Researchers designing nuclear power plant that will float eight or more miles out to sea

June 25, 2015 by Nancy W. Stauffer
The proposed Offshore Floating Nuclear Plant structure is about 45 meters in diameter, and the plant will generate 300 megawatts of electricity. An alternative design for a 1,100 MW plant calls for a structure about 75 meters in diameter. In both cases, the structures include living quarters and helipads for transporting personnel, similar to offshore oil drilling platforms.

Many experts cite nuclear power as a critical component of a low-carbon energy future. Nuclear plants are steady, reliable sources of large amounts of power; they run on inexpensive and abundant fuel; and they emit no carbon dioxide (CO2).

A novel plant that will float eight or more miles out to sea promises to be safer, cheaper, and easier to deploy than today's land-based plants. In a concept developed by MIT researchers, the floating plant combines two well-established technologies—a nuclear reactor and a deep-sea oil platform. It is built and decommissioned in a shipyard, saving time and money at both ends of its life. Once deployed, it is situated in a relatively deep water well away from coastal populations, linked to land only by an underwater power transmission line. At the specified depth, the seawater protects the plant from earthquakes and tsunamis and can serve as an infinite source of in case of emergency—no pumping needed. An analysis of potential markets has identified many sites worldwide with physical and economic conditions suitable for deployment of a floating plant.

"More than 70 new nuclear reactors are now under construction, but that's not nearly enough to make a strong dent in CO2 emissions worldwide," says Jacopo Buongiorno, professor of nuclear science and engineering (NSE) at MIT. "So the question is, why aren't we building more?"

The offshore floating nuclear plant

The researchers' vision for an Offshore Floating Nuclear Plant (OFNP, visible in the slideshow above) includes a main structure about 45 meters in diameter that will house a plant generating 300 megawatts of electricity. An alternative design for a 1,100-MW plant calls for a structure about 75 meters in diameter. In both cases, the structures include living quarters and helipads for transporting personnel—similar to offshore oil drilling platforms.

Buongiorno cites several challenges to this vision. First, while the fuel is cheap, building a is a long and expensive process often beset by delays and uncertainties. Second, siting any new power plant is difficult: Land near sources of cooling water is valuable, and local objection to construction may be strenuous. And third, the public in several important countries has lost confidence in nuclear power. Many people still clearly remember the 2011 accident at the Fukushima nuclear complex in Japan, when an earthquake created a tsunami that inundated the facility. Power to the cooling pumps was cut, fuel in the reactor cores melted, radiation leaked out, and more than 100,000 people were evacuated from the region.

In light of such concerns, Buongiorno and his team—Michael Golay, professor of NSE; Neil Todreas, the KEPCO Professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering and Mechanical Engineering; and their NSE and mechanical engineering students—have been investigating a novel idea: mounting a conventional nuclear reactor on a floating platform similar to those used in offshore oil and gas drilling, and mooring it about 10 miles out to sea.

The OFNP integrates two well-established technologies with already robust global supply chains. "There are shipyards that build large cylindrical platforms of the type we need and companies that build nuclear reactors of the type we need," Buongiorno says. "So we're just combining those two. In my opinion, that's a big advantage." By sticking with known technologies, the researchers are minimizing costly and time-consuming development tasks and licensing procedures. Yet they are making changes they think could revolutionize the nuclear option.

Advantages of shipyard construction, offshore siting

According to the researchers' plan, OFNPs will be built entirely in shipyards, many of which already regularly deal with both oil and gas platforms and large nuclear-powered vessels. The OFNP structure—platform and all—will be built upright on movable skids, loaded onto a transportation ship, and carried out to its site. There, it will be floated off the ship, moored to the seafloor, and connected to the onshore power grid by an underwater power transmission cable. At the end of its life, it will be towed back to the shipyard to be decommissioned—just as nuclear-powered submarines and aircraft carriers are now.

The nuclear reactor and related safety systems of the proposed Offshore Floating Nuclear Plant located in watertight compartments deep in the structure. The reactor pressure vessel (RPV) sits inside a dry containment structure, surrounded by seawater. Steam from generators immersed in the heated water inside the RPV passes to electricity-generating turbines higher in the structure. Every 12 to 48 months, spent fuel assemblies are lifted out, and fresh fuel is inserted into the reactor. The removed assemblies are transferred to the spent fuel pool, which has storage capacity to handle all fuel removed from the plant over its lifetime. Credit: Jake Jurewicz

Compared with deploying terrestrial nuclear plants, this process should provide enhanced quality control, standardization, and efficiency. There's no need to transport personnel, materials, and heavy equipment to a building site—or to clean up after the plant has been retired. The plan also reduces the need for site evaluation and preparation, which contribute uncertainty and delays. Finally, the OFNP is made mostly of steel, with virtually no need to deal with structural concrete, which, according to Buongiorno, is typically responsible for significant cost overruns and construction delays as well as the emission of substantial quantities of CO2. Taken together, these factors mean that the OFNP can be deployed with unprecedented speed—an important benefit for a project that is highly capital-intensive. "You don't want tohave a large investment lingering out there for eight or 10 years without starting to generate electricity," Buongiorno says.

The planned site of the floating plant offers other benefits. The OFNP will be situated eight to 12 miles offshore—within the limit of territorial waters—and in water at least 100 meters deep. Thus, it will be far from coastal populations (its only onshore presence will be a small switchyard and a staff and materials management facility), and the deep water beneath it will reduce threats from earthquakes and tsunamis: At that depth, the water absorbs any motion of the ocean floor during earthquakes, and tsunami waves are small. Tsunamis become large and destructive only when they hit the shallow water at the coastline—a concern for nuclear plants built on the shore.

Finally, the open ocean will provide the OFNP with an endless supply of cooling water. If accident conditions arise, seawater can be used to remove heat from the reactor; because the plant is well below the water line, the necessary flows will occur passively, without any pumping and without any seawater contamination. "We won't lose the ultimate heat sink," Buongiorno says. "The decay heat, which is generated by the nuclear fuel even after the reactor is shut down, can be removed indefinitely."

The OFNP thus addresses the three main takeaways from Fukushima cited by Buongiorno: Stay away from dense populations, protect against earthquakes and tsunamis, and never lose cooling to the fuel.

Designed for efficient operation, enhanced safety

Illustrations in the slideshow above present a view of the OFNP in its ocean setting as well as the plant's key features. The overall structure is upright, cylindrical in shape, and divided into many floors, most of them split into compartments separated by watertight bulkheads. The upper levels house noncritical components such as the living quarters and a helipad. As on oil and gas platforms, workers are brought out by boat or helicopter for three- or four-week shifts. Food, fuel, and equipment and materials for minor maintenance activities are brought out by supply boat, and heavy loads are lifted off by crane.

The (either a 300-MW or a 1,100-MW unit) and its related safety systems are located in watertight compartments low in the structure to enhance security and safety, provide easy access to ocean water, and give the overall structure a low center of gravity for increased stability. The reactor core and associated critical components are housed within a reactor pressure vessel (RPV), which is located inside a compact structure called the containment. Surrounding the containment—but separated by a gap—is a large chamber that extends to the edge of the cylindrical structure and is constantly flooded with seawater, which enters and exits freely through ports.

Specific design features allow for response to various types of interruptions in normal cooling operations. Generally, pumps bring in cool water from the low ocean layers and discharge the used, heated water to the warm surface layers, thereby preventing "thermal pollution" that can threaten the local ecosystem. If that cooling process is temporarily disrupted, heated water from the reactor is allowed to circulate naturally to a special heat exchanger within the flooded chamber. If a more serious problem (for example, a pipe break) threatens the core, distilled cooling water from inside the RPV is released into the containment (always keeping the core submerged), and seawater from the outside compartment fills the gap around the containment. Heat is efficiently transferred through the containment wall to the seawater, which is constantly and passively renewed. At all times, the cooling water and seawater are kept separate so that contaminants cannot flow from one to the other.

In the unlikely event that, despite continuous heat removal, pressure inside the containment builds up to dangerous levels, gases from within the containment can be vented into the ocean. However, the gases would first pass through filters to capture cesium, iodine, and other radioactive materials, minimizing their release. Current research is tracking the likely dispersion and dilution of such materials to ensure that any radioactivity in the water remains below acceptable limits even under such extreme circumstances.

The reactor core and steam generators are immersed in fresh, distilled cooling water inside the reactor pressure vessel (RPV). If operation of the cooling pumps is interrupted, cooling water flows passively though an auxiliary heat exchanger immersed in seawater. If a more serious problem occurs, cooling water is released from inside the RPV into the containment structure, and seawater can enter the empty space around the containment. Heat from the cooling water will pass through the containment wall to the seawater. Seawater flows naturally through the structure, so it is constantly renewed, providing an infinite source of cooling.

Promising economics, abundant potential markets

The MIT team believes that the OFNP may be "a potential game changer" as far as the economics of nuclear power is concerned. It provides the economic advantage of "factory" production of multiple units, yet the units can be large enough to benefit from economies of scale. In addition, unlike any type of terrestrial plant, the OFNP is mobile. "If you build a power plant on land, it remains at the construction location for 40 or 50 years," says Buongiorno. "But with the OFNP, if after a decade or two you need the generating capacity 100 miles farther up the coast, you can unmoor your floating power plant and move it to the new location."

The viability of the researchers' idea depends, of course, on whether there are locations with the necessary physical attributes —deep water relatively near shore but away from busy shipping lanes and frequent massive storms—as well as economic and other incentives for adopting the OFNP.

A detailed analysis identified many potential sites. For example, regions of East and Southeast Asia have limited indigenous resources, a high risk for both earthquakes and tsunamis, and in need of power. Countries in the Middle East could use OFNPs to fulfill their domestic needs, freeing up their valuable oil and gas resources for selling. Some countries in coastal Africa and South America rely on power supplied by generators running on imported diesel fuel—an expensive and highly polluting way to go. "Bringing in an OFNP, mooring it close to the coast, and setting up a small distribution system would make a lot of sense—with minimal need for infrastructure development," says Buongiorno.

Continuing research

The researchers are continuing to work on various aspects of the OFNP. For example, they are developing optimal methods of refueling, a detailed design of the mooring system, and a more thorough model of the plant's hydrodynamic response in storm waves. In addition, they are establishing a cohesive OFNP protection plan.

The plant design provides considerable security: The reactor is deep in the structure within multiple hulls; the high upper decks permit an unimpeded 360-degree view; and the physical layout minimizes approaches for attackers. Working with security experts, the researchers are now investigating additional strategies involving state-of-the-art sonar and radar systems, submarine netting and booms, and a team of armed security guards.

While much work remains, Buongiorno says, "We anticipate that the first OFNPs could be deployed in a decade and a half—in time to assist the massive growth in nuclear energy use required to combat climate change."

Explore further: Floating nuclear plants could ride out tsunamis

More information: "Offshore Small Modular Reactor (OSMR): An Innovative Plant Design for Societally Acceptable and Economically Attractive Nuclear Energy in a Post-Fukushima, Post-9/11 World." ASME 2014 Small Modular Reactors Symposium. DOI: 10.1115/SMR2014-3306

Related Stories

Floating nuclear plants could ride out tsunamis

April 16, 2014

When an earthquake and tsunami struck the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant complex in 2011, neither the quake nor the inundation caused the ensuing contamination. Rather, it was the aftereffects—specifically, the lack of ...

Preventing a Fukushima disaster in Europe

April 27, 2015

Improved safety management and further collaboration between experts is required to minimise the risk of flooding at coastal nuclear plants in Europe.

Recommended for you

A not-quite-random walk demystifies the algorithm

December 15, 2017

The algorithm is having a cultural moment. Originally a math and computer science term, algorithms are now used to account for everything from military drone strikes and financial market forecasts to Google search results.

US faces moment of truth on 'net neutrality'

December 14, 2017

The acrimonious battle over "net neutrality" in America comes to a head Thursday with a US agency set to vote to roll back rules enacted two years earlier aimed at preventing a "two-speed" internet.

FCC votes along party lines to end 'net neutrality' (Update)

December 14, 2017

The Federal Communications Commission repealed the Obama-era "net neutrality" rules Thursday, giving internet service providers like Verizon, Comcast and AT&T a free hand to slow or block websites and apps as they see fit ...

The wet road to fast and stable batteries

December 14, 2017

An international team of scientists—including several researchers from the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Argonne National Laboratory—has discovered an anode battery material with superfast charging and stable operation ...

119 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (5) Jun 25, 2015


A novel nuclear power plant that will float eight or more miles out to sea

I dunno about 'novel'. The russians launched their first one 5 years ago.
https://en.wikipe..._station

"There are shipyards that build large cylindrical platforms of the type we need and companies that build nuclear reactors of the type we need," Buongiorno says. "So we're just combining those two. In my opinion, that's a big advantage."

That sounds like a supremely naive approach. Might work for baking cake. But the devil of large technological projects is in the details - not in the grand structures needed..
ryggesogn2
3.6 / 5 (7) Jun 25, 2015
US Navy aircraft carriers and submarines are nuclear powered.

No mention was made of that capability.
humy
2 / 5 (2) Jun 25, 2015
Perhaps this idea could be combined with the concept of a thorium particle accelerator reactor which should in theory be much safer than all other types of fission reactors to date; if the two are combined i.e. make it a floating sea-bound thorium particle accelerator reactor, it will have the combination of all the excellent safety features of both and surely could be designed to be extremely safe indeed! Then it wouldn't no longer be a question of safety but rather just its cost effectiveness; will that really be cost effective?
Scottingham
5 / 5 (2) Jun 25, 2015
I'm sure the specifics are much more detailed when not presented on a news site such as this. The idea of a deep-sea nuke rig is not new.

As for Thorium; it's just too new and untested for it to be feasible. This looks like it uses existing technology and supply chains.

The biggest benefit is the reduced need for all that damn concrete! Also, the fact that they can be built modularly instead of a one-off site-specific plant translates to huge savings as well. Another huge money pit is all the regulatory red tape that a terrestrial sited plant would have to deal with (of course not all bad, but a lot is clearly designed to just delay and run costs).

Instead (or in addition to) of transmission lines though wonder if these could server as seawater->diesel fuel rigs. We have pilot-scale plants doing that, but they require a bunch of energy. Nukes have that in spades!

Last point: Think of how many off shore wind turbines would be needed to equal just one of these! (Hint: 100s)
gkam
1.2 / 5 (26) Jun 25, 2015
Ridiculous!!

Haven't we contaminated the oceans sufficiently already?

These idiots should be stopped before they kill all of us in their game.
neis
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 25, 2015
@Scottingham: "Last point: Think of how many off shore wind turbines would be needed to equal just one of these! (Hint: 100s)"

If they use the 7 MW type that was just installed off the coast of Fukushima, Japan, they'll need 43 for the 300 MW size, and 157 for the 1,100 MW sized. Intermittancy is not an issue for offshore wind turbines, unlike their terrestrial counterparts. Not so bad....
gkam
1.3 / 5 (26) Jun 25, 2015
They cannot even approach the deadly remains of the molten Fukushima reactor vessels, . . why are they wanting to make more?
denglish
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 25, 2015
Ridiculous!!

Haven't we contaminated the oceans sufficiently already?

These idiots should be stopped before they kill all of us in their game.

The internet...who knew?
gkam
1.3 / 5 (26) Jun 25, 2015
I suggest the nuke folk clean up the disasters they have already made before inventing more kinds.
WillieWard
5 / 5 (2) Jun 25, 2015
Ridiculous!!
Haven't we contaminated the oceans sufficiently already?
At least, it does not have blades for slaughtering seabirds and do not use large offshore areas, disturbing wildlife's habitats.
And the uranium is contained by thick shielding/protection, unlike wind farms that occupy several acres and use rare-earth metals that have traces of radioactive uranium and thorium contained only by thin fuselages.
ryggesogn2
5 / 5 (2) Jun 25, 2015
Co60, a very strong gamma source is stored safely in pools of water at many facilities around the country.
clarimer
4 / 5 (1) Jun 25, 2015
I wonder how they will deal with the biofouling problem. It seems like covering an expensive nuclear reactor with clams and barnacles isn't such a great idea.
humy
5 / 5 (3) Jun 25, 2015
Ridiculous!!

Haven't we contaminated the oceans sufficiently already?
.

One of the main points of putting them in the ocean is to make them safer and therefore LESS likely to contaminate. What is "Ridiculous" about that?
gkam
1.2 / 5 (23) Jun 25, 2015
Why would that make them "safer"? Out-of-sight, out-of-mind?

And where are you going to put the waste?
prothopectore
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 25, 2015
nuclear energy is so 20th century;)

and all it takes is one bad day to sink the shareholders profits and destroy local economies.

but if we put them out in the ocean, like gkam said in a previous post, they'll be out of sight, out of mind.

and as long as we paint big happy smiley faces on the sides of the buildings I guess they'll be safe enough, eh?
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (23) Jun 25, 2015
Perfect target for terrorist attacks. They'll need a whole battle group to protect each one, like Nuclear Powered aircraft carrier battle groups. Not to mention an accidental fire at sea can be catastrophic when water hits the ultra-hot materials as the structure collapses. And the waste will be contained onboard or dropped in cans to the seabed? More disasters waiting to happen. The construction of sufficient numbers of these will be too late anyway to prevent the CO2 tipping point looming.
24volts
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 26, 2015
US Navy aircraft carriers and submarines are nuclear powered.

No mention was made of that capability.


Yea, I thought that was a bit interesting too since they have had an extremely good safety record. The same type plants that are in Carriers - about 150 - 160 megawatts. Since they only have to be fueled once for the life of the plant - about 25 years or so - to me it seems they would be a good choice for this use.
gkam
1 / 5 (21) Jun 26, 2015
Ho much will this new nuke turkey cost us?

Here is a glimpse of nuclear power:
"DOE issues remaining $1.8bn nuclear loan guarantee for Plant Vogtle

This funding is the last of the three conditional commitments first announced in 2010. When combined with the previously issued $6.5 billion in loan guarantees to Georgia Power and Oglethorpe, the loan guarantees allow the reactors to be fully financed."
---------------------------------------------

Why do the alternative energy critics not complain about BAILING OUT corporations with bad decisions?

Where do they plan to put the waste? Send it to Willie?
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Jun 26, 2015
Where do they plan to put the waste?
"The amount of radioactive wastes is very small relative to wastes produced by fossil fuel electricity generation.
Nuclear wastes are neither particularly hazardous nor hard to manage relative to other toxic industrial wastes.
Safe methods for the final disposal of high-level radioactive waste are technically proven; the international consensus is that this should be geological disposal."
http://www.world-...agement/

"Finland's Nuclear Waste Solution
Scandinavians are leading the world in the disposal of spent nuclear fuel"
http://spectrum.i...lution/0

"The geothermal energy of the Earth's crust originates from the original formation of the planet (20%) and from radioactive decay of materials (80%)."
http://en.wikiped...l_energy
Earth's soil is naturally radioactive.
gkam
1 / 5 (21) Jun 26, 2015
$8,300,000,000 of taxpayer money to bail out a corporation? With NUKES???

This is just organized crime, and we are on the hook for the greed and short-sightedness of corporation managers.

Then,where are they going to put the waste? Words from the proponents who have failed for 50 years are not reassuring. No matter what they say, they cannot even hold it safely. Remember how it was going to be "too cheap to meter"? I do.

Remember when they said it was impossible to have a meltdown? I do.

Remember when the China Syndrome was a theory a sick joke, and not a reality? I do.

Wonder why Willie and the other apologists do not go to Fukushima to show us how safe it is? I do.

Like nuclear technology? Look into Hanford, Willie, where babies are being born with partial brains.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Jun 26, 2015
..where babies are being born with partial brains.
Correlation does not mean causation:
- number of storks and birth rate in Denmark;
- number of priests in America and alcoholism;
- in the start of the 20th century it was noted that there was a strong correlation between 'Number of radios' and 'Number of people in Insane Asylums';
- Chocolate Consumption, Cognitive Function, and Nobel Laureates;
- and a favorite: pirates cause global warming.

http://pubs.acs.o...i700332k
http://www.tylerv...elations
http://www.nejm.o...n1211064
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Jun 26, 2015
..it was impossible to have a meltdown..go to Fukushima..
"..there is a body of anti-nuclear activists who do not want the public to know the truth, and the anti-nukes enjoy stoking the fear factor and maintaining public ignorance."
"Total number of people killed by nuclear radiation at Fukushima was zero. Total injured by radiation was zero...There was no nuclear disaster. What there was, was a major media feeding frenzy fuelled by the rather remote possibility that there may have been a major radiation leak."
"The radiation content was so little that people could swim in the ocean without the slightest cause for concern."
"Any ocean naturally contains some radioactivity all of the time anyway. There is natural radiation around us all of the time and has always been there since the birth of the earth.
"The terrible toll from Japan's tsunami came from the wave, not radiation"
http://www.cfact....isaster/
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.8 / 5 (19) Jun 26, 2015
Remember when they said it was impossible to have a meltdown? I do.

Remember when the China Syndrome was a theory a sick joke, and not a reality? I do
Remember when you said that fallout was the MAIN cause of lung cancer, or that plutonium was raining down on idaho, or that H2 explosions can cause prompt criticalities in dirty molten Pu puddles which could then throw imaginary macroscopic reactor vessel parts 130km, without leaving a crater, even though conventional nukes cant throw stuff more than a few km while leaving huge craters... all because you read it on a crank anti-radiation pill website?

You obviously get your info from similar such crank websites, and from your favorite source of info which is your ass.

This comprises the bulk of your 'education' and 'experience'.
gkam
1 / 5 (21) Jun 26, 2015
How many wind turbine fields could we build for $8,300,000,000? Then, we would not need fuel.

We would not need to find a way to hide the waste. We would not have radioactive monsters of power stations all over, where we are forbidden to be.

We would not need a Police State to guard the materials and the waste, essentially forever, in Human terms.

All the big mouth nuclear power apologists and my critics can go to Fukushima and clean it up, before they think of making more disasters.
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 26, 2015
How many wind turbine fields could we build for $8,300,000,000?
How many acres in wildlife's habitats will your wind turbine fields disturb? How many millions birds and bats will it slaughter, per terawatt-hour? How many radiation will the rare-earth metals and other components emit? How many ores will be mined(mining pollution)? How many indirect semi-slave-labors (Chinese and other third worlds) will be exploited?
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 26, 2015
Acres required to power 6 million homes:
- Wind 250,000
- Solar 130,000
- Nuclear 430

"Nuclear power vs wind farms: the infographic the Government doesn't want you to see"
http://blogs.tele...-to-see/
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (22) Jun 26, 2015
Hi 24volts. :)
US Navy aircraft carriers and submarines are nuclear powered.

No mention was made of that capability.


Yea, I thought that was a bit interesting too since they have had an extremely good safety record. The same type plants that are in Carriers - about 150 - 160 megawatts. Since they only have to be fueled once for the life of the plant - about 25 years or so - to me it seems they would be a good choice for this use.
They are Military grade in both failsafes and price/maintenance resources applied. They would not be 'profitable' or provide 'affordable power' as purely 'commercial ventures'. And decommissioning and nuclear waste disposal is also under a Military 'budget' and 'approvals' system. Money and special permissions no object. Unlike for commercial plants.
RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (22) Jun 26, 2015
Hi Willie. :)

Still at it? Why no mention of HUGE fossil/Uranium mining tracts which spoil whole landscape/ecosystems? Why no mention of contamination/evacuation of whole established cities/towns/regions when serious Nuclear accidents happen? Why no mention of human cost in health and lives of those fossil/nuclear systems? Why no mention of all the cattle, sheep and OTHER wildlife being able to continue living on the ground/landscape surrounding and in-between each Wind Power tower? Why no mention of their being no huge quantities of intractable nuclear/fossil wastes to be disposed of with windmill decommissioning/recycling? Are you a propaganda mouthpiece? Is that why you make no mention of those things in the interests of full disclosure and balance? Give your mouth and your propaganda a rest, mate; you lost credibility long ago. Better luck with success for your next propaganda 'client'. You failed this one. Give them their money back for a 'job' terribly done by you. :)
ryggesogn2
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 26, 2015
If ALL the high level nuclear waste from ALL US nuclear power plants, currently being stored on site in pool of WATER, were collected and put in one pile, it would cover a US football field to a depth of 4 feet.

The US govt built a high level nuclear waste storage facility and the Obama regime is under court order to begin using it. He refuses.

WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Jun 26, 2015
Why no mention that even with uranium mining, waste, and incidents, nuclear power is statistically per terawatt-hour less deadly and more ecologically friendly than renewables?

What about visual impact (pollution visual) of the wind and solar farms on the landscape? turbine noisy pollution?
"Local residents are completely devastated at the prospect of this wind farm being sited so close to our homes,"
"We are aware of the noise and pollution associated with wind turbines and this problem will be compounded as all homes in Ballynagilly are located downwind of the proposed farm."
http://www.miduls...-6816795

RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (21) Jun 26, 2015
Hi ryggesogn2. :)
If ALL the high level nuclear waste from ALL US nuclear power plants, currently being stored on site in pool of WATER, were collected and put in one pile, it would cover a US football field to a depth of 4 feet.
And the rest. It's so 'easy' when you don't mention all the rest of the materials and problems, isn't it, mate? Only children in denial would do what you are doing....hiding your head in the sand....or is it the money you are being paid for such a terrible job for your propaganda 'client(s)'?

The US govt built a high level nuclear waste storage facility and the Obama regime is under court order to begin using it. He refuses.
You didn't mention WHY? Tell us WHY, mate. Yu know, for the sake of full disclosure and balance. :)
WillieWard
5 / 5 (3) Jun 26, 2015
..you lost credibility long ago.
credibility? as gkam that hides himself behind degrees/academic titles for spreading anti-science, a maniac fibber.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (20) Jun 26, 2015
HI Willie. :)
Why no mention that even with uranium mining, waste, and incidents, nuclear power is statistically per terawatt-hour less deadly and more ecologically friendly than renewables?

What about visual impact (pollution visual) of the wind and solar farms on the landscape? turbine noisy pollution?
"Local residents are completely devastated at the prospect of this wind farm being sited so close to our homes,"
"We are aware of the noise and pollution associated with wind turbines and this problem will be compounded as all homes in Ballynagilly are located downwind of the proposed farm."
You ever lived near a Coal Mine or Uranium Mine, mate? Or downwind from a Coal fired power plant? Or next to a Nuclear plant that leaks? So much for 'statistically per terawatt-hour less deadly' etc when its YOU on the receiving end. Would you/they prefer living near any of those instead of the windmills? Choice and balance of all factors, not just selfishness and unreason. :)
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (21) Jun 26, 2015
Hi Willie. :)
..you lost credibility long ago.
credibility? as gkam that hides himself behind degrees/academic titles for spreading anti-science, a maniac fibber.
We were talking about what YOU have been doing. Don't evade in denial by pointing your finger at those who have been exposing what you have been doing. It's impolite and juvenile at that. Admit your own actions have been the anti-science biased propaganda without full disclosure or balance in any way whatsoever. Until you actually face all the facts and stop selectively presenting your biased 'version' of reality, you are 'propagandizing' for your 'clients' the Fossil/Nuclear/Republican LOBBY. Too obvious now. You've failed here. Better luck to your 'clients' when choosing their next crop of 'mouthpieces' for their social media misinformation campaign. You've lost their confidence and their money, mate. Get a real job, for your own sake as well as your family and future generations. Good luck. :)
gkam
1.2 / 5 (21) Jun 26, 2015
RC, thanks for adding the Willie quotations, since I do not see them. They are hilarious, and maybe I will undo the Ignore device and get some chuckles.

Yes, Willie, I really did test safety components of GE Mark I & II BWRs, like the ones in Fukushima. And yes, Willie, I told you they were unsafe. You responded with boilerplate from the propaganda arm of the nuke industry.

Which of us was right?

Clean? Nope. Safe? Nope. Affordable? Nope.
WillieWard
5 / 5 (3) Jun 26, 2015
..since I do not see them.. hilarious..Ignore..
gkam prefers to be stuck believing in his own lies.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Jun 26, 2015
Clean? Nope. Safe? Nope. Affordable? Nope.
Yeah. Renewable is not nearly as 'clean' and 'good for the environment' as the green lobbyists want you to believe.
"Not only are hundreds of miles of land destroyed with concrete that is often left behind by companies when a farm is out of use, the products necessary to manufacture wind turbines are mined in China without regulation and with a byproduct of toxic, radioactive waste."
"Mining the rare earth materials needed to go into a wind turbine is an intensive process. Each wind turbine requires 8,000 different components and according to The Institute for Energy Research, that demand is expected to increase by 700 percent over the next 25 years which means more "toxic lakes" and sickness in China."
"But it isn't just humans wind impacts negatively, wildlife has greatly suffered as a result of the inefficient industry."
http://townhall.c...n1817542
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Jun 26, 2015
Give your mouth .. a rest..
..you lost credibility long ago..
You failed this one.
You've failed here. Better luck..
You've lost their confidence..
..for your own sake as well as your family..
The "ad hominem argument" and personal attacks are the last refuge and tool of impotent intellects that already have lost the reason.
Lamentable.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (21) Jun 26, 2015
Hi Willie. :)
Give your mouth .. a rest..
..you lost credibility long ago..
You failed this one.
You've failed here. Better luck..
You've lost their confidence..
..for your own sake as well as your family..
The "ad hominem argument" and personal attacks are the last refuge and tool of impotent intellects that already have lost the reason.
Lamentable.
Hypocrite much? You just got through calling gkam a liar because you can't beat his arguments and information base for same. Your 'propagandizing' and uninformed biased 'arguments' are what have failed, and you with them. It's just calling it what it has been obvious it is for some time now. You have tried to bring propaganda from LOBBY groups into the scientific discourse, so you have failed in your duty as a scientific discourser. Nothing personal or 'ad hominem' about that observation of the facts in evidence every time you try on your 'spiel' from either ignorance, bias or mercenary motives. It failed. :)
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Jun 26, 2015
Hypocrite much? ..information base for same..
Hold your horses! I have just replied to him and now to you; I'm always impersonally posting with references.
Please before you starting "ad hominem" attacks, try to debunk the references with your lies childishly backed by your degrees/academic titles, or just cowardly ignore as gkam has been done.
You have tried to bring propaganda from LOBBY groups into the scientific discourse..
.. from either ignorance, bias or mercenary motives.
Besides schizophrenic, is paranoiac. Lamentable.

ryggesogn2
4 / 5 (4) Jun 26, 2015
Tell us WHY, mate.


Politics.
RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (20) Jun 26, 2015
HI Willie. :)
Hypocrite much? ..information base for same..
Hold your horses! I have just replied to him and now to you; I'm always impersonally posting with references.
Please before you starting "ad hominem" attacks, try to debunk the references with your lies childishly backed by your degrees/academic titles, or just cowardly ignore as gkam has been done.
You have tried to bring propaganda from LOBBY groups into the scientific discourse..
.. from either ignorance, bias or mercenary motives.
Besides schizophrenic, is paranoiac. Lamentable.

But your 'arguments' are not cogent/tenable in reality factual/hitorical context. So what does one do when faced with obviously political/mercenary/Ego-driven propaganda like you've been dishing out while ignoring others' contra arguments/facts/history which refutes your propaganda at every turn? One (like gkam) can decide to ignore you, or one (like myself can (again) point out where you have failed. No problem. :)
RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (20) Jun 26, 2015
Hi ryggesign2. :)
Tell us WHY, mate.


Politics.
That is evading the point of the question WHY? Please explain BOTH 'sides' of the scientific/political arguments involved in this alleged 'politics' on that issue YOU raised. Thanks.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Jun 27, 2015
They believe unicorn fart energy would be enough to replace fossil fuels.
They believe it is for free for taxpayers since governments subsidize it with billion/trillion dollars from the same taxpayers.
They believe green energy is good for environment even with proofs and statistics that show it has been causing much more impacts than nuclear.
They make an exception to become the rule and vice-versa; they make any correlation imply causation for their convenience; any contrary fact, even with substantiation, they call propaganda, the same do not apply to biased scaremonger sites like enenews; they believe their logic is infallible because they ignorantly call it 'science', and such 'science' is widely supported by the sensationalist mass media and political interests.
And what they call 'science' is more to beliefs/vested interests than to factual science.
denglish
4.3 / 5 (12) Jun 27, 2015
I think the references to Fukushima being dangerous are disingenuous. Fukushima was the result of a natural disaster, not human incompetence.

It is also interesting to see gkam (stolen valor) and RealityCheck carrying the banner. One only needs to read their posts to see they that they are here only for the sake of argument, and because of their need to lecture United States citizens.

If anyone is truly committed to clean power that has the ability to sustain advanced societies, then finding safer ways to institute nuclear power is a no-brainer.

The problem is, they are not wanting advanced societies. They want a redistribution of wealth so that everyone can live in poverty and dependence on the government. I wonder if it is because they have found they can't cut it in the world by their own merit, so have concluded that dependence is "good enough".
denglish
4.2 / 5 (10) Jun 27, 2015
A very good read all-the-way-around. Figure 14 (especially when taken in context to the whole paper) will help one understand why the dependent makers/classes oppose efficient energy production.

http://phe.rockef...unds.pdf
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 27, 2015
The problem is, they are not wanting advanced societies. They want a redistribution of wealth so that everyone can live in poverty and dependence on the government.


Yes.
Socialism destroys societies. Data is clear yet the 'liberals' continue to have faith in their religion.
gkam
1 / 5 (21) Jun 27, 2015
I do not think being "independent" was the idea of Ryggy.

I think no group would have him.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (21) Jun 27, 2015
Hi Willie. :)
They believe it is for free for taxpayers since governments subsidize it with billion/trillion dollars from the same taxpayers. They believe green energy is good for environment even with proofs and statistics that show it has been causing much more impacts than nuclear.
You are a defeatist, mate. You dismiss the savings/benefits of green energy. You don't mention the rapid advances in technologies that are coming together to make Fossil/Nuclear options moot. As for Nuclear being more environmentally friendly than the coming green tech systems, you are in denial of all those hidden/subsidized costs to the environment/health/economies. Anyone comparing ALL that to upcoming green systems will get it. But 'balanced' and 'objective' isn't your 'thing' here, is it? You keep mouthing partial stats and partial views as if you were TRAINED in a propaganda school for Lobbyists. They pay well, do they, these mercenary creeps? Thirty pieces of Silver. Blood money.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.8 / 5 (19) Jun 27, 2015
this is funny
Perfect target for terrorist attacks
What - you mean terrorists with attack subs and cruise missiles and really fast PT boats? In the middle of an ocean, radar and sonar sees everything, stingers and heavy machine guns discourage terrorists.
Not to mention an accidental fire at sea can be catastrophic when water hits the ultra-hot materials as the structure collapses. And the waste will be contained onboard or dropped in cans to the seabed? More disasters waiting to happen. The construction of sufficient numbers of these will be too late anyway to prevent the CO2 tipping point looming
I hate people who think their uninformed imaginations are the same as many man-months of effort by professional engineers and scientists.

Who or what do you think you are rc?
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Jun 27, 2015
..dismiss the savings/benefits of green energy..
"Families and businesses have paid billions to subsidise building of turbines"
"Wind farms 'will never keep the lights on': Study claims turbines are 'expensive and deeply inefficient'"
"Ineffective: Thousands of turbines are useless in low winds and they are turned off to prevent damage if the speeds are too high."
http://www.dailym...ent.html
"Families and businesses have paid billions of pounds to subsidise the building of wind farms, both on-shore and off-shore, through their energy bills, sending tariffs soaring."

"..Environment Minister Peter Altmaier says Germany's transition to green energy is going to cost $1.3 TRILLION dollars if the madness isn't stopped soon."
http://notrickszo...iveness/

RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (20) Jun 27, 2015
Hi Otto. :)
Perfect target for terrorist...
-you mean terrorists with attack subs and cruise missiles and really fast PT boats? In the middle of an ocean, radar and sonar sees everything, stingers and heavy machine guns....
Famous last words! That sort of complacency kills on the water. Ask any naval defense planner.
Not to mention an accidental fire at sea can be catastrophic when water hits the ultra-hot materials as the structure collapses. And the waste will be contained onboard or dropped in cans to the seabed? More disasters waiting to happen. The construction of sufficient numbers of these will be too late anyway to prevent the CO2 tipping point looming
I hate people who think their uninformed imaginations are the same as many man-months of effort by professional engineers and scientists.
Imagination is better than reckless complacency/arrogance others will pay for.
Who or what do you think you are, rc?
Clue: It's in the name RealityCheck. :)
gkam
1.2 / 5 (22) Jun 27, 2015
Folk without knowledge of how these monsters work will fall for the nuclear propaganda. Even if you show them what radioactivity does to living things, and how we create hundreds of tons of this stuff at a time, which will be silently deadly, essentially forever.

You can get a lethal dose in 20 minutes standing by one of the immense stacks at Fukushima, which was supposed to not need stacks, because it was "clean". You won't know it until you leave, and you get sicker and sicker as your immune system shuts down and you become a huge infection.

Ever been around a coal plant? The toxins in coal are wide-ranging, and include the highest amount of radionuclides emitted by any power source, officially, anyway.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Jun 27, 2015
Folk without knowledge of how these monsters work will fall for the nuclear propaganda.
"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge..." - Albert Einstein
You can get a lethal dose in 20 minutes standing by one of the immense stacks at Fukushima,...
"...this study at our educational institution located 57.8 km from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant suggests radiation doses at levels having no impact on health for students leading a typical student life on campus."
http://www.theatl.../373315/
http://www.ncbi.n...3342635/
Even if you show them what radioactivity does to living things, and how we create hundreds of tons of this stuff at a time, which will be silently deadly, essentially forever.
Earth is naturally radioactive, geothermal is from soil's radioactive decay, traces of uranium and thorium everywhere including wind turbines; go to a safer planet.
ryggesogn2
5 / 5 (1) Jun 27, 2015
go to a safer planet.

Don't fly or live in Denver or use tanning beds or lie out by the beach.
HTK
1 / 5 (4) Jun 28, 2015
What idiot came up with a nuclear plant in the Sea?

So the sea can be contained when there is a nuclear contamination?

Think fukushima. the radiated water spreading all over the world.
ryggesogn2
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 28, 2015
radiated water spreading all over the world.


What is 'radiated water'?

Gamma radiation purifies water.

Deuterium and tritium occur naturally.
http://www.scienc...60900788
http://journals.a....93.1337
gkam
1.2 / 5 (21) Jun 28, 2015
He means contaminated water, containing deadly radiation in suspension and solution which can kill you!

Lots of stuff which occurs naturally can kill you, which is why we have health regulations and reduce out exposure to them. It is not intelligent to make more,to expose ourselves to more, to create nasty stuff we cannot contain, and leave it for others to "fix" for us?

Who does that? What kind of personal character allows that? Whose philosophy is that selfish and short-sighted?
denglish
4.6 / 5 (11) Jun 28, 2015
gkam (Stolen Valor) is going to hate on anything that provides modern society with the means by which to power themselves regardless of that power being the key to being able to develop better solutions.

Opposing enablers of societal advancement in the guise of societal betterment is a clear indication of liberal mental illness.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (23) Jun 28, 2015
The days of coal and nukes are over. We do not need them. We can get our power from more benign and safer sources, renewable sources, at that, which never run out. We can develop them here, so we are not locked into getting what we need from folk who hate us.

No more Republican Wars for Oil!

Renewables and distributed power give the choices back to the individual. Solar and wind can free us from the domination of Big Money. My 1982 thesis was the development of an energy system which ran on pollution. The advances made since then make it much easier than depending on Big Power and Big Money for what we need.
denglish
4 / 5 (8) Jun 28, 2015
My 1982 thesis was the development of an energy system which ran on pollution.

That explains a lot. Failed thesis = hatred for anything that succeeds.

The advances made since then make it much easier than depending on Big Power and Big Money for what we need.

"Big Power" is the only thing (currently) that will sustain an advanced society. "Big Money" is the result of having developed something that people will pay for. Using either as a symbol of ill-will or evil is politically motivated, and ignores that both are the result of success; not failure.

Arguing against "Big Power" and "Big Money" Puts one in the camp of "No Power" and "No Money". While one can surely put themselves in that position via failure and resentment, it is much better to have than to not have. All ya gotta do is work for it.

This becomes even more true when history has shown that the foundation of better power sources will be "Big Power" and "Big Money"; not "No Power" and "No Money".
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 28, 2015
Fukushima was the result of a natural disaster, not human incompetence.


Yep, Fukushima just grew out of the ground like a tree. In an area laced with faults and eons of tsunamis using outdated and unsafe technology. No incompetence there, just a "natural disaster".
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Jun 28, 2015
..containing deadly radiation in suspension and solution which can kill you!
"Any ocean naturally contains some radioactivity all of the time anyway. There is natural radiation around us all of the time and has always been there since the birth of the earth." Go to a safer planet.
WillieWard
5 / 5 (1) Jun 28, 2015
..benign and safer sources, renewable sources,
benign and safer? that are causing more fatalities and environmental impact per gigawatt than nuclear.
No more Republican Wars for Oil!
And the Taliban environmentalists believe unicorn fart energy would be enough to replace fossil fuels. Hilarious!
gkam
1 / 5 (21) Jun 28, 2015
I'll bet Willie has never been in a real nuclear powerplant. I suggest he visit Fukushima, where there are lessons to be learned, as they try to invent technologies to deal with these disasters.

Or, I could explain the Mark I BWR to him.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Jun 28, 2015
"No Fukushima Cesium found in fish caught off the British Columbia coastline… Tokyo eases restrictions on farming and businesses in Fukushima no-go zone… The new JAIF president says a Japanese nuclear renaissance is coming… Japanese antinuclear utility shareholders have all of their no-nukes proposals rejected... High level waste (HLW) NIMBY is spreading in Japan… Japan asks China to ease food import restrictions… Fukushima university students will aid elderly evacuees… and more."
http://www.hirosh...tes.html
Biased media: "Japan's Press is 94% antinuclear and calls the Fukushima accident the Fukushima nuclear disaster."
I Have Questions
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 28, 2015
Nuclear energy is safer then coal fired power plants.
gkam
1 / 5 (22) Jun 28, 2015
"Nuclear energy is safer then coal fired power plants."
--------------------------------------

Tell that to the former residents of Pripyat.
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 28, 2015
Tell that to the former residents of Pripyat.
"'Animals don't seem to sense radiation and will occupy an area regardless of the radiation condition,' says radioecologist Sergey Gaschak."
http://pripyat.co...ion.html
comparing:
5 mSv City of Pripyat (near Chernobyl)
800 mSv Guarapari Beach (natural radiation)

I Have Questions
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 28, 2015
"Nuclear energy is safer then coal fired power plants."
--------------------------------------

Tell that to the former residents of Pripyat.


Pripyat is localized. It is also a lesson and lessons are how we make things that work.
gkam
1 / 5 (22) Jun 28, 2015
Pripyat is localized. It is also a lesson and lessons are how we make things that work
-----------------------------------

Localized?? It went all around the world.

And perhaps you "learned" the wrong lessons.
I Have Questions
4 / 5 (8) Jun 28, 2015
Pripyat is localized. It is also a lesson and lessons are how we make things that work
-----------------------------------

Localized?? It went all around the world.

And perhaps you "learned" the wrong lessons.


People have irrational fears about nuclear energy the same as they do about spiders and GMOs.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (21) Jun 28, 2015
Hi Willie. :)

Balanced and fair reporting is still not your 'thing' here, hey? You failed to mention the many trillions of subsidies and hidden costs which fossil/Nuclear involved over the decades and still. You also failed to mention that humans evolved naturally with a background level and type of radiation. It is the ADDITIONAL to background levels/types of radiation that humans did NOT evolve to handle via their cell/organ repair/replacement mechanisms. Why do you do it? Is the blood money from the Lobbyist that good? Or is your character that lost to reason, science, compassion and reality? Or both? No matter, you've failed here because your propaganda is obvious by what it omits on purpose in order to mislead. Too bad. No loss to humanity when you leave this life (it would be the ultimate irony if you should by chance be unfortunate enough die from a cancer brought on by toxic radiation/chemical pollution). Spend that blood money quick; you can't take it with you! :)
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 28, 2015
No loss to humanity when you leave this life (it would be the ultimate irony if you should by chance be unfortunate enough die from a cancer brought on by toxic radiation/chemical pollution)
I'm impressed with stupidness of some people always invoking the word "science", or degrees/academic titles, for "ad hominem" attacks.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein (Father of the Atomic Age)

Most of the cancer has nothing to do with radiation, just fail in mitosis processes; and surprisingly, radioactivity/radiotherapy is widely employed as the cure.
"Sometimes mitosis can go wrong and cause cancer cells to develop."
http://www.abpisc...ndex.cfm
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Jun 28, 2015
"There are approximately 5,000 nuclear medicine centers in the U.S.
Together, they perform nearly 18 million procedures every year.
Nearly that many additional procedures are performed in the rest of the world and the number is increasing."
http://interactiv...med2.pdf

"Radiotherapy can be used to treat some medical conditions, especially cancer, using radiation to weaken or destroy particular targeted cells."
"Tens of millions of nuclear medicine procedures are performed each year, and demand for radioisotopes is increasing rapidly."
http://www.world-...edicine/
Perhaps renewable unicorn fart energy can heal cancer of natural mitosis processes too.
RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (22) Jun 28, 2015
Hi Willie. :)

Note the part about "targeted cells" in such radiology situations. The TYPE and DOSES of radiation is also critical. The harm it does to other cells may also lead to cancer again if not minimized. And the UN-targeted radiation from UNcontrolled radionuclides from Nuclear leaks/accidents is NOT "controlled/targeted" dosage/application, is it? Why do you do it? Bias and IMbalance is seeping from every post of your propaganda 'spiel'. Is the blood money that good that you will continue to do this terrible propagandizing until the Lobbyists fire you for failing so miserably at your 'job' here? You bring disgrace on yourself and all that you stand for. You have only yourself to blame, mate. Your agenda is too obvious and your character too transparent....you have none worth the damn, or you wouldn't be so biased and selling out for Thirty Pieces of Silver like this. Quit it and do something constructive for humanity and science, reason and compassion before you die.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (21) Jun 28, 2015
"People have irrational fears about nuclear energy the same as they do about spiders and GMOs."
------------------------------------

They do?

I got my opinion from actually helping test safety systems of GE Mark I & II BWRs. Like the ones at Fukushima.

How did you get yours?
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Jun 28, 2015
..they perform nearly 18 million procedures every year.
Nuclear radiotherapy has saved millions of lives, and no one died from Fukushima radiation. There have been comparatively few fatalities associated with atomic power, renewables more deaths/Twh than nuclear.
Why do people hate the truth? Maybe because 90% humans are naturally schizophrenic and thereby prefer fancies like renewable unicorn fart energy that is killing millions birds rather than effectively producing baseload-electricity.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Jun 28, 2015
I got my opinion from actually helping test safety systems of GE Mark I & II BWRs. Like the ones at Fukushima.
Probably "GE Mark I & II BWRs" have also caused fewer fatalities and less environmental impact than renewables per gigawatt generated. Show us your scaremonger sources.

WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Jun 28, 2015
Is the blood money..fire you for failing so miserably..You bring disgrace on yourself and all that you stand for. You have only yourself to blame, mate..Your agenda is too obvious and your character too..Quit it and do something constructive for humanity and science, reason and compassion before you die.
Paranoid nonsense. Lamentable.
gkam
1 / 5 (21) Jun 28, 2015
Give it up, RC, Willie will continue to autorespond forever, . . like shouting across the playground.
I Have Questions
3 / 5 (8) Jun 29, 2015
"People have irrational fears about nuclear energy the same as they do about spiders and GMOs."
------------------------------------

They do?

I got my opinion from actually helping test safety systems of GE Mark I & II BWRs. Like the ones at Fukushima.

How did you get yours?


What exactly did you do?
WillieWard
5 / 5 (1) Jun 29, 2015
Prevaricators believe that always are on the side of reason/science, and people should believe them, even with their speeches based on myths rather than verified data/statistics.
I got my opinion from actually helping test safety systems of GE Mark I & II BWRs. Like the ones at Fukushima.
Probably "GE Mark I & II BWRs" have also caused fewer fatalities and less environmental impact than renewables per gigawatt generated. Show us your scaremonger sources.


gkam
1 / 5 (21) Jun 29, 2015
"What exactly did you do?"
--------------------------------------------
As a Research Engineer for Scientific Service, I helped run the systems, collected the information, did simple data reduction, identified and plotted pressure signatures and wavelengths. We were testing various ways to mitigate the problems when BWRs shut down. The resulting action shoves tremendous amounts of steam and condensing water through the huge pipes, creating massive water hammer effects, shaking everything.

The emerging steam bubbles then oscillate, sending more pulses through the facility. We tested a variety of fixtures on the ends of the downcomers in the Suppression Pool, and ran the data, in a series of long, exhausting days.

If you want specifics, I'll give them to you.

You do not have to believe me, you can believe the three GE Nuclear Engineers who worked on the Mark I who quit saying they were unsafe.

Now, what did you do?
WillieWard
5 / 5 (2) Jun 29, 2015
You do not have to believe me, you can believe the three GE Nuclear Engineers who worked on the Mark I who quit saying they were unsafe.
Biased opinions/beliefs from three frustrated engineers. Where are statistics per terawatt-hour and verified information?
denglish
4.4 / 5 (13) Jun 29, 2015
Now, what did you do?

Don't forget to tell them about your military experience too. It was this person's Stolen Valor moment that made them never want to face me again.

This person is a classic example of an internet liar. Under cover of anonymity, they create a false real life persona in the hopes that it will gain them internet credibility.

How do we know? Look at how the person clings to the position of the lowest common denominator. Not only is it their world-view, but it is their persona as well. To get converts, they appeal to the tired argument of "sticking it to the man", and "green alternatives", omitting the fact that the "Man", and "Non-Green Power" are what allow them the lifestyle and the freedom that they enjoy.

Ironically, the very things they rail against will ultimately bring them what they cry for. Not ironically, they will have already moved on to the next unicorn hunt, unaware of what has happened.

False. Hypocritical. Sad.

gkam
1.2 / 5 (23) Jun 29, 2015
Stolen Valor? I was in the 553d Recon Wing, Igloo White, the Electronic Battlefield. Want to see my picture on the official site?

Got an email address, I'll send you the pdf of when I was Airman of the Month for the Air Force Flight Test Center.

What did YOU do?
gkam
1.2 / 5 (23) Jun 29, 2015
It's time for an apology from denglish. I revealed my identity here many times already.

His attack on my character only revealed his own.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (23) Jun 29, 2015
It seems the wannabe's and the neverwas' have denigrated experience here since they have none. Thinking they can fake it with wiki, they go out on limbs without even reading through the entire posts, often disproving their own suppositions.

When faced with facts, they retreat behind topic changes, nonsense, or accusations against your character, assuming you are just one of them, playing "games", like otto admitted.
denglish
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 29, 2015
It seems the wannabe's and the neverwas' have denigrated experience here since they have none. Thinking they can fake it with wiki, they go out on limbs without even reading through the entire posts, often disproving their own suppositions.

When faced with facts, they retreat behind topic changes, nonsense, or accusations against your character, assuming you are just one of them, playing "games", like otto admitted.

Stop it. Everyone knows what you are. You are embarrassing yourself.
I Have Questions
3 / 5 (6) Jun 29, 2015
As a Research Engineer for Scientific Service, I helped run the systems, collected the information, did simple data reduction, identified and plotted pressure signatures and wavelengths. We were testing various ways to mitigate the problems when BWRs shut down. The resulting action shoves tremendous amounts of steam and condensing water through the huge pipes, creating massive water hammer effects, shaking everything.

The emerging steam bubbles then oscillate, sending more pulses through the facility. We tested a variety of fixtures on the ends of the downcomers in the Suppression Pool, and ran the data, in a series of long, exhausting days.

If you want specifics, I'll give them to you.

You do not have to believe me, you can believe the three GE Nuclear Engineers who worked on the Mark I who quit saying they were unsafe.

Now, what did you do?


Were you pro nuclear power at any point in your career or life?
RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (20) Jun 29, 2015
Hi Willie. :)
Nuclear radiotherapy has saved millions of lives, and no one died from Fukushima radiation.
You ignore that medical radiations/nuclides can now be produced WITHOUT need of huge nuclear power plants; by special accelerators etc. And you still ignore the point about the vast difference between "targeted cells/controlled doses" therapy and untargeted/uncontrolled effects of radionuclides/radiation when nuclear plants leak/self-destruct and the background radioactivity/radionuclides are no longer just 'background' therefore if you are the ones affected.

Mate, your 'arguments' have been superceded by developments which will soon make nuclear power plants surplus to requirements. Same for most coal fired power plants.

Humanity is again developing new technologies/strategies which will improve quality of life and energy security 'locally'.

That should make you and ryggesogn2 happy; less 'central control' over your local energy and lifestyle choices! Yes? :)
denglish
4.2 / 5 (10) Jun 29, 2015
Humanity is again developing new technologies/strategies which will improve quality of life and energy security 'locally'.

While one cannot help but encouraging such endeavors, there is nothing that can be implemented at this time.

What that means: we must turn to proven means of mass-power, until the research enabled by that mass-power comes up with better alternatives.

RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (20) Jun 29, 2015
Hi denglish. :)
Humanity is again developing new technologies/strategies which will improve quality of life and energy security 'locally'.
While one cannot help but encouraging such endeavors, there is nothing that can be implemented at this time.

What that means: we must turn to proven means of mass-power, until the research enabled by that mass-power comes up with better alternatives.
Balance, not 'either-or'. The problem is fossil/nuclear lobbyists want MORE subsidies, NEW efforts for obsolescent coal/nuclear plants/mines. We should be plowing more into subsidizing/developing those green alternatives so as to accelerate critical mass infrastructure and systems which will then take off on its own. Just as coal/fossil industries were subsidized/developed at great cost/efforts/sacrifices, so too green energy systems require that level of effort if we are to accelerate its fossil/nuclear replacement capabilities. Redirect money/effort to future not past tech. :)
gkam
1.5 / 5 (23) Jun 29, 2015
"While one cannot help but encouraging such endeavors, there is nothing that can be implemented at this time."
-----------------------------------
What is the most applied generation source the past few years? How fast is solar growing? Are you aware of geothermal potential in the US? Have you surveyed the offerings in Energy Harvesting? Do you understand if alternative technologies are integrated, they can be more efficacious and desirable than fossil fuel plants?

We just plowed $8,300,000,000 into loan guarantees for a corporation (Georgia Power) to build loser nuclear plants. Taxpayer money is going to a corporation because the corporation won't take the chance of doing it risking its own money.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Jun 29, 2015
You ignore that renewables are radioactive too; specially wind and geothermal.

"..one ton of rare earth minerals produces about one ton of radioactive waste.."
"..wind industry may well have created more radioactive waste last year than our entire nuclear industry produced in spent fuel."
"..the nuclear industry seems to be doing more with less.."
http://institutef...inerals/
http://canadafree...ve-waste

"Radioactive decay accounts for half of Earth's heat"
"The flow of heat from Earth's .. heat produced by the radioactive decay of isotopes in the mantle and crust.."
http://physicswor...ths-heat
http://www.scient...core-so/
http://en.wikiped...t_budget
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (21) Jun 29, 2015
Hi Willie. :)
You ignore that renewables are radioactive too; specially wind and geothermal.

"..one ton of rare earth minerals produces about one ton of radioactive waste.."
"..wind industry may well have created more radioactive waste last year than our entire nuclear industry produced in spent fuel."
"..the nuclear industry seems to be doing more with less.."
http://institutef...inerals/
It didn't "create radioactivity" in any waste, it was always there, only concentrated more than previously. Proper RE-dispersal of that PRE-EXISTING radionuclides where it came from would make 'no change' to 'background'.

The same happens with COAL mining/plants. The ash involves orders of magnitude MORE pre-existing radionuclides than what you state for green systems; too much to be re-dispersed where it came from.

And NEW radionuclides/radiation from FISSION plants is NOT 'pre-existing background' type/levels. OK?
gkam
1.2 / 5 (22) Jun 29, 2015
Wilie gets his stuff from a propaganda outfit IER "Institute for Energy Research", except it is a political tool for lobbying.
denglish
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 29, 2015
What that means: we must turn to proven means of mass-power, until the research enabled by that mass-power comes up with better alternatives.

Word salad. Just like your posts on cosmological topics, your ability to read will not enable you to string together words competently enough to sound like anything other than nonsense. Nothing personal; that's the way it is.

What is the most applied generation source the past few years?

Please list all the power sources that are capable of powering a major city in order from most
capable to least.
I Have Questions
3.7 / 5 (9) Jun 29, 2015
I found a video awhile back about molten salt reactors that was interesting, they are supposed to be safer. What do you think of them?

https://www.youtu...ytUCRtTA
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (21) Jun 29, 2015
Hi denglish. :)
What that means: we must turn to proven means of mass-power, until the research enabled by that mass-power comes up with better alternatives.

Word salad.
Huh? You just quoted yourself...and called it "word salad"? Did you mean to do that, or was it a freudian slip? Anyway, the point is more money to subsidizing/developing greener safer tech is needed, just as it was needed when fossil/nuclear started out and developed. The extra urgency brought by climate change effects of CO2 makes this green power development/implementation trajectory more urgent than it otherwise would be. hence the haste to do anything now rather than wait until full market penetration....'waiting' and 'procrastinating' are luxuries we can't afford this time. Good luck to us all. :)
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Jun 29, 2015
It didn't "create radioactivity" in any waste, it was always there, only concentrated more than previously.
Two weights and two measures: now radioactivity from renewable is safe, and it is ecologically friendly even butchering millions birds, even causing mining pollution in third world, even disturbing large lands and offshore areas in wildlife's habitats. With Eco-friends like renewable, who needs enemies.
RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (20) Jun 30, 2015
Hi Willie. :)

It didn't "create radioactivity" in any waste, it was always there, only concentrated more than previously.
Two weights and two measures: now radioactivity from renewable is safe, and it is ecologically friendly even butchering millions birds, even causing mining pollution in third world, even disturbing large lands and offshore areas in wildlife's habitats. With Eco-friends like renewable, who needs enemies.
Don't be silly, mate. I never said 'safe', I said it was already there in 'background' and could be returned to 'background' via re-dispersal where it came from. And birds killed by many fossil mining/plant activities via direct poisoning or environmental disasters. Why be so selective? Balance, remember. At least any bird deaths from accidental collision with windmills is not poisoning them and their habitats as well. Not to mention human health benefits and economic benefits and benefits to the planet as a whole. Be reasonable, mate. :)
denglish
4.2 / 5 (10) Jun 30, 2015
Windmills can't power cities.

Windmills lose the power struggle, as does advanced society.

Those that wish to see their communities regress by centuries are sick in their minds. This sickness is compounded by the fact that the very energy that powers us now...the energy they wish to abolish, is the energy that empowers advancement of better alternatives.

Liberalism is a mental disorder.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.8 / 5 (20) Jun 30, 2015
Stolen Valor? I was in the 553d Recon Wing, Igloo White, the Electronic Battlefield. Want to see my picture on the official site?

Got an email address, I'll send you the pdf of when I was Airman of the Month for the Air Force Flight Test Center
-And yet youre still completely full of shit. You seem to enjoy demonstrating this often, as if youre proud of it.

But despite your insanity and your many self-references which you seem to think make your bullshit unequivocal, we now have the internet, something that didnt exist when you were constructing your delusions of grandeur.

And so we can do searches and quickly find testimony from legitimate experts and pros that effectively illuminate your ignorance and insanity for all the world to see.

All but you that is.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.8 / 5 (20) Jun 30, 2015
For instance...
As a Research Engineer for Scientific Service, I helped run the systems, collected the information, did simple data reduction, identified and plotted pressure signatures and wavelengths
Let me translate;

As a job shop temp you were brought in to do validation of specific components related to nuclear plants. Of course you had to plug things in and turn them on and off, this is what the validation instruction manual told you to do.

But of course this in no way taught you anything whatsoever about how reactors are designed or how they operate. Only real engineers can speak to these things, and youve proven here that you have neither the education, the experience, nor the credentials to be considered an engineer.

Youre nothing but a liar and a fraud.
Wilie gets his stuff from a propaganda outfit IER "Institute for Energy Research", except it is a political tool for lobbying
And you get yours from crackpot anti-radiation pill salesmen.

Dont you?
gkam
1 / 5 (20) Jul 01, 2015
Oh, I see two blank spaces for otto. Is she back? I thought she went away. At any rate, I'll bet her post tells you nothing about nuclear power. Those with no experience or education in these fields seem to resent those of us who have it. Especially when we correct their silly assumptions.

This otto chick got her feelings hurt when I corrected her on specifics, and now shows us her character and the lack of emotional control. You see, she is a game-player, already caught bragging about her pseudonyms, and her "games". She probably thought I was one of her type.
WillieWard
5 / 5 (1) Jul 01, 2015
Oh, I see two blank spaces..
"Ignore user" is a useful tool for cowardly blocking facts backed by references...
Those with no experience or education in these fields seem to resent those of us who have it.
..and so to stay believing that their lies have some credibility.
RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (20) Jul 01, 2015
Hi denglish.
Windmills can't power cities.Windmills lose the power struggle,.... Those that wish to see their communities regress by centuries are sick in their minds. This sickness is compounded by the fact that the very energy that powers us now...the energy they wish to abolish, is the energy that empowers advancement of better alternatives.
Be reasonable, mate. The future is for a 'mix' of sources/systems, not only one. That is the beauty of being flexible as to sources/systems. The whole grid will be more robust and locally sustainable if grid-wide damage from natural disasters and sabotage occurs. Combine that flexibility in sources/systems with the new flexibility afforded by new battery-storage, hydro-storage and cross-grid shuffling of power, and it's win-win for everybody and the global environment to boot. A certain [drastically less) number of Coal fired power will still be used for baseload-backups, smoothing and emergency situations. Balance, not Politics! :)
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (2) Jul 01, 2015
not only one


It's not surprising that a socialist can't understand capital costs.
Each 'one' has a significant capital cost that must be repaid with profit.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (21) Jul 01, 2015
not only one


It's not surprising that a socialist can't understand capital costs.
Each 'one' has a significant capital cost that must be repaid with profit.
Th whole is more efficient/beneficial and hence less costly overall. Capitalist thinks 'profit' while costs to humanity/customers increases and losses are 'shifted' to society when things go wrong. Capitalists are the first to ask for subsidies and bankruptcy protection etc etc. Hypocrite. Meanwhile humanity will be left to pay the costs for the legacies of your NRA/GOP 'profiteering from fear and misery' insanities.
gkam
1.4 / 5 (21) Jul 01, 2015
Anyone who uses the term "windmills" has already shown an ignorance of the topic.
denglish
4.2 / 5 (10) Jul 02, 2015
Be reasonable, mate. The future is for a 'mix' of sources/systems, not only one. That is the beauty of being flexible as to sources/systems. The whole grid will be more robust and locally sustainable if grid-wide damage from natural disasters and sabotage occurs. Combine that flexibility in sources/systems with the new flexibility afforded by new battery-storage, hydro-storage and cross-grid shuffling of power, and it's win-win for everybody and the global environment to boot. A certain [drastically less) number of Coal fired power will still be used for baseload-backups, smoothing and emergency situations. Balance, not Politics!


Nonsensical word salad placed solely for the sake of being able to manipulate a keyboard. I'm out of this thread.
gkam
1.4 / 5 (21) Jul 02, 2015
He had it exactly right: It is integration which will save us, not the blind dependence on one or two magic box technologies few understand, and which can affect us over the entire Earth.

We can work with Nature instead of against it, and use it to our advantage.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Jul 02, 2015
We can work with Nature instead of against it, and use it to our advantage.
Luckless Nature, large lands and offshore areas in wildlife's habitats ever more occupied and disturbed.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (20) Jul 02, 2015
If nukes are so desirable, why do many power companies now want subsidies for those which are uneconomic?

Why did Georgia Power need for us to guarantee loans of $8,300,000,000 to build their untested nukes??

How many renewable power installations could we have bought for that - complete with no fuel costs and no waste disposal problems, and no massive amounts of water needs, like with fossil and nukes?

See how Duke Power is now trying to clean up their coal sites? See how they are becoming huge alternative energy fans?
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Jul 02, 2015
"While conventional power requires approximately 1 tonne of copper per installed megawatt (MW), renewable technologies such as wind and solar require four times more copper per installed MW."
http://en.wikiped...e_energy
"horses, goats and sheep are exposed in certain areas to potentially toxic concentration of copper and lead in grass."
http://en.wikiped...f_mining
gkam
1.2 / 5 (20) Jul 02, 2015
WillieWard
5 / 5 (1) Jul 02, 2015
Here is the site:
http://www.utilit.../401539/
"America's largest power company plans to become a leading renewables developer"
"As Duke Energy Renewables grows.."
Oligopolies/Trusts of 'green' (environmentally impacting) energy. Ironic.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.