|
Honky Dong Country posted:I'm in general very in favor of nuke power. But honestly Hawaii has some pretty unique geological factors that should be taken into consideration that frankly I don't have enough knowledge about to really form what I'd call a legit opinion. Especially considering all the volcanic activity lately. I'm rather hesitant to just go "gently caress yeah split atoms, fiery volcanic state!" Only the big island is actively volcanic, iirc the other islands are expected to be dormant for the next several hundred years or more.
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 01:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 05:38 |
|
|
Honky Dong Country posted:I am a shameless blue collar caveman which is why I love the more academic types that show up in these threads. If you wanna know about crude workplace shenanigans and what some knuckledragger deals with in radiological work, I'm your guy. If you wanna know about the future (if any) of the industry the best I can do is provide a nebulous answer based in my shaky knowledge before praying for the forums gods to swoop in and provide a poster smarter than me to answer. I used to spend my mornings consuming as much fiber as possible so I could rip huge massive rear end trumpets in the office I shared with a coworker He is on nights now so I can't make him yell, "Dude, aim that the other way!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 01:36
|
|
|
I think we should have a similar thread except for coal power plant workers. I want to learn about getting lung disease.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 01:46
|
|
|
Fancy_Breakfast posted:I think we should have a similar thread except for coal power plant workers. I want to learn about getting lung disease. Ask Ken Bone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 01:48
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:however, i have a question about where it's safe to build, especially considering that various local power companies can be very greedy and cut corners. hawaii has a prop on the ballot this year to lift the prohibition on nuclear plants in this state, but is that wise to do in a tiny region with extreme biodiversity spread across less land area than prefectural tokyo? In general there are a few features that utilities want to have for a potential site to help smooth the licensing process from the NRC. The first is probably seismic stability. I know this sound silly because there are plants in California, but reactors can shut down very rapidly in the event of an earthquake as long as they aren't in a place where you get zero warning. Even a few seconds warning is sufficient, but don't build them right on a fault line. You also want them close, but not in population centers. The NRC mandates a pretty large exclusion zone around the reactor, so you need enough land to be able to fence off a few thousand acres. They also want environmental studies that will show that you aren't going to threaten ground water or any protected land/species. There will need to be a study of the prevailing winds in the area and what the release of any radioactive material would look like in terms of downwind contamination, and if that will cover any highly populated areas. That's all I can think of real quick, but if you are genuinely curious and very, very bored; or perhaps you are having trouble falling asleep and need something to help, Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations is the part of federal law that covers the NRC, who write the rules about nuclear plants. Part 100 covers site criteria, both seismic and non-seismic. As to Hawaii, I'm honestly not familiar enough with it to know if it's a good idea. You'd want to have the plant where the most people are, so I suspect the big island? But that means finding a way to have it not contaminate everything and also I can't imagine the NRC would love the idea of a lava flow impinging on a plant. I think tidal power and geothermal is probably the way to go there. Olothreutes fucked around with this message at 05:51 on Oct 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 05:48
|
|
|
Olothreutes posted:there are plants in California Not anymore.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 06:09
|
|
|
Olothreutes posted:As to Hawaii, I'm honestly not familiar enough with it to know if it's a good idea. You'd want to have the plant where the most people are, so I suspect the big island? But that means finding a way to have it not contaminate everything and also I can't imagine the NRC would love the idea of a lava flow impinging on a plant. I think tidal power and geothermal is probably the way to go there. Oahu has about 69% of the Hawaiian population and is several islands away from the Big island, so there wouldn't be any particular threat of a lava flow hitting a plant located where all the people are.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 07:49
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Not anymore. Did they finally kill diablo canyon? poo poo. E: Looks like it's still going for the moment, but is planned to be shut down in the next five or so years. Screwing California for clean power just as poo poo gets real. Good job, California. Olothreutes fucked around with this message at 07:56 on Oct 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 07:53
|
|
|
Hawaii currently already has at least 16 nuclear reactors in the form of the 16 US Navy nuclear submarines docked at pearl harbor. whats the harm of one more?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 12:08
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:Hawaii currently already has at least 16 nuclear reactors in the form of the 16 US Navy nuclear submarines docked at pearl harbor. whats the harm of one more? The Navy is really good at splitting atoms and also those reactors can move out of the way of a volcano.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 13:25
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:Hawaii currently already has at least 16 nuclear reactors in the form of the 16 US Navy nuclear submarines docked at pearl harbor. whats the harm of one more? Honky Dong Country posted:The Navy is really good at splitting atoms and also those reactors can move out of the way of a volcano. For real. Naval reactors are so different that land reactors, especially the submarine ones, that it's almost not worth comparing them. The biggest difference is that naval reactors use highly enriched uranium, very highly enriched even, whereas commercial reactors use low enriched uranium around 3-5% U 235. Wikipedia says that US submarine reactors are enriched to at least 93% U 235 (opsec people don't arrest me this is public!). That's basically weapons grade uranium, and their reactors are just very well controlled bombs. There are other things as well, like commercial reactors never pitch up/down or roll side to side like submarine reactors do, and where xenon poisoning is a normal and fine thing for a commercial reactor you absolutely cannot have a submarine reactor shut down and fail to start back up. I'm not sure how they fix that problem, that's still secret probably, but a friend of mine referred to it as "shim for jesus." Also there's a reactor effect called Doppler broadening in commercial reactors that doesn't exist in naval reactors because of their absurdly high enrichment. It's a thing that naval guys frequently are confused by at first once they come into the commercial industry.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 16:54
|
|
|
I think that he was refering if we could "simply run an extention cord" from the subs to a "plug" connected to the city main electric grid and while on dock the sub would supply some electricity to the city. Edit: never mind i re-read what he said... But would what i said be possible ? Micr0chiP fucked around with this message at 21:17 on Oct 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 18:41
|
|
|
Micr0chiP posted:I think that he was refering if we could "simply run an extention cord" from the subs to a "plug" connected to the city main electric grid and while on dock the sub would supply some electricity to the city. From a theory standpoint, yes. The reactors generate electricity and you could use that. From a realistic standpoint the Navy would never allow it. Also sub reactors are pretty low power compared to commercial reactors. New commercial reactors generate about 3000 megawatts of thermal power per core, with electric outputs over 1000 megawatts. Older commercial reactors generate 600 megawatts electric or so, depending on age and other factors. Sub reactors generate up to 500 megawatts thermal (165 electric) for the very big subs, many of them are smaller than that. Russia is working on a floating reactor but I'm not sure if it's in operation yet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 21:25
|
|
|
Olothreutes posted:Russia is working on a floating reactor but I'm not sure if it's in operation yet. like in water, or are we talking some kind of S.H.I.E.L.D helicarrier?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 21:58
|
|
|
It’s supposed to be seaborne
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 22:38
|
|
|
Even if it's not cost effective, a nuclear sub built for commercial use (but operated by the navy) might be the best chance for getting people to sign up for nuclear power near them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 22:41
|
|
|
i'm sure it would be good for the environment if all of those giant cargo ships were run on nuclear reactors instead of heavy fuel oil
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 22:46
|
|
|
Seeing something about a security event at the Pantex plant on Twitter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 18:38
|
|
|
Pantex is a weapons thing and also that turned out to be a non-issue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2018 20:01
|
|
|
Posting to give thanks to the smart replies in here, just finished reading them and I appreciate you guys sharing your knowledge and skills. My only nuclear party trick is about swimming in the containment pool and getting less rad exposure in the water vs. out of it, from xkcd. Very counter-intuitive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 20:07
|
|
|
netwerk23 posted:Posting to give thanks to the smart replies in here, just finished reading them and I appreciate you guys sharing your knowledge and skills. The problem with this isn't the dose. It's the risk of contamination, which is why divers wear some pretty heavy duty wetsuits and whatnot. (Not even gonna pretend I'm familiar with those dudes' gear, but still, you get my point.) Generally, as long as a diver doesn't swim into an area they shouldn't the dose is pretty manageable. But the risk of contamination any time you're dealing with stuff that touches fuel is pretty high. Like up to and including air. I've worked on units that had suspected fuel damage and had to wear a PAPH while detensioning due to the risk of getting gassed real hard when you loosen up the head and basically break the seal. With fuel damage there's a possibility that the crew will get exposed to some pretty hot poo poo when you detension the studs, allowing the reactor head to lift a tiny bit and truly break its seal to the upper internals and the pot. Also today I eased out a silent fart that smelled like distilled death during training. I actually managed to keep my poo poo together and everybody blamed the fat guy on the crew and I got to enjoy a hilariously petty argument about who was responsible for my fart. People always blame the fat guy and it's funny as hell. Honky Dong Country fucked around with this message at 04:27 on Oct 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2018 04:21
|
|
|
Somethings going down a the worst nuclear site in the country again, https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/26/us/washington-hanford-vitrification-plant-alert/index.html Details about the cause of the steam weren't immediately available, but "there is no indication of a release of a radiological release," a message to employees on the site's official website said.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2018 00:35
|
|
|
red sampson posted:Somethings going down a the worst nuclear site in the country again, Hanford is a nightmare. It's a specter of the cold war that should serve as a reminder forever why "at all costs" frequently costs more later on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2018 01:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 05:38 |
|
|
I wanna make a fart joke about that really bad but sadly I'm not there. E: like "False alarm I just ate a buncha chili heeeeyooooooo" I'll see myself out
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2018 02:41
|
|