, not great, to survive.
                      Takes a while to get back into it though.

                      Adding stupid was only a little stretch.

                      Whatever it takes to get the drunktard fired up, he knows he's the ponyshow.

                      My last post, I gave him his numbers, got moderated. hahahahaha
                      Guess it wernt numb-er-ed enough. haha

                      Maybe it will clear. 😉

                      280,000,000kw/h for the dog…x3 hahahaha

                    • AirSepTech AirSepTech

                      TC, guess this is some—thing you refer to?

                      "Here's Big Chief and a passenger style public that can't control anything…

                      Listen as she worries about her teeth and checks the helmet…

                      Just look into those eyes ole no calculating BS quoter and then watch the machine go…"

                      Drunk again. I do a little time at the jail. Drunks are a part of life, sometimes death. Most of them know better than to write a bunch of stuff though. Most don't want to confront that. Remember 'bowling'?

                    • Yea taffy I'm the one wasting pace here huh…

                      Let's look at that simple truth for moment…

                      Ast writes:

                      "My last post, I gave him his numbers, got moderated. hahahahaha
                      Guess it wernt numb-er-ed enough. haha

                      Maybe it will clear.

                      280,000,000kw/h for the dog…x3 hahahaha"

                      So now what evidence shows who's wasting space here?

                      Some should never try to be researchers or waste time going to detective school.

                  • Ya know that the really sad part is that if I saw any of you in trouble on the street, I would do my best to rescue you and though I have tried to rescue you ahead of time…

                    All I get is insult and stupidity in return.

                    What does that say about you…

        • Wow really interesting grading there AST, so You are grading for a test?

          Wow kinda vague there man…

          So that being said…

          Let's try some simple educational questions…

          Watch this short and simple video and then answer the questions below.
          Let's see if you actually get it or not…

          https://youtu.be/apODDbgFFPI?t=1m40s

          Now after watching the short video, here are the first 2 questions…

          1) how many watts of energy are used to produce a fresh unused fuel load for a average nuclear power reactor through all the processes mentioned in the video.

          BEFORE it is used to boil water.

          You MUST include the production of chemicals, building the facilities to enrich and tools and machines used for this purpose. and the construction of the rod bundles. You also must include the natural gas and the electricity from other sources used in these processes. The goal is to get to the total energy already used before the fresh fuel bundles boil a single drop of water.

          2) How does the wattage consumed to produce this fuel and dispose of the chemical waste from the production of this product compare to the energy produced while being used to boil water and the energy used to cool it after the lifespan of productive use has ended.

          Pleas try to express these numbers in watts and btu's when possible.

          No need to include the digging of the storage mines or the smelting and production of the storage containers.

          Getting really interesting now…

          • Oh and with my questions you can miss all the questions or none of the questions or one of the questions, but you can't miss half of a question…

            I don't want you to feel left out though so…

            Here's a bonus half a question, don't miss this one or you fail…

            https://youtu.be/GMGstA9qavU?t=34s

            • And the other half of the question is?

              Calculate how flat the beer will be in England after the man made C02 shortage that has been reported there…

              This stuff makes me want to pee my pants and then fly to England to drink flat beer :-).

          • AirSepTech AirSepTech

            Not a test…evaluation;review, remember?

            Q&A about heat/thermal dynamics, stuff like that.
            To determine who/what adds the most heat to the planet
            Remember? You wanted a job, right?
            Who's cooking your goose?!

            Ok- I take it this is not multiple choice? Maybe you don't know, have a clue, or are grasping?

            1)For a typical 1,000 MWe BWR or PWR, the approximate cost of fuel for one reload (replacing one third of the core) is about $40 million, based on an 18-month refueling cycle. The average fuel cost at a nuclear power plant in 2008 was 0.49 cents / kWh. Now a smart person can use a calculator or abacus or fingers to do kw/mw/watt/$$ conversions/
            comparisons. Figure $120mil over 4.5 yrs.

            This goes well beyond your request of new, unused fuel, so these costs would naturally be quite high considering that.
            I mean, honestly. who is concerned with fuel cost 'without'
            any result. "Geezus cripes, gas is $5.00 a gal and I'm not using it to do anything"

            2) Too much like Big Chief, 1) covered much of it.

            Oh, you wanted 1) in kwh

            40,000,000/.11= *363,000,000kw* aver, cost @ $0.11kw/h
            363,000mw x3
            1.24 trillion BTU x3
            500,000hp x3

            'Getting really interesting now…'

            not really. 😆

            • Don't need a job, got too many now and don't think for a moment you are fooling anyone.

              Prediction would have messed it up…

              But don't you really want to know the truth?

              Watts into the production and disposal? Watts produced?

              Ya don't have to be able to understand ulysses philosophy to figure that one out.

              • AirSepTech AirSepTech

                'Put me on the payroll and I'll do your research for you AST,'

                Well, I guess we could try that out.
                I usually have 10 or so 'pre-interview' questions

                yes, trying to remember stuff and understand can be challenging.

                Prediction? hahaha

                • For you maybe, I'm thinking it's more like you couldn't possibly know and don't want to.

                  We call that pure ignorance.

                  Stupid is not ignorance, ignoring fact for fiction is.

                  https://youtu.be/BQpZv2r8fb4

                  And the real answer to my question is?

                  • I think you've already answered it playing games instead of researching and showing real facts.

                    Radioactive Imagine Dragons (ft. The Macy Kate Band & Kurt Schneider)

                    https://youtu.be/P6qFCqOy3HU

                  • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                    thermodynamics…wow its been such a convoluted saga I can hardly remember what the question/debate is about. I kinda thought it revolved around how much nuclear was contributing to global warming. Im wrong?

                    I have to admit…Im really lazy about the math…so I use a different approach. I use my feminine intuition. Also known as dead reckoning.

                    Im going to shoot from my rounded hips and say nuclear is contributing a significant amount, but not overwhelming amount to global warming. Drum roll please…. Im pulling it up from the steamy heat of my loins now boys…..ok…ok….1/20,000 the solar energy. Somehow my subconscious is getting this number…that nuclear contributes something on the order of one-thirty thousands to one-fifteen thousands the energy of the sun to global warming. Now how far off is my intuition? AST? HD?

                    • AirSepTech AirSepTech

                      Thinking we have been here before, you?
                      Put another way, you HAVE been here before.
                      Is it 3w/sq.m ? to lazy to look.

                      I'll buy your #'s, take a vowel for ?

                      It has to be the most contested aberration of power reality. Funny, so many much more simple 'smackdowns' on nukes. Fuel cost/heat loss are the worst. Might as well shoot yourself as argue it.

                      Hell, I want to shoot myself for arguing it. Take one for the cause, my turn.

                      You had your turn. 😆

                    • Taking a shot…

                      thermodynamics…I just stepped outside, released some methane into the air, stepped back inside and my apartment is cooler than before…I can't do math, period…did I ruin the planet?

                      okay, I'm tired, being silly-stupid…I'll say nite nite, lights out…

                    • That's funny code…

                      Ya gotta love the humor.

                      Still not sure if you read the question.

                      So did you leave out the bulldozers and welders? What about those ships that transport the stuff around the world?

                      How about the natural gas (or coal or electricity) and chemicals used to heat the ore to refine it?

                      What about the electricity use in the centrifuges to purify it?

                      How about producing the fuel assemblies?

                      Think cradle to grave, not just a operating reactor.

                      Is nuclear contributing to global pollution?

                      You bet it is.

                    • And AST now acts like (maybe it's not a act) that he thinks I'm talking about money when clearly I'm talking about physical energy.

                      Energy to build, fuel and cleanup the mess created versus the energy produced.

                      And you think after reading my stuff that now I'm talking about money?

                      And you have job openings too huh AirSep…

                      The fantasies and troll like twisting of facts continue.

                    • AirSepTech AirSepTech

                      HD, would Jack Daniels sell you a quart at a loss? Everyone gets a good deal? operate at a loss?

                      Lets say a dude wants to sell putters, extra small for small dudes, like jockeys.

                      Now he, concerned with global warming, embarks(ruff-ruff) on a mission. A mission to determine what KW load is represented on a small putter, as produced.

                      He acquires small putters @ $7.50/ea.

                      He realizes electricity @ $.11 kw/h, $7.5 worth of it, is about 68kw, or 232,000btu.

                      Walla, he realizes these small putters cannot be 'worth' more than 232,000btu, important, because he is worried about global warming.

                      Because simply, that is the 'all in cost'.
                      And all steps taken to create the small putter, are covered.

                      The cost of labor, including the kw/h the labors consume and pay for. Unless they are paying the employer to go to work.

                      The taxes, and the kw/h cost to collect them. Do we collect tax at a loss? hmmmm

                      It can't take more than a 100 point IQ.
                      Can it?

                      https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_04.html

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      HD, the one thing of major importance that you left out "Think cradle to grave, not just a operating reactor." is the deadly effect of fission products on life and how this has the potential to disrupt the biological drivers of climate. Specifically, but not limited to, cloud nucleation from plankton aerosols. Im sure something similar is happening to trees and land based microbial life.

                      Like AST was saying, the economics of extraction and transport and cooling gives the ballpark quantity of non utilized energy. Therefor your suggestion those factors boost the planet warming effect by some huge amount cant be correct.

                      But looking at the heat damage from nuclear is not a settled issue. The important factor is to look not at the global rise in temperature, but the effect on local bodies of water. Then you can build a case. But its also true of coal and gas. You can see a comparative chart here

                      https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/energy-and-water-use/water-energy-electricity-cooling-power-plant#.Wy6Ln1VKhaQ

                      raising the alarm that inherently inefficient power generation destroys local water ways, pollutes the atmosphere, poisons and kills in known and unknown ways is a valid argument against them. The impact on direct global warming; not so much. They will shoot you down, thus weakening the anti nuke movement

                    • This ones for AST…

                      Why in the hell do you think they use nuclear as a power source to the public?

                      That's the cover. It offsets the the total waste of time and effort nuclear is (unless you are makin a bomb).

                      Now let's mix all the numbers up and convince people that nuclear is a energy source instead of a energy drain.

                      They used reactors to boil water and make power for the research plants when making the original bomb. Was that the goal? Nope it was a byproduct that gave them electricity while they were making bomb materials.

                      Try to complicate it all you like, the truth is still the truth.

                      And that truth is? Nuclear takes more energy to produce than it ever creates, unless you are trying to blow something up.

                    • Absolutely code it disrupts and destroys life from the time they dig it up!!!

                      But the energy required to produce it from rock seems to be what most are missing in the energy in energy out equasion.

                      For instance how much energy (from coal fired plants and nat gas) went into these few processes.

                      https://youtu.be/apODDbgFFPI?t=3m5s

                      And you should watch the whole thing to get the simple 5 minuet rundown on this…

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      Youre saying if they used electricity from nuclear power plants to dig up nuclear fuel, the nuclear industry would grind to a halt?

                      Sorry, I do not, will not watch your videos. Most of the time this is true of your posts. I think Ive read more than enough…

                    • AirSepTech AirSepTech

                      "Try to complicate it all you like, the truth is still the truth."

                      Exactly numbnutz.

                      Does it create 'MOAR' heat than all other thermo generation? Even some more? Moar?

                      THAT it DOES,,, was your statement.

                      Whats cooking yer goose,,,,gomer?

                    • No code I'm saying that the production of usable nuclear fuel relies on huge amounts of coal fired electricity, natural gas and diesel/gasoline to mine it, refine it and transport it and no one seems to ever figure that into the process of this so called energy source.

                      They won't use nuclear as a power source when refining it because the refining process is so dangerous, hell they don't even use their on electric power to control the plants (offsite power).

                      Where does all that power come from? Fossil fuel. Does that add into the production, operation and cleanup?

                      Let's see here…

                      Energy into production, energy in to control these death traps and energy used to clean up the mess?

                      How much of all that energy and effort is from the little bit of power nuclear produces? 0, nit, nada, none, zip.. All that power comes from fossil fuel.

                      So is nuclear a pollution producer?

                    • Uranium – THE MOST DANGEROUS METAL ON EARTH!:

                      https://youtu.be/Kkd2bYAVtOU?t=14s

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      so youre saying if they didnt use any energy from coal oil or gas but only used electricity from nuclear power plants to dig up and transport nuclear fuel, the nuclear industry would grind to a halt because it takes more energy to process than it produces?

                    • So I'm the numbnutz?

                      Wow how much heat is created when they heat the fuel to 1400C using fossil fuel over and over again during the manufacturing process, or the electricity from fossil fuel to centrifuge the oar 1000's of times over months and sometimes years?

                      Recon how much heat and pollution that causes.

                      Did I miss half of a question again fool?

                      https://youtu.be/GMGstA9qavU?t=34s

                    • YES!!! Code has it!!!

                      " if they didnt use any energy from coal oil or gas but only used electricity from nuclear power plants to dig up and transport nuclear fuel, the nuclear industry would grind to a halt"

                      Not only could you not produce nuclear fuel Cradle to grave using nuclear, they won't even allow you to try by law because of the dangers and unreliability of nuclear power itself!!!!

                      Now your'e gettin it! Or maybe I'm starting to figure out what you are trying to say.

            • Ahhh you missed 2 whole questions and did you see half a question? No wonder you failed to achieve the modest estimate you were given to calculate.

              No one said anything about cost (the vanilla excuse), fluff as a filler based on junk you got from wherever is not a answer. It's a distraction. Who's pro nuke? Wowsers.

              Cheeseburgers are cheap and have calories, a whole plate of healthy plants have calories, the question was how many calories
              (watts) of energy are used to make the cheese burgers and digest them, not how cheap or toxic or expensive the calories were.

              Try again…

              Question 2?

              I don't think Big Chief would approve of you using his name to distract from question 2.

              Join the real race…

              https://youtu.be/_ZsIZyvnFSc

              You do know there are no time limits on the answers right?

              And questions from you about the original task are cool too.

              Best actually research first.

              Don't give up yet…

              This is the real stuff…

              If you need help I'll help you, just don't ask me to give you the answer(s).

    • It's about inputs and outputs not how expensive it is or some fake job offer from a smart ass playing little child like games that probably can't find a job himself.

      The subject put in kindergarten terms for those that still don't even know what discussion started about is.

      Is nuclear a clean, green and safe power source.

      Is nuclear really clean and green or is it actually a contributor to pollution on this planet was the first subject. The answer?

      NUCLEAR IS A HUGE CONTRIBUTOR TO POLLUTION AND WARMING ON PLANET EARTH!

      From manufacture to use to waste to spent fuel nuclear is NOT clean or green or safe. Or even a legitimate power source!!!!

      And if you do the real math (that's real calculations not fairy tale fake and half truth bullshit) you'll even see that Nuclear takes more energy to produce and clean up that it EVER produces! Making nuclear a totally FAKE energy source.

      It's a cover for bomb material. That's all nuclear power is.

      All you have to do is count the watts and BTU's that are required to produce nuclear power from cradle to grave.

      But that requires actual research and it's hard to go and cut'n'paste something that is covered up by simply ignoring or not researching and publishing it.

      This truth is not a 30 second answer you get from someone else allready done for you.

  • unincredulous unincredulous

    Earthquake in Osaka, Japan

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/976111/japan-earthquake-update-latest-osaka-kumamoto-new-earthquake

    Are nuclear plants at risk?

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/975910/japan-osaka-earthquake-today-are-nuclear-plants-at-risk

    If they were, they would not tell us. They have made that perfectly clear by the medias black out of news in the past. (Typhoons Etau and Malakas.)

  • Jebus Jebus

    IBM debuts Project Debater, experimental AI that argues with humans

    In what may be the biggest rollout of conversational AI from IBM since Watson, IBM Research today debuted Project Debater, an experimental conversational AI with a sense of humor, little tact, and occasionally powerful arguments.

    Training of Project Debater began six years ago and only gained an ability to participate in debates with people two years ago, said IBM Research principal investigator and creator of Project Debater Noam Slonim. Debater’s smarts come from hundreds of millions of access to millions of journal and newspaper articles.

    https://venturebeat.com/2018/06/18/ibm-debuts-project-debater-experimental-ai-that-argues-with-humans/

  • slandermen Deadboy

    Someone tell me, especially government supporters, of any kind.

    http://wise-uranium.org/eples.html#NEF

    "On June 14, 2018, NRC issued a Notice of Violation to Urenco USA, categorizing the violation Severity Level III [a very rare occurence!] and considering a civil penalty of US$ 35,000.
    > Download: Notice of Violation, June 15, 2018 [external link] (PDF)"

    Why isn't that sort of shit improving?

    Btw, it links to:
    https://adamswebsearch2.nrc.gov/wba/?AccessionNumber=ML18166A002

    Why isn't that there?

    • I'm experimenting with AI now. We use AI to produce a new form of "stink less" poop to solve the cow fart/methane global warming problem…

      Using the AI that comes in the form of the information propaganda produced today we have almost found a cure and need your money to continue this vital work…

      Current evidence suggests…

      If ya don't feed em real true food, they stop producing anything.

      It's 100% effective too!!!!!!

      Thanks AI…

      What a load of FAKE…

      What say we take it ti off topic now.

  • AirSepTech AirSepTech

    Who is cooking my Goose? continued

    3) Considering, in the USA, Nuke power is about 20% of supply, and rejects as much as 100,000,000,000 gallons of warmed water, how much water might be rejected by Fossil Fuel power plants, with about 63% of the production supply?

    a. It has no effect because they do not have spent fuel to cool.

    b. As much as 300,000,000,000 gallons, possibly more.

    c. I will answer with a link/explanation (may lead to debate)

    4) 'BTU' is a well used measurement tool/conversion in thermodynamics.
    About how many BTU's would be required to raise 1 gallon of water 20f?

    a. 761 btu

    b. 167 btu

    c. none of the above

    d. I will answer w/link/explanation

    Daily bonus question:

    Why do most NPP operate at 'lower' temperatures and pressures than coal fired plants, and does this affect their efficiency?

    a. They are stupid, and have no clue what they are doing.
    b. Safety concerns
    c. the good ol' link/explanation
    d. I don't care, beating a drum helps my credibility and the furthers the cause.

    Good Luck and remember, this… is about 'heat'.

    • If he can, he ought to run for prez of the u.s.a. That would stop all the leaking from the White House.

    • unincredulous unincredulous

      “I would like to point out that spent nuclear fuel is not a liquid, it can’t leak.”

      Well, that's why they have tossed them in the salty water of the ocean. Salt has never corroded metal. Just ask Ms. Joy Russell. She is edumacated

  • slandermen Deadboy

    Weed.

    "Uranium explorer Pele Mountain Resources switches to cannabis business: On June 19, 2018, Pele Mountain Resources Inc. [external link] announced that it has entered into a non-binding letter of intent with Bhang Corporation [external link] , a privately-held Nevada corporation, to acquire a 100% interest in Bhang via a business combination transaction that would constitute a reverse take-over and change of control of Pele.
    Bhang is a California-based intellectual property company which licenses rights to a full range of cannabis and hemp products, including chocolates, gums and oral sprays, isolates, vapes and vape cartridges and accessories. Upon completion of the Transaction, the combined entity will continue to carry on the business of Bhang. "

    http://wise-uranium.org/upcdnon.html#ELLIOTLGEM

    What the fuck man?

    • Nothing wrong with naturally grown marijuana…

      Better than painkiller pills ever were by a site…

      Also proven to increase healing and mood (dynamic outlook) wither smoked or eaten…

      Would be happy to get into that subject with ya (and don't have any and haven't had any in very long time).

      But we best take this one to "offtopic", meet me over there…

  • PlowboyGrownUp

    About that cheap nuclear power
    Long Island Power Authority ratepayers—including those in Suffolk County—will be and already are paying a disproportionate share of the $7.6 billion bailout of four upstate nuclear power plants pushed by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. The bailout runs for 12 years. It kicked in last year with an added charge in the electric bills of all New York State residents, businesses and other entities including schools and governments.

    A lawsuit is underway in New York State Supreme Court to end the bailout. It follows unsuccessful efforts in the State Legislature to stop it, of which State Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele, Jr. from Suffolk, was a leader. “The lawsuit is our hope now,” he said last week.
    http://www.smithtownmatters.com/suffolk-county/2018/6/14/suffolk-closeup-76-billion-subsidy-tax-increase-buried-in-el.html#entry36080213

  • Jebus Jebus

    Lots of conservatives hate Trump’s coal and nuclear bailout — that’s a big political problem

    It’s no surprise environmental groups and clean energy groups are fighting Trump’s bailout — it would keep coal, the dirtiest available electricity source, on life support. What’s shocking here is the withering fire his bailout proposal drew from conservative media outlets, conservative analysts, and even Trump’s conservative appointees.

    “This has no intellectual basis by anybody beyond the third grade,” said Peter Van Doren of the Cato Institute. “If you can find anyone who’s market-oriented or says they’re conservative and supports this, they should turn in their badge.

    http://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/393038-lots-of-conservatives-hate-trumps-coal-and-nuclear-bailout-thats-a

  • Jebus Jebus

    US FERC chairman confident DOE to make 'right decision' on use of emergency authority

    DOE officials have confirmed that using emergency authorities under Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act and the Defense Production Act is under consideration as one option for addressing baseload retirements and fuel security issues. But the department has not offered any time line for when it would finalize its approach.

    Speaking at a Natural Gas Roundtable luncheon Tuesday, McIntyre said any policy action being weighed by a governmental body should never go forward until the legal implications of such action have been carefully considered. "Once that has been undertaken, that amounts to a set of lay markers within which policy decisions can be made," he said.

    Talking to reporters after the event, he said the standards for invoking emergency authority to address power issues "are spelled out pretty clearly not only in the relevant statutory provisions but also in DOE's existing regulations."

    https://www.platts.com/latest-news/electric-power/washington/100–us-ferc-chairman-confident-doe-to-make-right-26976759

  • What if we had a modern day Carrington Event?

    Some would say we would simply be in the dark but that's just not the case.

    Why? We would all be dead, that's why.

    If a solar storm knocked out all the large transformers in the country it would be years before power was restored. It can take 6 months to manufacture and install just one or two of these monster transformers. So how long to make and replace hundreds?

    http://euanmearns.com/the-next-carrington-event/

    Meanwhile all the nuclear in the US would be cooled with diesel. You would have to refuel these things continually and NEVER miss a feeding.

    And don't forget, even if you could somehow keep the generators fueled the electronics would all be fried by the solar storm so ANY generator needing electronics to start or perform it's duties would be inoperable. No control room would operate either so everything would have to be done manually or repaired first.

    Then there are the chemical factories that must be cooled or they would erupt in poison gasses and explosions! Remember Hurricane Harvey when the lights went out for a few days and boom went the Arkema plant in Crosby, Texas?

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/08/30/texas-town-under-emergency-evacuation-as-flooded-chemical-plant-nears-explosion/?utm_term=.15a3702d356d

    So another Carrington style event in the 21st century would result in the deaths of untold millions, not just the lights going out.

  • unincredulous unincredulous

    311-beautiful disaster

    https://genius.com/311-beautiful-disaster-lyrics

    What are the odds of a group naming themselves 311

  • PlowboyGrownUp

    Fukushima tourist attempt
    Seven years after a deadly tsunami ripped through the Tokyo Electric Power plant, Okamoto and other tour organisers are bringing curious sightseers to the region as residents who fled the nuclear catastrophe trickle back.

    Many returnees hope tourism will help resuscitate their towns and ease radiation fears.

    Electronic signs on the highway to Tomioka showed radiation around 100 times normal background levels, as Okamoto's passengers peered out tour bus windows at the cranes poking above Fukushima Daiichi.
    https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/06/20/reuters-america-as-fukushima-residents-return-some-see-hope-in-nuclear-tourism.html

  • unincredulous unincredulous

    Blah-blah-blah

    https://www.nature.com/articles/srep41972

    They talk the shit out of the technology to sell it, but we never get to see the results.

    sell it: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep41972

    Maybe you can see the pics if you pay the gatekeeper

    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00223131.2018.1473171?src=recsys

  • unincredulous unincredulous

    Attention, terrorist! If you strap a bomb on your ass and get sucked into St. Lucie nuclear plant, their lawyers will say you did it on purpose and it's not their fault. Enjoy your forty virgins, but don't expect to win a penny in court

    http://enformable.com/2016/03/scuba-diver-sucked-st-lucie-nuclear-power-plant-intake-suing/

    I guess that's a good plan for ALL the nuclear plants.

    What morons are in charge of security?

  • Jebus Jebus

    “When I Was Alive”: William T. Vollmann’s Climate Letter to the Future

    WHAT CAUSES CLIMATE CHANGE? Scientists have answered this question in their own way, telling us about heat-trapping gases and feedback loops. Through no fault of their own, their reasons haven’t done much good. We continue to pump suicidal amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere while raging at inaction and praying for a miracle fix. For those of us who take unfairly large bites out of the carbon budget, the knowledge of our folly is matched only by our abashed inability to overcome it.

    https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/when-i-was-alive-william-vollmanns-climate-letter-to-the-future/

  • unincredulous unincredulous

    2661 days since March 11, 2011 nuclear clusterfuck began. At 300 tons per day highly radioactive water leaked = 798,300 tons. At 400 tons per day that is 1,064,400 tons so far. 281,182,548 gallons. Divide that by 25 gallon standard bathtubs = 56,236,509 bathtubs full. A bathtub assumed to be six feet long? End to end makes a bathtub 337,419,054 feet long. Divide that by 5,281 feet to get miles… 63,893 miles long. Earth is 24,900 miles around equator.. Bathtub circles the earth 2.6 times.

    So what? Trace Dominguez of D-news?

    Hey Trace, go fuck yourself

  • unincredulous unincredulous

    Michio Kaku 400 tons. @ 8:05

    https://youtu.be/I7yvbkAHquE?t=466

    Michio mis-spoke and said Chernoble has a million tons of contaminated water. Duh. He's talking about Fukushima.

  • PlowboyGrownUp

    (Wha..) SUZHOU – Environment Minister Masaharu Nakagawa told his counterparts from China and South Korea on Sunday that radioactive decontamination work following the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster is “all done” except for so-called difficult-to-return-to zones.
    https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/06/24/national/japan-touts-completion-fukushima-cleanup-tripartite-environment-meeting-china/

  • PlowboyGrownUp

    Jun 22, 2018 VAN BUREN TOWNSHIP, Mich. — There are questions about radioactive soil and materials coming from out of state to the Wayne County landfill in Michigan.

    The landfill is off I-94 near Willow Run airport. Up to 124,000 tons will be dumped.

    We’re told this is low level radioactive soil and materials that isn’t harmful to the environment or people, but people who live nearby say they don’t feel it should be dumped here.
    https://nuclear-news.net/2018/06/25/124000-tons-of-low-grade-radioactive-soil-being-dumped-at-michigan-landfill/

  • PlowboyGrownUp

    Finally the govt admits – Report: Missouri Creek Contamination May Raise Cancer Risks https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/06/19/us/ap-us-coldwater-creek-contamination.html

  • Jebus Jebus

    Why Cancer Rates Are Higher in Flight Attendants

    light attendants may have a higher risk of a number of cancers, a new study finds.

    Researchers found that women and men on U.S. cabin crews have higher rates of many types of cancer, compared with the general population. This includes cancers of the breast, cervix, skin, thyroid and uterus, as well as gastrointestinal system cancers, which include colon, stomach, esophageal, liver and pancreatic cancers.

    One possible explanation for these increased rates is that flight attendants are exposed to a lot of known and potential carcinogens, or cancer-causing agents, within their work environment, said lead study author Irina Mordukhovich, a research associate at Harvard University's T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

    One of those carcinogens is cosmic ionizing radiation, which is elevated at higher altitudes, Mordukhovich told Live Science. This type of radiation is particularly damaging to DNA and is a known cause of breast cancer and nonmelanoma skin cancer, she said.

    Air cabin crews receive the highest yearly dose of ionizing radiation on the job of all U.S. workers, she added.

    https://www.livescience.com/62913-cancer-risk-flight-attendants.html

  • PlowboyGrownUp

    quote – Trump's Nuclear Bailout Won't Happen: Get Out Of Nuclear Investments – unquote https://seekingalpha.com/article/4184005-trumps-nuclear-bailout-happen-get-nuclear-investments

  • Jebus Jebus

    Activists bring nuclear ban to local level

    So what exactly are they doing? NuclearBan.US is urging people to hold accountable the 26 companies that help produce nuclear weapons — some of which are based here in the U.S. — by boycotting and divesting from them.

    http://www.gazettenet.com/Editorial-Two-Northampton-residents-find-a-way-to-fight-nuclear-arms-and-apathy-18264994

  • PlowboyGrownUp

    Fukushima news; Historic never seen before Radiation data, June 6 2018
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJZssXE84GQ

  • Jebus Jebus

    Boy, more study needed here before they torch honshu.

    I'm really only posting this for all the references.

    I think the study is arbitrary…

    Loss of radioactivity in radiocesium-bearing microparticles emitted from the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant by heating

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-28087-5

  • PlowboyGrownUp

    We’re Being Nuked—What They’re Not Telling You About Fukushima’s Latest Disaster! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7g08XeAhQM

  • HillbillyHoundDog HillbillyHoundDog

    https://foreignaffairs.co.nz/2018/06/27/mil-osi-usa-udall-to-fight-for-justice-for-victims-of-radiation-exposure-in-key-senate-hearing/

    “Tomorrow’s hearing represents a key step forward for the victims of radiation exposure who have been unjustly denied compensation for decades,” Udall said. “Many in New Mexico and across the West unknowingly sacrificed their health and even their lives to national efforts to develop a Cold War nuclear arsenal during the mid-20th century. And from the very beginning, the federal government has refused to take responsibility. While we can never undo the years of suffering and illness caused by radiation exposure, we must do all that we can to ensure these victims and their families are recognized and made whole. Congress must act to expand the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act to include key populations left out from the original version, including the Trinity downwinders and the post-1971 miners. Tomorrow will mark eight years and two days since I first called for a hearing in the Judiciary Committee on this issue, and I hope this hearing will move us closer to closing a sad chapter in our history and bringing justice to the victims of radiation exposure.”

  • Satellite Images Show North Korea Making 'Rapid' Upgrades to Nuclear Facility
    http://time.com/5323254/north-korea-nuclear-upgrade/

You must be logged in to post a comment.