Nuclear - The cheapest way to decarbonize power
- Thread starter OVERKILL
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Well I think the innovation and design should be done here (USA) and then a standard provided for the rest of the world. Apparently a top tier country like Japan cant even handle it. So that doesn't give me warm fuzzies about your country. Sorry. If that makes me elitist then so be it.
Bottom line. I hate standards. But they are necessary in some environments.
The US designed reactors (and Fukashima was one) are the ones that appear to be designed to make as much weapons material as possible rather than burn it all out like the other more recent designs.
With no weapons being made, requires a whole lot of hot storage.
As an aside, the ones that DO burn it all out, and can utilise lower enrichment and other materials. Less waste, more energy from your uranium, and less chance of materials being diverted to weapons.
The non US designs make better sense.
Well I think the innovation and design should be done here (USA) and then a standard provided for the rest of the world. Apparently a top tier country like Japan cant even handle it. So that doesn't give me warm fuzzies about your country. Sorry. If that makes me elitist then so be it.
Bottom line. I hate standards. But they are necessary in some environments.
The US designed reactors (and Fukashima was one) are the ones that appear to be designed to make as much weapons material as possible rather than burn it all out like the other more recent designs.
With no weapons being made, requires a whole lot of hot storage.
As an aside, the ones that DO burn it all out, and can utilise lower enrichment and other materials. Less waste, more energy from your uranium, and less chance of materials being diverted to weapons.
The non US designs make better sense.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
When i took nuke power classes in college we studied the GE BWR 6 and the Westinghouse pressurized water reactor. Candu was only mentioned in passing like it was an experiment or something.
I don't find that surprising. How much about French reactors did you learn? Probably not much eh?
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
All the nuke navy guys at the various plants I worked at liked the pwr design as that's how the sub's and ships worked.
Who knew? Hokey players and nuclear scientists...
Yeah, if they were familiar with it that would probably be their favourite. Ask one of our guys and you'd probably get the same answer with respect to our reactors. Also, CANDU's are PWR's as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor
If you want a quick read-up on them.
Some good features there and looked good until I got to the part on tritium leakage into the environment which would be perceived very negatively here in the States.
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
When i took nuke power classes in college we studied the GE BWR 6 and the Westinghouse pressurized water reactor. Candu was only mentioned in passing like it was an experiment or something.
I don't find that surprising. How much about French reactors did you learn? Probably not much eh?
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
All the nuke navy guys at the various plants I worked at liked the pwr design as that's how the sub's and ships worked.
Who knew? Hokey players and nuclear scientists...
Yeah, if they were familiar with it that would probably be their favourite. Ask one of our guys and you'd probably get the same answer with respect to our reactors. Also, CANDU's are PWR's as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor
If you want a quick read-up on them.
Some good features there and looked good until I got to the part on tritium leakage into the environment which would be perceived very negatively here in the States.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Well I think the innovation and design should be done here (USA) and then a standard provided for the rest of the world. Apparently a top tier country like Japan cant even handle it. So that doesn't give me warm fuzzies about your country. Sorry. If that makes me elitist then so be it.
Bottom line. I hate standards. But they are necessary in some environments.
The US designed reactors (and Fukashima was one) are the ones that appear to be designed to make as much weapons material as possible rather than burn it all out like the other more recent designs.
With no weapons being made, requires a whole lot of hot storage.
As an aside, the ones that DO burn it all out, and can utilise lower enrichment and other materials. Less waste, more energy from your uranium, and less chance of materials being diverted to weapons.
The non US designs make better sense.
You have some very fundamental misunderstandings about nuclear power. The only design that creates lots of fissionable material is a breeder reactor which converts u238 to u235.
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Well I think the innovation and design should be done here (USA) and then a standard provided for the rest of the world. Apparently a top tier country like Japan cant even handle it. So that doesn't give me warm fuzzies about your country. Sorry. If that makes me elitist then so be it.
Bottom line. I hate standards. But they are necessary in some environments.
The US designed reactors (and Fukashima was one) are the ones that appear to be designed to make as much weapons material as possible rather than burn it all out like the other more recent designs.
With no weapons being made, requires a whole lot of hot storage.
As an aside, the ones that DO burn it all out, and can utilise lower enrichment and other materials. Less waste, more energy from your uranium, and less chance of materials being diverted to weapons.
The non US designs make better sense.
You have some very fundamental misunderstandings about nuclear power. The only design that creates lots of fissionable material is a breeder reactor which converts u238 to u235.
JHZR2
Staff member
The reality is that nuke, coal, most anything short of distributed LM6000 type GTGs, the start up and ramp up speeds still dictate some intermediate buffering for optimum efficiency. What gives the stiffness and stability to the grid in P-Q space analysis also creates inefficiencies in the mechanical physics of some situations.
I'd rather see the focus on dispatchable and storage-integrated plants that allow the right blend of renewables with generation, than the force-feed of either renewables or more traditional generation that still has too much inertia to slew efficiently and effectively.
I'd rather see the focus on dispatchable and storage-integrated plants that allow the right blend of renewables with generation, than the force-feed of either renewables or more traditional generation that still has too much inertia to slew efficiently and effectively.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
The reality is that nuke, coal, most anything short of distributed LM6000 type GTGs, the start up and ramp up speeds still dictate some intermediate buffering for optimum efficiency.
Not sure, but for example -
* coal can turn down to 20%CMR overnight
* once back up at 40-50% load, ramp at 3-5% per minute when up and hot.
* Depending on load point can provide 5% CMR governor response to frequency events.
* Can be two shifted with planned recalls of less than a couple hours from overnight
* and yes, take 24 hours to get up to synch from cold.
edit...agree entirely on the balance of technologies...bu must have a decent proportion of dispatchable power.
The reality is that nuke, coal, most anything short of distributed LM6000 type GTGs, the start up and ramp up speeds still dictate some intermediate buffering for optimum efficiency.
Not sure, but for example -
* coal can turn down to 20%CMR overnight
* once back up at 40-50% load, ramp at 3-5% per minute when up and hot.
* Depending on load point can provide 5% CMR governor response to frequency events.
* Can be two shifted with planned recalls of less than a couple hours from overnight
* and yes, take 24 hours to get up to synch from cold.
edit...agree entirely on the balance of technologies...bu must have a decent proportion of dispatchable power.
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Some good features there and looked good until I got to the part on tritium leakage into the environment which would be perceived very negatively here in the States.
Well, it is a whopping 1% of the regulatory limit so it isn't like it is really an issue.
Also, apparently you guys are making it (and leaking it)
Quote:
According to the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research report in 1996 about the U.S. Department of Energy, only 225 kg (496 lb) of tritium has been produced in the United States since 1955. Since it continually decays into helium-3, the total amount remaining was about 75 kg (165 lb) at the time of the report.[3][15]
Tritium for American nuclear weapons was produced in special heavy water reactors at the Savannah River Site until their close-downs in 1988. With the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) after the end of the Cold War, the existing supplies were sufficient for the new, smaller number of nuclear weapons for some time.
The production of tritium was resumed with irradiation of rods containing lithium (replacing the usual control rods containing boron, cadmium, or hafnium), at the reactors of the commercial Watts Bar Nuclear Generating Station in 2003–2005 followed by extraction of tritium from the rods at the new Tritium Extraction Facility[16] at the Savannah River Site beginning in November 2006.[17] Tritium leakage from the TPBARs during reactor operations limits the number that can be used in any reactor without exceeding the maximum allowed tritium levels in the coolant.
Some good features there and looked good until I got to the part on tritium leakage into the environment which would be perceived very negatively here in the States.
Well, it is a whopping 1% of the regulatory limit so it isn't like it is really an issue.
Also, apparently you guys are making it (and leaking it)
Quote:
According to the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research report in 1996 about the U.S. Department of Energy, only 225 kg (496 lb) of tritium has been produced in the United States since 1955. Since it continually decays into helium-3, the total amount remaining was about 75 kg (165 lb) at the time of the report.[3][15]
Tritium for American nuclear weapons was produced in special heavy water reactors at the Savannah River Site until their close-downs in 1988. With the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) after the end of the Cold War, the existing supplies were sufficient for the new, smaller number of nuclear weapons for some time.
The production of tritium was resumed with irradiation of rods containing lithium (replacing the usual control rods containing boron, cadmium, or hafnium), at the reactors of the commercial Watts Bar Nuclear Generating Station in 2003–2005 followed by extraction of tritium from the rods at the new Tritium Extraction Facility[16] at the Savannah River Site beginning in November 2006.[17] Tritium leakage from the TPBARs during reactor operations limits the number that can be used in any reactor without exceeding the maximum allowed tritium levels in the coolant.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
The reality is that nuke, coal, most anything short of distributed LM6000 type GTGs, the start up and ramp up speeds still dictate some intermediate buffering for optimum efficiency.
Not sure, but for example -
* coal can turn down to 20%CMR overnight
* once back up at 40-50% load, ramp at 3-5% per minute when up and hot.
* Depending on load point can provide 5% CMR governor response to frequency events.
* Can be two shifted with planned recalls of less than a couple hours from overnight
* and yes, take 24 hours to get up to synch from cold.
edit...agree entirely on the balance of technologies...bu must have a decent proportion of dispatchable power.
That last point is kind of the message of the article. Using nuclear as a replacement for fossil fuels in that capacity while working in harmony with the other generating methods employed. The "heavy lifters" have their purpose and it is pure idiocy to think that one can replace a coal plant with a sprinkling of wind turbines and solar panels.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
The reality is that nuke, coal, most anything short of distributed LM6000 type GTGs, the start up and ramp up speeds still dictate some intermediate buffering for optimum efficiency.
Not sure, but for example -
* coal can turn down to 20%CMR overnight
* once back up at 40-50% load, ramp at 3-5% per minute when up and hot.
* Depending on load point can provide 5% CMR governor response to frequency events.
* Can be two shifted with planned recalls of less than a couple hours from overnight
* and yes, take 24 hours to get up to synch from cold.
edit...agree entirely on the balance of technologies...bu must have a decent proportion of dispatchable power.
That last point is kind of the message of the article. Using nuclear as a replacement for fossil fuels in that capacity while working in harmony with the other generating methods employed. The "heavy lifters" have their purpose and it is pure idiocy to think that one can replace a coal plant with a sprinkling of wind turbines and solar panels.
I believe you are jumping into the middle of an article and taking things out of context. This happens often when someone lacking education and experience in a science overuses the google search feature.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
I believe you are jumping into the middle of an article and taking things out of context. This happens often when someone lacking education and experience in a science overuses the google search feature.
You are putting on your [censored] hat again..... That happens often when somebody has the social skills of a rabid badger and an ego the size of the former Soviet Union
What, specifically, do you have issue with? And which post? I don't know if you are slamming my mention of the US leaking tritium or the harmonization of generation technologies
The quote feature is wonderful in instances like this (petty jabs at people to make you feel like the big man) because then we know why we are being insulted rather than just well, you know, being insulted
I believe you are jumping into the middle of an article and taking things out of context. This happens often when someone lacking education and experience in a science overuses the google search feature.
You are putting on your [censored] hat again..... That happens often when somebody has the social skills of a rabid badger and an ego the size of the former Soviet Union
What, specifically, do you have issue with? And which post? I don't know if you are slamming my mention of the US leaking tritium or the harmonization of generation technologies
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
I believe you are jumping into the middle of an article and taking things out of context. This happens often when someone lacking education and experience in a science overuses the google search feature.
Just revisiting this since, well, you are being rude and insulting my intelligence yet again which you seem to have this compulsion to do whenever the group of us engage in any form of entertaining discourse that has up to that point been polite. That is when you start slinging fecal matter like an angry caged monkey, not caring how much you get on yourself.
While there was indeed some Wikipedia stuff quoted here I find it somewhat comical that the same guy that says this stuff:
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
I detest standards in my work. It limits creativity. The people creating the standards aren't the best and brightest. Small companies live on word of mouth and one can argue that's the best criteria.
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
There should be worldwide approved designs and operating procedures.
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Well I think the innovation and design should be done here (USA) and then a standard provided for the rest of the world. Apparently a top tier country like Japan cant even handle it. So that doesn't give me warm fuzzies about your country. Sorry. If that makes me elitist then so be it.
And while talking about lack of education and experience is ignorant of this little factoid:
Originally Posted By: Wikipedia
The reactors for Units 1, 2, and 6 were supplied by General Electric, those for Units 3 and 5 by Toshiba, and Unit 4 by Hitachi. All six reactors were designed by General Electric.
How serious am I supposed to take the condescension of a guy talking out both sides of his mouth, questions the ability and integrity of any nation that isn't his own yet doesn't even know the equipment he's passing off as a foreign failure is in fact US designed and manufactured?
Now, I see this going one of two ways:
1. You drop it and we continue this politely (which we've successfully done in the past)
or
2. You continue on in your usual fashion and get banned for what, the 10th time?
Your call.
I believe you are jumping into the middle of an article and taking things out of context. This happens often when someone lacking education and experience in a science overuses the google search feature.
Just revisiting this since, well, you are being rude and insulting my intelligence yet again which you seem to have this compulsion to do whenever the group of us engage in any form of entertaining discourse that has up to that point been polite. That is when you start slinging fecal matter like an angry caged monkey, not caring how much you get on yourself.
While there was indeed some Wikipedia stuff quoted here I find it somewhat comical that the same guy that says this stuff:
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
I detest standards in my work. It limits creativity. The people creating the standards aren't the best and brightest. Small companies live on word of mouth and one can argue that's the best criteria.
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
There should be worldwide approved designs and operating procedures.
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Well I think the innovation and design should be done here (USA) and then a standard provided for the rest of the world. Apparently a top tier country like Japan cant even handle it. So that doesn't give me warm fuzzies about your country. Sorry. If that makes me elitist then so be it.
And while talking about lack of education and experience is ignorant of this little factoid:
Originally Posted By: Wikipedia
The reactors for Units 1, 2, and 6 were supplied by General Electric, those for Units 3 and 5 by Toshiba, and Unit 4 by Hitachi. All six reactors were designed by General Electric.
How serious am I supposed to take the condescension of a guy talking out both sides of his mouth, questions the ability and integrity of any nation that isn't his own yet doesn't even know the equipment he's passing off as a foreign failure is in fact US designed and manufactured?
Now, I see this going one of two ways:
1. You drop it and we continue this politely (which we've successfully done in the past)
or
2. You continue on in your usual fashion and get banned for what, the 10th time?
Your call.
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: Shannow
The US designed reactors (and Fukashima was one) are the ones that appear to be designed to make as much weapons material as possible rather than burn it all out like the other more recent designs.
With no weapons being made, requires a whole lot of hot storage.
As an aside, the ones that DO burn it all out, and can utilise lower enrichment and other materials. Less waste, more energy from your uranium, and less chance of materials being diverted to weapons.
The non US designs make better sense.
You have some very fundamental misunderstandings about nuclear power. The only design that creates lots of fissionable material is a breeder reactor which converts u238 to u235.
LOL, fireplace calling the pot black there...that's not what happens at all.
OK then turtle...where does plutonium come from...I've not seen it mined.
hint, the U238 in the enriched reactor fuel become Plutonium (239)...not U235...the US reactors seem to want to produce plutonium, which is part of the storage problem.
Which isn't a problem if you want to harvest the plutonium for other purposes, but IS if you don't need it anymore...although MOx (Pu U238) is a way of using it...through "reprocessing"
Originally Posted By: Shannow
The US designed reactors (and Fukashima was one) are the ones that appear to be designed to make as much weapons material as possible rather than burn it all out like the other more recent designs.
With no weapons being made, requires a whole lot of hot storage.
As an aside, the ones that DO burn it all out, and can utilise lower enrichment and other materials. Less waste, more energy from your uranium, and less chance of materials being diverted to weapons.
The non US designs make better sense.
You have some very fundamental misunderstandings about nuclear power. The only design that creates lots of fissionable material is a breeder reactor which converts u238 to u235.
LOL, fireplace calling the pot black there...that's not what happens at all.
OK then turtle...where does plutonium come from...I've not seen it mined.
hint, the U238 in the enriched reactor fuel become Plutonium (239)...not U235...the US reactors seem to want to produce plutonium, which is part of the storage problem.
Which isn't a problem if you want to harvest the plutonium for other purposes, but IS if you don't need it anymore...although MOx (Pu U238) is a way of using it...through "reprocessing"
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Wikipedia
The reactors for Units 1, 2, and 6 were supplied by General Electric, those for Units 3 and 5 by Toshiba, and Unit 4 by Hitachi. All six reactors were designed by General Electric.
For reference OVERKILL, Toshiba hold licences for G.E. technology om a lot of fronts. The ones I worked on were G.E. licence machines, but so far since the initial licence that while the platforms look the same, the technologies within have diverged.
Toshiba also own Westinghouse nuke division.
Originally Posted By: Wikipedia
The reactors for Units 1, 2, and 6 were supplied by General Electric, those for Units 3 and 5 by Toshiba, and Unit 4 by Hitachi. All six reactors were designed by General Electric.
For reference OVERKILL, Toshiba hold licences for G.E. technology om a lot of fronts. The ones I worked on were G.E. licence machines, but so far since the initial licence that while the platforms look the same, the technologies within have diverged.
Toshiba also own Westinghouse nuke division.
Problem with the US is that If I train a team of donkeys to walk inside of a wheel attached to a generator, but call it a nuclear process anyway, greenies, politicians, and protesters will band together and have me shut down overnight. All, of course, after finding a 2-headed lizard and blaming me for it.
Our nation is not one mentally prepared for expansion of nuclear power.
We have a nuke plant in our area (Turkey Point), and when I go by there with people, I still to this day hear dumb things like, "What is all that smoke coming out of those towers? That can't be safe!" and, "The environment has got to be dead there!".
Explaining what a cooling tower is, or that Turkey Point is actually an incredible protected habitat does nothing to dissuade them.
People think all nuke plants are run like the one belonging to C. Montgomery Burns.
Our nation is not one mentally prepared for expansion of nuclear power.
We have a nuke plant in our area (Turkey Point), and when I go by there with people, I still to this day hear dumb things like, "What is all that smoke coming out of those towers? That can't be safe!" and, "The environment has got to be dead there!".
Explaining what a cooling tower is, or that Turkey Point is actually an incredible protected habitat does nothing to dissuade them.
People think all nuke plants are run like the one belonging to C. Montgomery Burns.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Wikipedia
The reactors for Units 1, 2, and 6 were supplied by General Electric, those for Units 3 and 5 by Toshiba, and Unit 4 by Hitachi. All six reactors were designed by General Electric.
For reference OVERKILL, Toshiba hold licences for G.E. technology om a lot of fronts. The ones I worked on were G.E. licence machines, but so far since the initial licence that while the platforms look the same, the technologies within have diverged.
Toshiba also own Westinghouse nuke division.
There's also the GE/Hitachi connection (we have GE in town here, has both on the side of the main building) on the nuclear front. I wonder how much those relationships have changed since 1971 when Fukushima was built?
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Wikipedia
The reactors for Units 1, 2, and 6 were supplied by General Electric, those for Units 3 and 5 by Toshiba, and Unit 4 by Hitachi. All six reactors were designed by General Electric.
For reference OVERKILL, Toshiba hold licences for G.E. technology om a lot of fronts. The ones I worked on were G.E. licence machines, but so far since the initial licence that while the platforms look the same, the technologies within have diverged.
Toshiba also own Westinghouse nuke division.
There's also the GE/Hitachi connection (we have GE in town here, has both on the side of the main building) on the nuclear front. I wonder how much those relationships have changed since 1971 when Fukushima was built?
You know I get impatient when too many internet links get posted to further an argument instead of using your own knowledge and logic.
How am I insulting you by stating fact. You have no formal education in the industry nor work experience. I do have both and get frustrated when someone thinks a Google search is equal to both. Did you decide to pursue taking classes at a university? I think many kids these days forgo education thinking they can fake their way thru life using Google.
How am I insulting you by stating fact. You have no formal education in the industry nor work experience. I do have both and get frustrated when someone thinks a Google search is equal to both. Did you decide to pursue taking classes at a university? I think many kids these days forgo education thinking they can fake their way thru life using Google.
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
You know I get impatient when too many internet links get posted to further an argument instead of using your own knowledge and logic.
How am I insulting you by stating fact. You have no formal education in the industry nor work experience. I do have both and get frustrated when someone thinks a Google search is equal to both. Did you decide to pursue taking classes at a university? I think many kids these days forgo education thinking they can fake their way thru life using Google.
The threads usually start with someone using their knowledge and experience, at which point you belittle them and proclaim them wrong, then the supportive links come out to demonstrate/support...then you accuse them of Google University...
It's been repeated over and over and over...I know, I've been the recipient.
You know I get impatient when too many internet links get posted to further an argument instead of using your own knowledge and logic.
How am I insulting you by stating fact. You have no formal education in the industry nor work experience. I do have both and get frustrated when someone thinks a Google search is equal to both. Did you decide to pursue taking classes at a university? I think many kids these days forgo education thinking they can fake their way thru life using Google.
The threads usually start with someone using their knowledge and experience, at which point you belittle them and proclaim them wrong, then the supportive links come out to demonstrate/support...then you accuse them of Google University...
It's been repeated over and over and over...I know, I've been the recipient.
ls1mike
$50 Site Donor 2024
The US Navy operates 98 separate nuclear reactors EVERDAY.
I slept 200 feet from one for over 6 years. Most of those are sealed in a tube, then allowed to submerge and travel in the depths of the ocean undetected.
When controls are in place, maintenance is tracked and training is conducted on a regular basis, there is nothing to worry about.
I slept 200 feet from one for over 6 years. Most of those are sealed in a tube, then allowed to submerge and travel in the depths of the ocean undetected.
When controls are in place, maintenance is tracked and training is conducted on a regular basis, there is nothing to worry about.
Originally Posted By: ls1mike
The US Navy operates 98 separate nuclear reactors EVERDAY.
I slept 200 feet from one for over 6 years. Most of those are sealed in a tube, then allowed to submerge and travel in the depths of the ocean undetected.
When controls are in place, maintenance is tracked and training is conducted on a regular basis, there is nothing to worry about.
Fukushima was a terrible accident that could have been prevented through better plant design in addition to those items you mentioned.
BWR are not the correct technology choice for operating at sea level on the pacific rim subject to earth quakes and tsunamis.
Tepco did not have an effective emergency response plan.
Hindsight is flawless. But I think they just made a power plant the cheapest way they knew how without regard to what happens when cooling water is interrupted for whatever reason. The backup gensets were not hardened and defeated on the first tsunami wave. The roads were impassible. The plant was disconnected from the grid. The pads were cracked and leaking. The technology, design, ERP and maintenance have to work together.
The US Navy operates 98 separate nuclear reactors EVERDAY.
I slept 200 feet from one for over 6 years. Most of those are sealed in a tube, then allowed to submerge and travel in the depths of the ocean undetected.
When controls are in place, maintenance is tracked and training is conducted on a regular basis, there is nothing to worry about.
Fukushima was a terrible accident that could have been prevented through better plant design in addition to those items you mentioned.
BWR are not the correct technology choice for operating at sea level on the pacific rim subject to earth quakes and tsunamis.
Tepco did not have an effective emergency response plan.
Hindsight is flawless. But I think they just made a power plant the cheapest way they knew how without regard to what happens when cooling water is interrupted for whatever reason. The backup gensets were not hardened and defeated on the first tsunami wave. The roads were impassible. The plant was disconnected from the grid. The pads were cracked and leaking. The technology, design, ERP and maintenance have to work together.
Originally Posted By: ls1mike
The US Navy operates 98 separate nuclear reactors EVERDAY.
I slept 200 feet from one for over 6 years. Most of those are sealed in a tube, then allowed to submerge and travel in the depths of the ocean undetected.
When controls are in place, maintenance is tracked and training is conducted on a regular basis, there is nothing to worry about.
+1
The US Navy operates 98 separate nuclear reactors EVERDAY.
I slept 200 feet from one for over 6 years. Most of those are sealed in a tube, then allowed to submerge and travel in the depths of the ocean undetected.
When controls are in place, maintenance is tracked and training is conducted on a regular basis, there is nothing to worry about.
+1
- Status
Similar threads
