Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 21:27:13 UTC No. 16093208

>>16093201
Describe your developed vetting process.

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 21:30:24 UTC No. 16093214

>>16093208
It's literally on gov.uk:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/united-kingdom-security-vetting-clearance-levels/national-security-vetting-clearance-levels#developed-vetting-dv

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 21:31:44 UTC No. 16093217

>>16093201
how competent are the people working in that the environment?

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 21:38:58 UTC No. 16093231

>>16093217
It depends. In the central engineering offices where the higher level work is being done (for example, EDF office in Barnwood, Orano in Oxford, and Rolls-Royce SMR in Warrington), people are almost always very competent and good at their jobs (good education, degrees, diversity of work experience across different companies, etc.)

However, as you get further away from those brain centres and towards generation/decommissioning sites (Heysham/Dounreay/Torness/Hartlepool/Hunterston/Dungeness/etc.), the competency goes down. You don't have as much labour to choose from, so you need to sometimes lower your standards. E.g. more senior engineers at a generation site could easily be in their jobs without an academic degree. If you decide to build a fucking reactor at the edge of the world up in the northern most point in Scotland, then yeah you are going to struggle to recruit. You're also gonna have to pay serious money to any smart people you hire, because they will have to immigrate from elsewhere likely.

The people working on the tools, carrying out labour on the shop floor and in the reactor hall, they might not be the smartest, but they do work hard (I've seen them)

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 21:42:07 UTC No. 16093236

>>16093201
you sure do seem to like talking about yourself on social media

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 21:55:16 UTC No. 16093254

>>16093201
What do you think comes first for your employer? Profit or safety? Assume they're disentangled. If safety is the biggest driver for profit, then the question doesn't really have an answer, assume lack of regulation.

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 21:59:54 UTC No. 16093262

>>16093254

I was with you for the majority of that sentence

> What do you think comes first for your employer? Profit or safety? Assume they're disentangled. If safety is the biggest driver for profit, then the question doesn't really have an answer,

but that's just not possible if I have to apply this rule:

> assume lack of regulation.

In nuclear, there will always be regulation, insanely strict as well. You need to know that the UK engineering industry, and the UK as a nation, has some of the best Health & Safety cultures in Europe. Now imagine that culture, further enhanced by the regulator (the ONR). Nuclear safety culture is really really strong here

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 22:04:40 UTC No. 16093272

>>16093201
Do you enjoy your job?
Would you recommend others to pursue a similar career path?
Ever since I started playing SS13 I've become infatuated with electricity generation and considered going to college for civil engineering before I decided on computer science.

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 22:05:59 UTC No. 16093276

>>16093201
What would be the most effective way tor a single person to cause a Nuclear meltdown? Could someone who wasn't employed do it?

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 22:19:59 UTC No. 16093298

>>16093272
I'd say I enjoy my job, yeah. Currently doing a more computational modelling role and it's a lot more interesting than being on-site, but being on-site kind of had an aspect of "this is cool" to it that you just don't get when you work in the office

Would I recommend it? Absolutely. It's a career that combines respect/money/fulfilment, very good combination. But it's really hard to break into if you don't have a natural STEM brain

If you have a computer science degree, you're not unemployable in the industry, but you will have to sacrifice on location to begin your career.

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 22:23:35 UTC No. 16093307

>>16093276
the best way to make a nuclear meltdown is by pulling out all the control rods, or to cut off the passive cooling system (for the decay heat).

The first one is impossible because you will never get into the control room as a terrorist (they will know before you go anywhere near that door, and you will not get security clearance to work on-site)

Second one requires more engineering thought rather than simple malicious thought, and it's not really something you can "cause" (same with the control rod thing, unless you're chernobyl lol)

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 06:18:39 UTC No. 16093777

>>16093262
In the UK, but what about shithole countries with nuclear power?

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 06:38:15 UTC No. 16093791

>>16093201
Does UK have any reactors capable of making Nickel-63 for betavoltaic batteries? Is industry prepared for demand of those or will they be expensive AF?

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 10:05:22 UTC No. 16093983

>>16093791
Not OP (US nuclear engineer here),the UK does not have any reactions with high enough flux to make production of Ni-63 happen on reasonable time scales - the only places with these capabilities are the High Flux Isotope Reactor at Oak Ridge, and possibly some non-public Russian reactors. HFIR is responsible for all current commercially available production, and despite being one of the highest flux reactors, takes over 2 years of total irradiation per batch of ~30 g of material. Plus you already need a supply of enriched Ni-62 to get started.
There’s actually not very much demand for betavoltaics, especially Ni-63 based ones, since the maximum achievable powers are too low for most applications. There’s much higher demand for alpha emitter based radioisotope thermoelectric generators, and reactors are ramping up production of Pu-238 for this purpose to meet demand.

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 10:12:34 UTC No. 16093987

>>16093777
The UK is a shithole country

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 10:32:13 UTC No. 16094004

Figure this is a good thread to ask, since you work with nuclear, do you also believe nuclear weapons exist? Surely that’s a conjoined yes?

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 10:33:13 UTC No. 16094006

>>16093983
What is the equation to calculate how long does it takes to irradiate material to be different isotope? Can I look it up somewhere or is it secret?

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 11:35:23 UTC No. 16094084

>>16093298
What type of degrees does nuclear hire? Would a person with physics deg likely work there or is it all eng/cs degrees?

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 11:50:42 UTC No. 16094091

>>16093201
best textbooks to start with?
I'm a chem eng interested in nuclear.

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 11:54:30 UTC No. 16094096

>>16094084
Most people working in a power plant are technicians. With a university degree, your chances are tough, since there are only very few jobs and those will be filled with more specialised experts than you.
t. physicist who looked for a job in nuclear energy

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 12:01:36 UTC No. 16094106

>>16094096
Do these specialised experts just have experience in the field and no degree?

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 12:24:19 UTC No. 16094129

muh thorium

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 12:26:12 UTC No. 16094131

>>16094106
They're engineers/material scientists. It hurts to admit this, but they know their shit better than us.

Cult of Passion at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 12:27:28 UTC No. 16094134

>>16094131
>material scientists
I see nowhere to go but up in the sector.

Cult of Passion at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 12:28:30 UTC No. 16094136

>>16094134
Mix it with virutally any field is it has great potential.

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 12:29:51 UTC No. 16094138

>>16093201
How gay are you? I heard nukes are legitimate fags.

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 12:37:02 UTC No. 16094145

>>16094131
>>16094134
It’s over for physicists

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 12:39:33 UTC No. 16094149

In your view, is this the future of energy?

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 13:51:15 UTC No. 16094225

>>16094006
It's not secret. If you just assume that everything is homogenous and inserting the material deosn't perturb the neutron flux (which you also know), then it's just a system of ODEs for the number of each species with sources and loss being from radioactive decay and neutron capture, with the latter term just being the neutron flux multiplied the energy averaged cross section and the number density.
>>16094091
It depends on how much physics you already know. Lamarsh's book is a good intro, and the link in the sticky gives most of the standard texts in the field.

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 15:42:22 UTC No. 16094367

>>16093262
>need to know that the UK engineering industry, and the UK as a nation, has some of the best Health & Safety cultures in Europe.
LOL

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 15:44:37 UTC No. 16094373

>>16094367
LMAO

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 15:58:19 UTC No. 16094388

>>16094225
>It depends on how much physics you already know
don't worry about that he he he
I will have a look to Lamarsh then ty fren

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 16:04:53 UTC No. 16094396

>>16093201
I'm a US Nuclear Engineer specializing in reactor operations mainly PWRs. Pleasure to see a fellow nuclear professional. Hopefully we are on the golden age of nuclear power for the world. These green idiots need to stop getting high off of smelling their farts and do the most logical choice, being God given U235.

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 16:08:33 UTC No. 16094400

>>16093201
How many minutes per day do you seethe that a 90 IQ normie electorate and their 100 IQ politicians are making nuclear a shrinking industry?
Has your seething ever been used to heat water and spin turbines, directly?

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 16:10:33 UTC No. 16094404

>>16093276
The operator is the first line of defense of preventing a nuclear meltdown. Probably the most direct way to cause an accident is by maliciously not taking any actions when required upon an incident. Modern generation reactors are pretty robust in failsafe precluding accidents that cause fuel damage or fuel degradation.

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 16:14:38 UTC No. 16094410

>>16094004
Nuclear weapons obviously exist, there are hundreds of ways to prove they exist with one being how we detected fission products from U235 (Kr, Cs etc) all over the world dispersed nuclear tests. And ive worked specifically in the weapons program and have seen the sheer manufacturing might of that supply chain - they exist and are very real. Binding energy released at a exponential chain reaction is a very logical release of energy and to think it is just fake is ludicrous.

t. US nuclear engineer

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 16:39:53 UTC No. 16094449

>>16094367
243 fire fatalities in the UK (3.62 per million), trending down. 4,316 (13 per million) in the USA, trending up.
>https://www.usfa.fema.gov/statistics/deaths-injuries/
>https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/908635/fire-and-rescue-incident-mar20-hosb2220.pdf
I always like to check these hot takes.

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 16:52:26 UTC No. 16094467

>>16094449
>massive engineering fuckup in 2017 leading to mass death
>by 2019 they're trending down
>this proves UK "engineering culture" isn't bad

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 16:58:43 UTC No. 16094480

>>16094467

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 17:13:53 UTC No. 16094507

>>16094084
Nuclear needs all sorts of people, especially electrical engineers. There's a huge shortage of them, we think that a lot of them flee to software development because it offers WFH and more pay, and the nuclear industry is struggling to keep them in the industry. But yeah, chemical/electrical/mechanical/civil, all sorts of degrees needed. Like I said, if you want to work on-site at a nuclear site and not in an office, you can probably get in without a degree (with an HND/HNC)

>>16093791
Not really, UK doesn't have those type of high neutron flux research/medical isotope reactors. The UK doesn't have a single research reactor, which is pretty embarrassing imo. We really need to do something about that (i.e. build a fucking research reactor somewhere)

>>16094004
Yes. There's endless jobs at the AWE (Atomic Weapons Establishment), just go and have a look yourself on their website

>>16094091
Don't need textbooks really, there isn't any nuclear specific knowledge that you need to become an engineer in the nuclear industry. Perhaps safety training (e.g. Safety Case, HAZOP, Bowtie diagrams, etc.) would put you at an advantage if you could demonstrate that you have a good understanding of nuclear safety culture

>>16094138
Mostly gay af, with exceptions for some girls I have fancied (though they happened to be quite masc and into the gym e.g. rock climbing)

>>16094396
While I agree we desperately need a lot more nuclear, I don't necessarily agree with the U-235 burner approach. I think we need to give a lot of money to breeder reactor research. Whether it's U-238 or Th-232 breeding I don't particularly mind, but basing our energy policy around burning a substance that's as rare as platinum (U-235) is really really stupid imo

>>16094400
Too busy doing my day-to-day work to have time to seethe over that stuff honestly. I might repost an angry LinkedIn post about government ignorance over nuclear, but that's where my seething ends

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 17:37:28 UTC No. 16094540

>>16093201
How much are nuclear reactor designs and processes based on technological and physical limitations, and how much are they based on political limitations? I have heard various claims about possible processes and obvious improvements being left unpursued because of (1) them not being useful for making nuclear weapons and therefore being devoid of military budgetary support, (2) them likely leading to broader availability of nuclear processing technology, and therefore increasing proliferation risk, or (3) them simply being different enough from existing """mature""" technologies that risk-averse political pressures prefer to go with the devil they know. How true is this?

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 17:43:04 UTC No. 16094547

>>16093201
Could someone make like a small nuclear reactor for shits and giggles at home? Asking from both a legal and technical perspective.
It doesn't have to generate electricity per se but could one maybe make a nuclear-powered kettle to heat water for tea using consumer-available fissile materials?
I don't think I would ever actually attempt this but I'm just curious at what scale could noticeable fission reasonably happen at.

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 17:46:33 UTC No. 16094550

>>16094129
>thorium
back to rreddit, please

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 17:56:00 UTC No. 16094558

so how much of a solution are the small reactors? they are memes?
should nuclear reactor be managed by private companies or kept int he hands of bureaucrats?

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 17:57:02 UTC No. 16094561

>>16094547
Yeah, someone made a nuclear reactor in his back yard. He was nicknamed the "Nuclear Boy Scout". You can see more here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0QMeTjcJDA

>>16094540
Between the 1940s and the 1980s, the development of nuclear technology was really driven by politics. The Americans chose PWRs because they were really good (because the US navy designed PWRs for their nuclear submarines). The Canadians chose the CANDU reactors because they had a lot of water they could filter for heavy (deuterium) water. The British didn't have access to enrichment technology due to politics, so they built Magnox reactors, which were a type of gas-cooled reactor with CO2 as a coolant but used natural uranium, bypassing the need for enrichment.

These days the politics aren't as strong, but the restriction of enrichment is quite a limiting factor. If you enrich above 5%, the Americans and the IAEA will not be happy at all, and they *will* stop you (unless you're North Korea or Iran or whatever)

In terms of technology not being pursued because it's not helpful for nuclear weapons however... that might have been true in the 1940 - 1960s, but not today. Landscape is not as wild, and there is some money to research more novel ideas, but mostly in the US. Though tbf Russia and China are much better at advanced nuclear technologies than the west (see e.g. molten lead reactors in Russia)

>>16094550
Thorium reactors aren't necessarily a meme. It is very difficult to achieve, yes, but it's not impossible. Like I said earlier, burning U-235 is not going to be sustainable forever, we *will* run out of U-235 within 150 years if we rely solely on burner reactors for our energy demands.

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 17:59:53 UTC No. 16094565

>>16094558
Small Modular Reactors are absolutely the future. You are going to have a much much much easier life raising £2bn of capital to build an SMR rather than £40bn to build another Hinkley Point C. Plus, £2bn could in theory be raised from the private sector, while money on the order of 10s of billions for another Hinkley can only come from governments. Hinkley Point C right now is financed fully by the French and Chinese governments, there is not any private money being invested in there. There might be for Sizewell C, but it's up in the air right now.

We absolutely must make nuclear cheaper if the industry is to survive. Forget about waste or politics or whatever, the number one threat to the industry is how ridiculously expensive nuclear energy is, and we need to fix that. SMRs are going to achieve exactly that.

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 18:23:32 UTC No. 16094607

>>16094565
Nuclear reactors in the US are funded with european tributes. Thats how they can produce cheap electricity.

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 18:32:25 UTC No. 16094618

>>16094565
>Small Modular Reactors are absolutely the future


I agree with this statement. SMRs check almost every box from safety , modularity based off of power grid demand, and minimizing complexity.

Making the first Nuscale ASMR in eastern Europe will usher in the golden age of nuclear power. NRC's general stagnation will be kicked ajar the second SMR technology can be proven safely.

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 18:55:13 UTC No. 16094642

Why is nuclear power so boring?

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 18:57:32 UTC No. 16094650

>>16094618
>ASMR
are these sabotage-able? or can they be fucked with some drone strike?

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 19:09:15 UTC No. 16094670

>>16094642
>Boring?

What the fuck nuclear power is the opposite of boring ?? you are breaking subatomic bonds and utilizing the reaction product nucleuses mass deficit per each nuclear reaction to convert to an insane amount of usable energy? That energy is removed by coolant and the same energy that was once holding together to squishy U235 molecule then heats water to steam to then convert to usable electrical power. ALL that energy was once within a damn atomic nucleolus. This is by far the most interesting concept ive ever known.

Better yet we fucking regulate this reaction mastering all generation of fission in a delicate balance of reactivity. It inspires me even thinking about it.

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 19:11:03 UTC No. 16094674

>>16094650
Nuclear reactor safety designs will most likely prevent a nuclear accident even when attacked - most likely the worst that will occur will be a spread of contamination.

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 19:13:36 UTC No. 16094678

>>16094670
It's just pipes and pumps. Why hype it up so much.

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 19:19:02 UTC No. 16094685

>>16094678
It is far more than just pipes and pumps , the nuclear reactor design is extremely cool - when talking about core construction and how you can modify design to make the core more efficient is so interesting to me.

Regardless, tearing about the basic fabric of existence and using it as a form of energy is amazingly interesting.

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 19:59:49 UTC No. 16094742

>>16093201
How do you become a nuclear engineer?

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 20:03:17 UTC No. 16094745

>>16094742
>How do you become a nuclear engineer?
Sure, see below:

>1. study chemical/mechanical/electrical/computer engineering, or even some other big brain STEM degree like e.g. maths
>2. apply to engineering graduate schemes in relevant nuclear companies (just google some you'll see)
>3. work there for a bit, gain experience
>4. move upwards from company to company
>5. you've made it

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 20:53:49 UTC No. 16094827

>>16094607
What?

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 10:09:51 UTC No. 16095685

Thread is dying, so I'll just post some cool photos instead

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 10:15:28 UTC No. 16095690

What kind (manufacturer) do you have for the monitoring system inside the control room? How old is the software?

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 10:19:02 UTC No. 16095693

Graphite bricks look so cool

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 10:20:06 UTC No. 16095694

>>16095693

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 10:31:42 UTC No. 16095699

>>16093201
What'd happen if you put crack/cocaine in the reactor (to beta decay it)
What are those sharp lines for on the green bit? Assuming it's not electricity

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 10:32:44 UTC No. 16095700

>>16094367
You faggot

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 11:25:04 UTC No. 16095757

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 11:29:53 UTC No. 16095767

>>16095690
It's a combination of bespoke design + contractor input for the design of that software.

Old AGR control rooms look really vintage, and the computer is ancient. You have to remember that if a reactor was built in the mid 1980s, then it must have been in design since the 1970s (remember, very very few computers back then, mostly pen & paper)

As for the contractors used, I'm not sure myself so I can't tell you. The software is from the 1970s though.

>>16095699
> What'd happen if you put crack/cocaine in the reactor (to beta decay it)

Not entirely sure what would happen. I do have to say that if you run such an experiment, you absolutely must make sure the cladding for that must be impenetrable, you don't want fission product crap inside leaking into your reactor core

> What are those sharp lines for on the green bit? Assuming it's not electricity

They mark the zone where a panel can be lifted off. Panels from around the reactor can be lifted up for people to do maintenance

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 11:34:59 UTC No. 16095783

>>16095767
Oh ok thanks :)
And no I would like for it to touch the core please

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 11:59:30 UTC No. 16095820

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 12:21:12 UTC No. 16095838

>>16095767
Judging from that photo It's similar to what I see on merchant ships, the design of the console and everything else. I still sometimes work on old systems from the 90s that were developed or are pulling design ideas from the late 70s. Especially for main engine automatic propulsion which ended up to be very reliable and simple to use (no PCs for end user - just a front panel with diodes and buttons). Working on them is pretty cool albeit they are prone to static electricity and their EEPROMs get wiped but are very service friendly and can be repaired in a lot of ways.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:13:21 UTC No. 16095888

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:25:39 UTC No. 16095907

>>16093262
Regulation is the cause of nuclear power's expense. Remove all government regulations and everything will become vastly cheaper.

Dispose of spent fuel in the sea. Safe and effective.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:28:59 UTC No. 16095910

>>16095907
>Regulation is the cause of nuclear power's expense. Remove all government regulations and everything will become vastly cheaper.

Regulation is necessary for nuclear power to be safe. Without a strong regulator you get Fukushima/Davis-Besse/etc.
You simply can't trust private companies to do the right thing when it comes to safety. Profit will always come first.

>Dispose of spent fuel in the sea. Safe and effective.
Nobody has been able to write a bulletproof Safety Case for that to be possible. There is just too much risk of seawater corroding away the structure of whatever you dump, and then the ocean is full of fission products that are going to be transported all over the earth. It's a non-starter. What we need is a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF)

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:36:31 UTC No. 16095921

>>16094685
>get a bottle of water
>put uranium in it
>wave a fancy metal stick near it
>attach hose pipe to bottle
>connect to turbine
At least with coal power plants you get to burn something

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:58:02 UTC No. 16095946

>>16095910
>nuclear power to be safe.
Zero such thing as safe. Everything carries risk.
The level of risk people are comfortable with can be determined by each individual by their puchases. Some people will be happy with more risk, others less.

Total deregulation of every market, including nuclear is optimal because each individual can decide how much risk they want. You do-gooding communist busybodies exist to stifle innovation and reduce people's quality of life.

> Fukushima/Davis-Besse/etc.
These, like Chernobyl, were nothing burgers. The only reason there was a fuss is because of GOVERNMENTS forcing people to evacuate. Ask someone if they'd prefer a hundred fold reduction in their energy bill at the cost of dying 5 years earlier to cancer. Most will take that.
But you regulating idiots only see the bad outcomes (slight increase in cancer), never realize that there are good outcomes (massive reduction in energy prices), and certainly never realize individuals can make these choices themselves.

>Nobody has been able to write a bulletproof Safety Case for that to be possible.
Yep, you're a pathetic brainless cuck. Throw it into the sea, billions of tonnes of seawater dilute anything that leaks it. Total non fucking issue. You statists need absolute control, everything has to be perfect, despite perfection being utterly superfluous, so nothing will ever get done.

Imagine if we had cucks like you in the industrial revolution, we'd never had had it because you morons would prohibit everything in the name of "safety". You really do utterly disgust me.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 14:00:32 UTC No. 16095949

>>16093201
What's the smelliest thing in a nuclear plant besides the toilets and sewerage?

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 14:33:35 UTC No. 16095989

>>16095921
>wave a fancy metal stick near it
well, yeah, anything can sound simple if you use basic language like this to describe it. it's not magic though, it's much more than that

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 14:39:56 UTC No. 16095996

>>16095949
Definitely the marine ingress waste. UK nuclear power stations are built on the coast because they use the seawater as the ultimate heatsink for the Rankine cycle, and the seawater is pumped into the station through these massive grated filters that rotate on a big wheel. They fill up with a lot of seaweed and other crap (even jellyfish), and there's people working on those filters full time and extracting the marine ingress and dumping it in these huge skips. That stuff stinks when it's outside the water and left to dry. Thankfully it's all outside though.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 14:42:48 UTC No. 16096001

>>16095989
>attach temperatures sensor to water bottle
>connect stick to winch
>wind up stick when too cold, down when too hot
Basic radiator thermostat feedback. Nothing fancy or hard here, my point still stands.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 14:44:54 UTC No. 16096007

>>16095946
>Zero such thing as safe. Everything carries risk.

Of course. There is a saying we're taught that the safest thing one can do in nuclear power is to not build a station at all. Yet we still do it because we need energy on the grid.

What you need to be aware of is that we use a principle called ALARP (As Low As Reasonably Practicable). Anything you do in nuclear needs to have an ALARP'd risk to it. If it's not ALARP, you need to reduce it, either with design changes or engineering mitigation or operator action in the event of a fault (with the preference being in that order)

>Total deregulation of every market, including nuclear is optimal because each individual can decide how much risk they want.

That's an incredibly silly argument. If you deregulate the market completely, then you are forcing people to put up with whatever risk exists. You take away the need for nuclear site licences, so anybody could build a nuclear reactor in the middle of a city. How is that freedom to choose how much risk people are subjected to? If my neighbour converts his house into a power station, I am forced to live with a risk that I may or may not find acceptable. This isn't fair at all. Nothing to do with "do-gooding communist busybodies"...

>These, like Chernobyl, were nothing burgers.

Chernobyl and Davis-Besse were nothingburgers? Really? Do you think an exposed nuclear reactor core is a nothingburger? Or Davis-Besse being inches away from disaster is a nothingburger too? Come on now.

>Ask someone if they'd prefer a hundred fold reduction in their energy bill at the cost of dying 5 years earlier to cancer. Most will take that.

You know very well that this is not how building a power station works, and it rather follows a statistical distribution. I'm surprised you come here with such a simplistic take.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 14:50:42 UTC No. 16096016

>>16095946
>>16096007
(con'td)

>Throw it into the sea, billions of tonnes of seawater dilute anything that leaks it. Total non fucking issue.

That's not how this works. You need to sit down and decide what material you will build your nuclear waste container out of, calculate the rate of corrosion at those salt concentrations at the bottom of the ocean (plus accounting for the pressure and temperature down there), make comparisons against other materials, and then summarise that in a Safety Case and have that verified by a Suitably Qualified and Educated Person (SQEP).

These procedures exist in place because of the underlying principle of the nuclear industry, which is summarised in the phrase:
>What are the consequences if you get this wrong?

You *will* be asked that question whenever you propose a modification to anything. If you don't answer that question, you have not researched this enough and you will be shot down. You always need to be aware that humans make mistakes, and if you get an Engineering Change wrong, you need to be able to say with confidence what the consequences are if you get it wrong.

This has nothing to do with "cucks" or "do-gooding communist busybodies". It is all about minimising the risk As Low As Reasonably Practicable. If you think Chernobyl was a nothing-burger, then please, go ahead and live in Pripyat back in 1986 when the reactor lid blew off and sit and breathe in the fresh air. Surely it's a nothingburger, right?

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 14:52:20 UTC No. 16096020

>>16096001
What about the shape of the fuel rods? Do you know why they are long cylindrical tubes in the first place? There's a reason

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 15:03:32 UTC No. 16096040

>>16096020
of-course they are the phallic symbol of man's might

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 15:07:20 UTC No. 16096049

>>16095946
>communist busybodies exist to stifle innovation and reduce people's quality of life.
>the energy prices will definitely go down guys! just believe.
Reminder that in Britain when most of the "communist" national services got sold off to """private companies""", everybody's quality of life went massively down due to companies just straight up ignoring regulation wherever they could and doing the bare minimum to maximise profit. Despite being promised the exact opposite would happen. Personally I don't want private businesses setting up a nuclear bomb in my backyard and still charging me and a arm and leg for it. But sure, make up whatever excuses about "innovation" you want to justify the dogshit capitalist hellhole we live in now.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 15:24:02 UTC No. 16096077

>>16095838
Yeahh it is quite vintage, but you are right it is very user repair friendly. Lots of buttons and lights, very little computers

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 15:38:38 UTC No. 16096096

>>16095907
if you want a safe and cheap way to deal with spent fuel you can just incase it in enough concrete to block the radiation then dump all the cubes in front of the power plant. Dumping them anywhere else is adding an extra risk to a new location, the nuclear site is already protected from random terrorists, and if it ever got blown up, from an accident or war crimes it was going nuclear anyways. Various places already do this.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:57:19 UTC No. 16096374

>be danish, tell friend i want nuclear power
>friend is neo-hippie and says it's too late for nuclear
>ask why it's too late
>it took 20 years to build the power plant in finland
>that's an exception and we don't need a huge plant like that
>all denmark needs are small modular plants
>no it's too late
>what do you mean too late??
>we don't have the tech
>we have had the tech for decades, look at nuclear subs and aircraft carriers
>we have wind turbines tho
>and what when the wind isn't blowing?
>he gets angry

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 18:49:08 UTC No. 16096486

>>16096007
> ALARP (As Low As Reasonably Practicable)
Who defines whats reasonably practical? Why do they get force their decision on everyone else at the point of a gun? Why do they get to demand what goes on with other peoples property?
> then you are forcing people to put up with whatever risk exists.
That’s what you’re doing; you force a particular level of risk upon everyone using regulations. Worse is you use violence to demand what goes on with other people’s stuff. You’re acting like a scumbag but think you’re doing good. Worst kind of tyrant.

>Chernobyl and Davis-Besse were nothingburgers?
Yes, the worst nuclear disasters less than a hundred people due to the thing everyone’s scared of: radiation. As i’ve already said the risk unregulated nuclear poses can be independently weighed up against the benefits by individuals. If we were forced to adhere to the risk level demanded by government in every other industry and part of life, nothing would be allowed to be done, the price of business would be prohibitively expensive.
The negatives of raising the price of things means more people suffer. You make people suffer by making regulations.

> How is that freedom to choose how much risk people are subjected to?
Don’t buy power from McReactor, don’t sell food to people who own and work at McReactor, don’t do business with those who use McReactor.
In short; ostracize them. Zero violence required.

> You know very well that this is not how building a power station works
I’m pointing out that people will wiegh up the risks and benefits for themselves. Risk: reactor explodes and you get cancer. Benefits Reactor doesn’t explode and you get cheap energy. Without regulations people can decide what’s best for them.

1/2

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 18:53:02 UTC No. 16096492

>>16096016
>>16096486
2/2
>That's not how this works. You need to sit down and blah blah
Heard of volcanoes? They don’t put their waste in neat little packages when they dump their load into the sea.
Throw the unshielded raw nuclear waste directly into the ocean. Again, billions of tonnes of seawater dilute the solutes to irrelevant levels. If customers feel happy to pay for the extra cost of vitrifying it first, then do it.

>What are the consequences if you get this wrong?
My customer stop paying and I wont get any new ones.

>You always need to be aware that humans make mistakes
I’m perfectly aware, you’re the guy who thinks safety exists, not me.

>It is all about minimising the risk As Low As Reasonably Practicable
Again who defines this arbitrary “Practicalness”? At the end of the day someone makes a decision that the level of risk is worth the benefits. I repeat, if we applied your level of risk intolerance against all walks of life, we’d never have innovation, there’d be no economy, dumbest of all you’d as a result cause more harm by destroying these than just accepting the risk and moving on. Let individuals be the one to decide what that risk level is, not you.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 19:04:17 UTC No. 16096511

>>16096486
>>16096492
Quite honestly you are too invested in libertarianism to care about anything else, and you think your political opinions about the free market are more important than nuclear safety. Sorry, nobody will take you seriously in the industry. It's the reason why you don't work in my industry, and why you never will.

Nuclear safety is always the overriding priority, regardless of what you may think about free market capitalism and governments.

FYI, it's not the government that dictates Office for Nuclear Regulation policy. The ONR is a completely independent body from the government, and it's not even funded by taxes (it's funded by industry members), so I don't know why you're going on random rants about the government. They have nothing to do with the regulator's opinions and policies.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 19:12:15 UTC No. 16096521

>>16096049
Stupid communist idiot. How do you think those socalized services came into government hands? PRIVATE COMPANIES MADE THEM. It's only after a century of world wars, regulation, corruption and communist infiltration that the only businesses left are crony corporations.

You've no idea how markets work which is why you're still a statist cuck. Please don't vote, as your poor understanding of reality will inform terrible voting decisions. You vote for bigger government when it's the cause of the problem, gas on the fire.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 19:14:22 UTC No. 16096525

>>16096096
>dump all the cubes in front of the power plant
Could just as easily leave them in a lake on site. Basic point is spent fuel disposal is not the danger is made out to be, and certainly isn't worth the bureaucratic ritual it's made into.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 19:19:38 UTC No. 16096537

>>16096486
> I repeat, if we applied your level of risk intolerance against all walks of life, we’d never have innovation, there’d be no economy, dumbest of all you’d as a result cause more harm by destroying these than just accepting the risk and moving on.

And that’s exactly why we *don’t* apply the same level of regulation in every industry! Not everything is as special as nuclear. The consequences of an oil rig exploding are not as severe as the consequences of a nuclear reactor exploding. Which is why the regulation in the O&G industry is less strict than the nuclear industry. I don’t get what your point is. You really think I want as much rigour as there is nuclear to be applied everywhere? Of course not.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 19:19:53 UTC No. 16096538

>>16096525
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents#Radiation_and_other_accidents_and_incidents

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 19:20:37 UTC No. 16096541

>>16096511
>Sorry, nobody will take you seriously in the industry
I've no expectation that an industry full of people hand picked by the government to have any interest in libertarianism.

>Nuclear safety is always the overriding priority
How many fucking times idiot? Saftey doesn't exist! You're just arbitrarily decreeing that the level of risk demanded by government regulations is acceptable. What about the people who want it even less risky? What about the people willing to trade risk for lower cost? You're an evil tyrant who think's hes doing good. Fuck off and let people decide for themselves.

>FYI, it's not the government that dictates Office for Nuclear Regulation policy. The ONR is a completely independent body from the government
Fuck off idiot. Who enforces these rules? GOVERNMENT.

You're a proper ThunderF00T type, complete tool. If we lived in a libertarian society we could just agree to disagree and part ways, instead I'm forced to live under your shortsighted tyranny.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 19:25:18 UTC No. 16096552

>>16096538
>0 deaths 0 deaths 0 deaths 0 deaths 0 deaths 0 deaths 0 deaths 0 deaths 0 deaths 0 deaths 0 deaths
>worst one ever: 28 deaths
I keep saying it, if we did 70 year followup case studies on the residual impacts of the second hand butterfly effects of any other industry like we did nuclear, we'd find millions of deaths caused by them. If we cried about that like we do nuclear, we'd have no fucking economy.

In a free market you don't have to buy nuclear power, buy it from a nice safe coal powerplant.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 19:29:21 UTC No. 16096560

>>16096552
Here, you dropped this

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 19:30:36 UTC No. 16096561

>>16096560
Cry about it statist, you just want power over others.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 19:35:55 UTC No. 16096566

>>16096020
It's all very mechanical and dull

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 20:19:43 UTC No. 16096615

>>16096538
Which of those have anything to do with storing waste on site exactly?

Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 19:02:56 UTC No. 16098024

what are your thoughts on the smelly frenchies and the ITER reactor and their first full plasma run in december of 2025? I'm super excited about it.
might be a bit out of your specific wheelhouse but I'm curious what your thoughts on it are since it is fusion.
also even if you don't think power efficient fusion is possible, what type of confinement
/fusion reactors do you think have the highest potential in your eyes?

Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 20:46:48 UTC No. 16098175

>>16098024
>first plasma in 2025
Completely impossible at this point. Assembly of the vacuum vessel sectors was halted for 3 years because they contracted out to a shitty south Korean manufacturer which sent them damaged components and faked qualifications for its employees. They only started repairs on it earlier this week so they're very behind schedule.

Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 21:54:11 UTC No. 16098263

>>16098175
shit really?
I haven't been keeping up with it that much. that's a bummer.
how many times do people have to get burned before realizing that a majority of east and south asian manufacturing companies don't give a flying fuck about quality control.
I wonder what it is culturally that makes Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, and Malaysian quality control so shit. terrible working conditions don't help, but it's such a systemic problem in asia that there has to be something else going on.

Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 22:26:13 UTC No. 16098308

>>16098263
Yeah, it's a huge problem since all of the countries funding ITER want the money spent in their countries. There's no good reason to have each of the 9 vacuum vessel sectors made in different places
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/iter/IO/ITER-Org-Suppliers-list2.xlsx
There are also a bunch of stupidly large contracts to random companies (230 million on furniture per year???) and this list is almost 10 years old, so it's only gotten worse since.

Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 22:49:29 UTC No. 16098351

>>16098263
>don't give a flying fuck about quality control.
You surely have no clue what you are talking about. Must be a UShitholer, big mouth, worst quality poss. not nowing your consooomer crab was ordered exact that way.

Anonymous at Wed, 27 Mar 2024 09:14:39 UTC No. 16099075

>>16098024
Quite honestly I am not a fusion expert so I can't say much. However, my personal view is that fusion is so ridiculously expensive that it will never be a viable business.

Do I think the scientists will build a fusion reactor someday? Of course, there's so many geniuses funded by state funds who will achieve it no doubt. Will it connect to the grid? Maybe, not sure.

But will it be profitable? Absolutely not, there's no chance it will ever be a viable business. The costs of the concrete being poured at ITER alone make it a non-starter, let alone all that helium and those ridiculous magnets and whatever sci-fi stuff they decide to buy.