@Joe C: As BobSheep pointed out, we can do nothing to fix it. It's just a natural earth event. What we can do is to try to harden our infrastructure against it as much as we can. And there are limits as to what we can actually do. If we manage to make it through the 'weak-field' times without a massive Coronal Mass Ejection from the sun, then worse case, we may have elevated occurrences of skin cancer. We also may have some drought times as well. Crop growth may be affected too. One or two CME's from the sun and our communication networks will most likely go down. Power grids may overload and components that are very difficult to replace may be burned out. We'll more than likely be thrust back into the 1700s.
Ahem, last time I checked it's the other way round: there's absolutely loadsa private money that bribes scientists and politicians, who are NOT interested in cleaning up their act, since it costs money, hence this myth about becoming green as being an industry, all of a sudden, is nothing but a pile of you know what... The differences are humongous! Look at the current US administration. Look at the ozone holes and endocrine disruptors, the thalidomides of this world, look at..... And again, instead of cleaning up and doing what we must do - they want to 'deregulate' and Trump is putting such a man in charge of FDA. EDIT: Look at especially the energy industry, fossil fuel part that disrupts the efforts to change, away from them to renewables... I know I have it the right way up and what I read about who's really corrupt is just dead wrong, sorry...
@gorski: I do agree with you about what's in our water, air and food. We (the industrialized nations) made a big mistake in terms of testing with regards to CFC's and other chemicals that we've used. Often, the damage shows up decades later in the form of birth defects and cancers. There are places all over the world that are simply too toxic to support life. And we made them that way. We need to focus on cleaning up the environment. And we need to keep it clean, for the sake of our children and their children.
Culling the herd/ELE When the poles shift it will be catastrophic, but it will not be an extinction level event for the human race and this is why. Over the past several decades there has been much construction going on underground. How do I know this you ask ? About a decade and a half ago when I was in the "Oil Business" ( repairing trucks and tankers ) there was one driver who told his story to me after I asked him how the frame behind the front bumper became so shiny and worn. He had spent the past six or eight months shuttling fuel, 3,000 gallons per run, from the Boston terminal to an undisclosed location in a suburb west of Boston. When he got there he would back into a "deep garage", the door would close, and men carrying M-16's would tell him to shut the engine off, tarp the cab, hook a bulldozer to the front bumper with chains, and lift the front axle off the ground. He would then be told to release the brakes and put the truck in neutral and the dozer would start pushing and the truck would start down a grade. This grade was so steep that the driver would take naps while laying on the back of the bench seat and the time it took the dozer to get to the bottom was about 45 minutes. Once there, the men would tell him to set the brakes, start the engine, and engage the PTO, and they would proceed to offload the fuel. Once that was done he was told to disengage the PTO, release the brakes, and shut the engine off and after another 45 minutes he would be in the garage once more. He did 4 runs a day like this, 6 days a week. He did say he tried to peek once but was greeted by an M-16 muzzle and a stern voice telling him to "get back in there". Lets do some math. First the fuel (Kerosene), 3,000 x 4 x (180 - 26 [Sundays]) = 1,848,000 gallons in 6 months. I don't know if he ever stopped the runs because I never saw him again. Next the depth. Lets say the dozer was going at 5 MPH x 45 minutes = 3.75 miles at a 45° angle ( about the angle needed to make the back of the seat level, with the front wheels off the ground ). Now lets cheat and use the right triangle calculator here. We know the hypotenuse is 3.75 (miles) and we want to calculate an equilateral right triangle. It works out to each leg being about 2.6515 (miles) in length. That puts this DUMB (Deep Underground Military Base) at about 2.6515 miles under ground. At that depth "they" don't need the shielding provided by the magnetosphere. So no, it won't be an ELE, but you or I are definitely not invited to this safehaven.
I agree on that. Not totally clear. I don't see where you've said it flat out but I gather we are mostly in agreement. My specialty was Uranium fueled PWRs. (Pressurized Water Reactors) and I honestly haven't been paying much attention to new developments in the industry since I retired. I will do some reading and get back to you. .
To clarify. I'm not technically a "Nuclear Engineer" by title. I was an Electronics Tech and Nuclear Reactor Operator in the Navy's Nuclear Engineering program. Engineers go through a conventional 4 year college program, get their sheep skin and become Officers. Nuclear Reactor Operators (after being certified as Electronics Techs) go through an abbreviated program where we go through the same coursework as the Engineers insofar as Sciences, Engineering, Math, Chemistry and Physics but we skip out on things like English and Humanities so we don't get the sheep skin. (Quite a few colleges do give credits for the work but one has to complete the English and Humanities and so forth on their own time.) A big difference is level of difficulty. The Engineers have it easy. Reactor Operators [ROs] (and MMs/EMs) have to pass an IQ test (they don't call it that, but that's what it is) to get into the program. We have to complete all course work in 6 months (as opposed to 4 years) and score no less than a 3.0 (on a 4.0 scale) on every test and oral board. It's MEANT to be hard as hell. The normal NUC Power School attrition rate is 50% - by design. . There are also MMs (Machinist Mates aka Mechanics) and EMs (Electricians Mates aka Electricians) that go through the same Nuclear training program. A small number of MMs are culled out to become ELTs (Engineering Laboratory Technicians) who handle the Radiological and Chemistry jobs. All these people go through the same training program as ROs except of course that they get certified as Mechanics and Electricians before moving on to the Nuclear part of their training. . After all that the Engineers/ROs/MMs/EMs come together at a live operating training plant and all of them must be fully Qualified and Certified within 6 months. That phase is 100% self study with periodic exams and many many oral boards. .
I think maybe you're a bit confused about motivations. It's not about resisting change, it's about maximizing profits. First some background though. A few years ago (thus I dunno where my notes are anymore) myself, a mathematician and a few other interested parties go together and calculated to total cost (for life of the plants) to build/operate/dismantle a Nuclear plant and a Solar plant of similar capacity. We then calculated the total outputs for the lives of the plants to determine the cost/watt over their lifetimes. All said and done, Solar cost a little over 8x more than Nuclear (per watt produced). The energy industry is corporations and they require investors to do anything. How many investors are going to put in 8x as much now for the same return later? Few (or no) willing investors is why solar plants don't happen without gov't subsidies.... So, whether you know it or not, solar plants (and probably the panels on the guy down the streets house) are paid for with tax dollars. Then the corporations and their investors get the profits. Fossil fuel plants are cheaper and more profitable than either of the above. Also they go up much faster so the returns start sooner. Relatively easy to find investors for Fossil fuel plants. ~ Don't take that as I'm against Solar. I am not. It's the cleanest power I can think of. The problem is people seem to think Solar is free when in reality it's probably the most expensive energy source there is.
I think you are definitely confused: my analysis went to show the interest, as always... What kind of investors? European, longer-term, strategic thinking. Not American, sadly...
@gorski: Actually, Bill Gates has made a substantial investment in Nuclear power. See here: http://terrapower.com/ If they achieve their goal, it will revolutionize the Nuclear industry, because their reactors will be able to run on spent nuclear fuel. And that eliminates (or defers) the problem of waste storage. Now, before anybody brings up fukishima or Chernoybl, remember that those reactors were designed and built using 1960's technology. Advances have been made in systems design as well as materials science that not only make these gen III and gen IV reactors possible, it also means that they can run safely for up to 75 years. It seems that Japan has no choice but to look to Nuclear energy to satisfy their voracious appetite for electric power. And with a 'Zero' carbon footprint, these reactors may very well be the only realistic means to provide power without adversely affecting the environment. @PCBONEZ: Please take a look at the papers that Terra power is touting. And please let us know if it makes sense to you.
What I referred to, Michaela, is the difference between two forms of Capitalism, short-termist (Anglo-American model) and longer-term model (EU), where one doesn't have to defend one's position every 3 months and keep producing profits beyond measure all the time, regardless of the longer term outcomes. Banks are (at least were) differently geared in the EU, too. Their loans reflected this quite well. The state (at least used to) supports this vision of business and longer term investment, also. So, individual investment is one thing but overall - see "The state we're in" by Will Hutton, for instance. I have a nasty feeling that nuclear might not be the right kind of answer, given our flawed nature in Capitalism. Also, I always see military complex involved in it, spent fuel built into the shells of de facto radioactive, rather hard, vehemently penetrating missiles (now everywhere around the world, including Adriatic sea, dumped when NATO was at war with Serbia, so going back to their bases the bombers would dump their unspent load into the sea, blissfully unmindful, rather than risk themselves by landing it, so nowadays we are seeing certain changes, shall we say, in the area, which are sickening...). So, we are being played with "nuclear", I fear, at every turn. Germany wants to go nuclear free - they debate it, plan it, then execute it. And that is how it's supposed to be. Longer term, not just right now, right here, show me the money, gimme the power... Oych...
As clearly evident by the single sentence I quoted I was responding to one line of what you said. Not the entire post. I'm not going to explain how corporations work. That's a bit too far OT.
I'm having the same problem with Terra Power's proposal as I am with those for the Thorium Salt reactors you asked about earlier. The information reads like advertising brochures and is sorely lacking in technical details. Terra Power appears the be close to a final design but they leave out too many details for me to know if I like it. More correctly, for me to guess if the NRC will approve it or not. (What I think doesn't really matter.) Terra Power's design (from what I can see of it) does look feasible. Thorium Salt camp doesn't appear to have even settled on a design. Their stuff reads like: "We could do 'this' or 'this' or 'this'." (There are some experimental reactors operating but nothing commercial yet.) It looks to me like they have a lot of hurdles to overcome before they have a prayer of NRC approval for a commercial plant. I would say this one is 'possibly feasible' so long as they go with a lower operating temperature than they are touting. To get the temps they want new developments in materials are going to have to come about first. (At least two experimental plants are trying out new metal alloys already. Not everyone is regulated by the NRC.) The associated chemical plant scares the hell out of me. - Mucho safety concerns. I will mention some specific thoughts. ~~~~ Terra Power (Liquid Sodium cooled Fast reactor) - The drawings/discussion do not show me how they are pumping the liquid sodium coolant. If they are using mechanical pumps that could be an Achilles heel. Mechanical pumps have problems with reliability and longevity pumping liquid metal. The Navy tried a sodium cooled plant back in the 1950's (S2G, Seawolf) and discarded the design it in favor of PWRs. (Note: A land based plant is not going to have the same concerns as a ship based plant so the Navy's decision has no bearing on Terra Power's overall design. The point is there is some operating history with these in a 'production' environment.) The S2G pumps were EMP (Electro-Magnetic Pumps) with no moving parts and that design feature worked fine. - Plants already exist that can use the same spent fuel - so is there a real need for this design? On that. That those other plants CAN use the same fuel does not mean it is economically desirable to do so. (IOW, other fuels may be more profitable in those plants making Terra Power's design a more attractive option.) - They say "Waste Reprocessing = None" - That's a bit of a fib. It implies no waste and that isn't true. Presumably they are referring only to the fuel itself and ignoring the overall structures (building and plant components) at EOL. If they aren't going to reprocess the spent fuel then it requires disposal. There are always structural components that become radioactive due to long term exposure. They require reprocessing or disposal. It also suggests they plan to follow one of the industries very bad habits and simply abandon the thing when it is no longer useful. And on the economic front: Re-prosessable fuel at EOL is actually an asset because it can be sold to offset the costs of dismantling the plant. - Fast reactors have issues with corrosion (and/or breakdown) of core materials. In plain English the neutrons are at such high energy they tear things up. There have been a number of experimental Fast reactors but (to my knowledge) thus far none have been deemed commercially viable due to the core materials problem. IIRC (didn't look) there have been some Fast-Breeders but their intention isn't power to a grid so essentially OT here. It's intirely possible a suitable material has been found but if it has Terra Power makes no mention of it. (The S2G submarine plant mentioned earlier used a Fast core modified to be a Thermal core by installing moderators in/around the core. - Terra Power might be doing that too but if they are they don't say so.) Fast cores also require a great deal more shielding than Thermal cores. (Fun Fact) The Seawolf was nick-named "The Blue Cloud" because during plant operation Fast neutron leakage into the surrounding seawater caused the seawater to glow blue. - Ah, there was much more shielding between the plant and the people spaces than there was between the plant and the ocean. And, they don't build them that way anymore. - So, the myth about NUC plants glowing in the dark isn't really a myth. At least it wasn't in the 1950's. ~~~~ Thorium Salt Plants (Liquid Fuel) (Designs not settled) - Salt + metal + heat = bad (not impossible but problematic) There will be corrosion issues and problems with materials plating out where you don't want them. Some of these won't be known until it's actually tried and has some operating history. - Similar concerns (questions really) about the pumps they intend to use. - They have yet to find a material to contain the core that can handle the chemical environment -and- the temperatures they want to achieve. (The higher temperatures improve efficiency. One of the basic reasons for this kind of plant over some other type.) They are proposing composites in place of metals. A core encased in plastic doesn't give me a warm fuzzy and I don't think it will give the NRC a warm fussy either. IOW, I don't think the NRC would ever approve such a design. That said, a plant designed for lower temps compatible with existing metals is feasible now but the efficiency won't be so glorious. - In conventional plants the solid fission products (by-products) are held (trapped) in the fuel cells for the life of the core. The Thorium Salt design intends to continually remove these by-products. - That's a HUGE deal. They try to pass it off as a good thing but I don't agree. (Good for investors. - Yeah. Good for the public & safety. - Nope.) It requires a large very radioactive very complex multi-function chemical processing plant off to the side of the power plant. I have a LOT of issues with that idea. It means a continual need to dispose of radioactive by-product waste. (More chances for error. Sooner and continual storage issues. More frequent movements of RAD waste and if using trucks more chance of a radiological traffic accident.) It will need routine and periodic maintenance. (More chances for error. More instances of the system being opened up.) A large amount of additional piping and equipment. (More places for a defect in design or materials. More possible points of failure.) It will be highly radioactive so much of the maintenance must be done using robotics. (Which adds complexity, chance of error, and more points of failure.) For some maintenance jobs (any robots can't handle) they will likely employ Sponges. Sponges are people that get paid big $$ to "burn themselves out". They use up their allowed lifetime dose in a short time after which they are legally unemployable in the industry. Since they aren't around for long they don't get great training and some don't care much about the quality of their work because they will only be there a short time. - Some of the proposals involve the liquid fuel having a positive temperature coefficient of reactivity. I would never EVER say yes to a LIQUID fuel with a POSITIVE temperature coefficient of reactivity. - That is ridiculously dangerous in the event of a leak or spill. (The spilled material could go supercritical all by itself.) The majority propose a negative temperature coefficient of reactivity. - GOOD IDEA. ~~~~ That's my take after an extensive 1 day of research in my spare time. Don't expect perfection. ~~~~ And just an industry terminology note. We in the trade laugh our asses off when someone on a TV show or movie says something like: "OMG!! IT'S GOING CRITICAL!!! RUN! RUN!" Critical = Power level is constant. Stable. Not changing. Steady-state. Supercritical = Power level is going up. (Does not imply how quickly.) Subcritical = (Situational) Power level is going down. -or- Power is below detectable levels. .
PCB, you are definitely confused... And no, I won't try to explain to you how corporations operate in today's capitalist context...
Says the Philosopher to to one with real world experience in the power generation and manufacturing industries.
Approximately time 12:50 thru 13:10 "Clean Technology .......renewable energy ..... which is fundamental....... has almost no private financing." Where have we heard that before? @ gorski Thanks for reinforcing my point -- right out of a Professor of Economics's mouth.
You understand nothing - which can be seen by your stance on the issue at hand and how you "argue" who has whom in the pocket etc. - this video was to debunk right-wing capitalist myths i.e. to prove that 1) corporations are not exactly what they seem to be, esp. when they attack the state, as if "it is in the way" when in fact they need it badly and 2) those with established foot in the door of the system have every reason to prevent any changes to their monopolies etc., plus 3) neo-lib and even classical lib "theory" has no real merit - it's a big sham... P.S. My solar panels would have been paid in tax Euros...
The catch is that throughout that natural cycle CO2 ppm has always been tracking global surface temp. anomaly. That is no longer the case. Check the NAS final report and other sources for details.