The Department of Energy won’t publish its draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Versatile Test Reactor (VTR) until mid-December...
The Department of Energy won’t publish its draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Versatile Test Reactor (VTR) until mid-December...
36 comments:
Can we get back to critical race theory at the labs? This will most likely be the most important issue that the labs face. There is some talk about radically transforming federally run institutes as a starting point for society. This means mandatory racial representation in management, workforce, pay and out come. Trust me this is coming.
Was their any doubt about the decision? Why does the department continue to waste money on nuclear? One would think that after their waste of billions on MOX that the DOE would stop but I guess not. And the Hanford up will now cost billions more and take longer.
INL once had over 50 operational reactors. It seems fitting that with today’s DOE and DNFSB bureaucrats running the show that $5B will only purchase the plans for one. Once again, Bechtel wins, and the American taxpayer loses. When will we every break that mold?
seems fitting that with today’s DOE and DNFSB bureaucrats running the show that $5B will only purchase the plans for one. Once again, Bechtel wins, and the American taxpayer loses. When will we every break that mold?
11/21/2020 7:39 AM
Still obsessed with Bechtel I see. This is actually the work Bechtel is meant to do. They have built most of the power reactors in the US. The interesting part is who is designing the reactor. Hitachi.
Can we get back to critical race theory at the labs?
11/20/2020 3:27 PM
Hey Ivan, crawl back under your rock. We are much more concerned about critical assemblies.
INEL is the right choice. Bechtel is the right contractor. It is what both of them do.
5:20...and with nearly 50 years of failure behind them. It may be what they claim to “do”, but they actually don “do” anything but fleece the taxpayer and close reactors.
5:20...and with nearly 50 years of failure behind them....
While this is patently false will respect to reactor construction and Generator replacement, I would rather focus on your obsession. Bechtel is gone. Triad is here. Spend more time focusing on the management team currently in power. We have moved on.
9:15 do I need to point out that TRIAD is responsible for exactly zero reactors? So, while you may have your head placed firmly up their backsides, that fact has nothing to do with INL’s plans for a new test reactor.
"A team led by Bechtel National and including GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy and TerraPower is in contract negotiations with Battelle Energy Alliance for the design and build phase of the VTR."
So Battelle Energy Alliance (running INL) will team with Bechtel and the others to do the work. Bechtel is not "gone" and Triad or LANL has absolutely nothing to do with it. Some LANL person was triggered by mention of Bechtel.
Why does America need a breeder reactor?
Why does it not?
Why does it not?
11/27/2020 5:24 PM
Why should we not send a giraffe to Mars? Same mindset.
Yeah, make a nonsense statement rather than answer the question, and claim it is the "same mindset." Very intelligent response.
Yeah, make a nonsense statement rather than answer the question, and claim it is the "same mindset." Very intelligent response.
11/29/2020 5:30 PM
I think you misunderstood the point. The poser 11/27/2020 5:24 PM actually made a nonsense statement, to point out the absurdity to it the third poster replied with the equally absurd question. You see it is the burden of of 5:24PM to make an argument of why the US needs a breeder reactor (Which it does not). If you go by the logic of "why not" than any other argument using this logic works as well no matter how absurd. The first poster is simply asking a question as to why the US needs a breeder reactor, which is a real question. The next poster saying "why not" is making the nonsense statement. Perhaps the second poster did not understand that but the third poster was trying to show why is statement was nonsense by being clever. I guess that did not work so it is now having to be spelled out.
Not everything that someone thinks is "not needed" is not worth doing.
Not everything that someone thinks is "not needed" is not worth doing.
12/01/2020 5:24 PM
However in many cases it is in fact not worth doing. Take this thread for instance, so far there has not been any reason given for why one needs a breeder reactor. Here is a deal, if you can provide a reason than others will respond with overwhelming force why we do not need one. The onus is on you first to give a reason.
The onus is on you first to give a reason.
12/02/2020 8:58 AM
Energy production to sustain civilization by fossil fuel is a delta function in history.
Conservation of energy eliminates renewable energy as a replacement for fossil fuel.
Controlled nuclear fusion by magnetic or inertial confinement has been ruled out by decades of experimentation.
The laws of physics active in the alternate universe of "Star Wars" and "Star Trek" are fictitious.
The population of Earth will continue to exponentiation until limited by potable water (simple logistics).
Conversion of sea water to potable water is limited by energy sources.
Need more? (Think)
"Energy production to sustain civilization by fossil fuel is a delta function in history."
Not a delta function, 160 years with at least 150-250 or more years and as much as 400+ if you use coal. Pollution is the issue with fossil fuel. (By the way peak oil is nonsense, no even believes this idea anymore).
"Conservation of energy eliminates renewable energy as a replacement for fossil fuel."
Yes that is why are thinking about solar, green energy or just living more simply with far less fossil fuel. Green new deal stuff all non nuclear.
"Controlled nuclear fusion by magnetic or inertial confinement has been ruled out by decades of experimentation. "
Agreed but nobody ever thought this was a actually viable approach anyway. As such it was was never really ruled in.
"The laws of physics active in the alternate universe of "Star Wars" and "Star Trek" are fictitious."
??? What is your point?
"The population of Earth will continue to exponentiation until limited by potable water (simple logistics)."
False the populations are projected to saturate. Humans are not growing exponentially in fact global fertility rates have been dropping for some time. Look at Europe and the US once it reaches a certain stage of wealth people have less than two kids each. China will soon be in that boat, India, and so on. Cat ladies have 1.8 kids. In a few hundred years we will be running out of people.
There will never be a crisis with potable water that one needs a breeder reactor. The world population will slow and stops growing by 2100 with only about 10.1 billion people. We are already at 7.7 billion.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/17/worlds-population-is-projected-to-nearly-stop-growing-by-the-end-of-the-century/
"Conversion of sea water to potable water is limited by energy sources"
Same issue as the previous one. Economists have projected a saturation and followed by a decline in the Human population. There is no exponential growth of the human population right now and there has not been one for at least 70 years, it is a linear increase right now and the slope is projected to decrease . (How did you come up with exponential human growth this?) The idea of exponential growth of humans using up all the water does not fit with any demographic projection especially since we no longer have exponential human population growth.
In other words your idea that we need a breeder reactor because of exponential human is based on a false premise, which is exponential human growth. How you can to such a conclusion is bizarre since there are no experts in demography that predict such a human growth.
I will give you some credit for trying but the assertion still stands. But the idea that we should potentially irradiate large chunks of the planet with radioactive waste so that we can make freshwater form seawater for 100 billion people does not sound like a good idea, paticulary when we are not that far from a human population saturation as it is.
"The laws of physics active in the alternate universe of "Star Wars" and "Star Trek" are fictitious."
Like the fictitious laws of exponential human population growth?
https://ourworldindata.org/future-population-growth
Here is a hint if you look at the earths population over time and take its derivative (you know dP/dt) you will see that it is not exponential and has not been for some time. (Fun fact the derivative of an exponential is an exponential!). The annual growth rate of earth was 2.1% in 1968 it is now 1.08%. The projection is 0.1% in 2100. No need to worry about an exponential human growth.
12/03/2020 8:07 PM
Pretty dumb. You are not familiar with rabbits breeding and nuclear reactions. It is exponential it has to be. Two people make two people that make two people that make two people, until all the the resources are gone. I was just listening to NPR talking about lynx and deer in Canada, exponential growth followed by die off. Education try it.
Apparently 8:28 does not understand the concept of exponential growth. Hint, if a population grows by x% every year, that growth is exponential. I worry more about the lack of knowledge of basic calculus than I do about overpopulation. A world full of idiots cannot survive.
Hint, if a population grows by x% every year, that growth is exponential
12/04/2020 7:31 PM
You have to be troll.
Yes, that is why it was 2.1% in 1968 and it is now it 1.08% in 2019. Calculus!!! It has to be the same every year to be exponential function. You are a parody of your own post. I get you do not understand what a derivative of a function is (hint it is related something called calculus). As they say "Come on man". Are you a new hire by chance?
12/04/2020 7:31 PM
You might want to look at the data on
https://ourworldindata.org/future-population-growth
which clearly shows that human populution is not showing exponential growth precicsly becuse x% is changing is changing every year. It appears that you are the one that does understand what exponential growth is.
Look, an exponential function is one in which the rate of change of the function is proportional to the value of the function. End of story. d/dt f(x) = x f(x). It only represents "exponential growth" in any population if no one dies. Everyone dies.
" people make two people that make two people that make two people"
That would not be any growth at all just a study number of people, not exponential growth. What on earth is going on with this thread?
Back to 12/02/2020 9:05 PM, which argued we need breeder reactors because of exponential human growth. Now that that has been debunked can the poster provide another argument?
Look, an exponential function is one in which the rate of change of the function is proportional to the value of the function. End of story. d/dt f(x) = x f(x). It only represents "exponential growth" in any population if no one dies. Everyone dies.
12/05/2020 5:17 PM
Good point. The other issue that the percent increase is going down every year, while for an exponential it would be the same every year.
Human life requires water pure enough for consumption. Purifying Earth's polluted rivers and desalinating the oceans requires power. Therefore, regardless of other factors such as promiscuity or the availability of nuclear weapons, human population growth is ultimately limited by energy resources. Solar energy and wind power are limited by the surface area of the land masses on earth. Nuclear energy is limited by the amount of uranium ore (and the energy needed to mine and refine and extract 235), even if from ground-up granite, as once suggested by Freeman Dyson. Fusion energy is limited by the amount of heavy water, and the energy required to extract it from the oceans. Maybe breeder reactors offer the energy needed to sustain human population growth into the distant future. Personally, I'm betting that it won't be needed, because nuclear warfare will bring an early end to human history. It is clear that humankind has lost the genetic material incorporating the survival gene; they won't even do things as simple as wearing a mask to protect themselves from plague -- surely they're incapable of the complex reasoning required to ensure the survival of the species.
5:17, the “growth” of a population is the births minus the deaths. Once again, basic arithmetic isn’t exactly your strong suit, is it?
"Therefore, regardless of other factors such as promiscuity or the availability of nuclear weapons, human population growth is ultimately limited by energy resource"
Come on man, there is no predictions for this. The percentage of birth rates is is falling as shown in the various links. People are having less kids. It is not like the old days where people had 8 kids. We are at 7.2 billion we are going to reach saturation at 10 billion and then decline. A better prediction is that other things like solar and wind power will suffice. It is true that the surface of the earth is limited we are close to human population saturation so we should way more than enough. You keep getting stuck on this idea of exponential human growth which is simply not happening and has not been happening for some time.
"Maybe breeder reactors offer the energy needed to sustain human population growth into the distant future"
There is no sustained human population growth after 2100, and it starts to saturate in 2050.
"It is clear that humankind has lost the genetic material incorporating the survival gene; they won't even do things as simple as wearing a mask to protect themselves from plague "
Evolution has proven to be way more complex than you think, it is not just one rate equation but many rate equations with many non-linearties. Also saying we have lost "genetic material incorporating the survival gene" is just a out and out nonsense statement that has no meaning.
"Personally, I'm betting that it won't be needed, because nuclear warfare will bring an early end to human history."
That is not even possible, if you exploded every bomb in the world right now we have on major cities, it would not wipe out our cities, nor end humanity. It would kill lots of people but 90% or more of humanity would survive, it might slow progress somewhat on the short term like 20-50 years.
"as once suggested by Freeman Dyson."
Freeman Dyson also had a lot of crazy ideas or ideas that had already been around for some time. His real contribution is in mathematics, his other stuff may be fun to read but is not serious nor was much of it ever peered reviewed.
Does anybody actually know math on this blog?
"to sustain human population growth into the distant future. Personally, I'm betting that it won't be needed, because nuclear warfare will bring an early end to human history."
Oddly enough it could actually have the opposite effect. People in poorer/less industrialized countries have more kids. If you had a nuclear war that killed 10-15% of humanity but strongly reduced the industrialization of the world than you have 6 billion people with fertility rates closer to that of 30s so in one generation you would end up with way more people than if there was not a war. Of course other factors could come into play.
5:17, the “growth” of a population is the births minus the deaths. Once again, basic arithmetic isn’t exactly your strong suit, is it?
12/06/2020 11:01 AM
You are the same guy who thinks 2.1% = 1.08%. We have gone over this point over and over and over and over, an exponential has to have the same percentage growth which human population does not have. There is no a single demographer that says human population is growing exponentially.
https://ourworldindata.org/future-population-growth
Look at the first graph, please do this. It clearly shows that human population is not currently growing exponentially and is not expected to in the future and the annual growth rate is decreasing every year now and will be close to 0 in 2100. Please look at the graph and everything will be clear.
We have too many people right now for this planet to sustain the human population. Perhaps god created the virus as a warning to the human race? Clean up your act!
"We have too many people right now for this planet to sustain the human population."
The current human population can be sustained even at 10 billion it can be sustained with current resource, technology and advancing technologies. The issue is global warming and pollution. Which can reduce quality of life, mass migrations, etc but will not cause a huge population crash. (Expect some very low probability of certain feed back loops in weather). There is certainly good reason to push for clean/green energy and reduce emissions but the idea that global warming is going to wipe out humanity is nonsense and even climate scientists do not say anything like this.
As for the virus, not to downplay it but killing off at most 1% of the society where largest number of the victims are over the age of 80 is not going have any effect on the human population whatsoever. Heck even the 1918 flu did not create much a drop on the overall population.
The idea that God is creating viruses to send us a message is bit of odd one if you consider that God must have really hated people
before 1900 when viruses and germs killed way high percent of the population then today. Maybe God is telling us the opposite," make more people and I will create less sickness". I am kidding of course but my point is that such a statement God making virus to enact judgment on humanity is meaningless.
Again there is a real lack of understandings of math and statistics. I understand the in the general society but it seems a bit odd to see this on a blog dedicated to the NNSA labs. Even the simplistic back of the envelope calculations looking at multiplication or low level statistics will give you enough insight on a topic before you make a sweeping statement that is just wrong.
12/06/2020 12:23 PM,12/06/2020 12:23 PM,Hint: Check your assumptions, and do the logistics for the top predator.
Oh, please. Is this LLNL blog now a religion blog?
Post a Comment