AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:I would hardly call that a delacate job. It is nothing more than heat feedback. The same as any other fossil fuel power plant and it is a lot easier to control using microadjustments of the absorption rods. I ccould write a program to start from cold, bring it slowly up to temperature and then hold the ideal temperature through various power requirements probably in a day and certainly less than a week.
On 12/18/2025 2:06 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2025 13:49:00 -0600, Mark J cleary
<mcleary08@comcast.net> wrote:
On 12/18/2025 12:22 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/18/2025 12:09 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:Definitely a good thing and NE is a great source of power. The major
Thank goodness I've lived long enough to see this happening. I always >>>>> knew it would.
https://www.ans.org/news/2025-12-11/article-7613/nrc-proposes-rule- >>>>> changes-in-response-to-eo/
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Hey that IS good news!
Been waiting all my life. Maybe soon..
caution is cannot have a Chernobyl happen. If you read what went on and >>> the history is out of science fiction craziness what they did and did
not know. It is interesting history to read. Have to cover the basis on >>> the safety of the process.
Chernobyl was a completely different design from the US nukes.
https://www.businessinsider.com/chernobyl-meltdown-no-graphite-us-nuclear-reactors-2016-4?op=3d1
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1
Several books (I've read two) point to system/design
failures. In crisis, each person involved acted by the book.
The book, and the system, were flawed
For those interested, the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dRZQwL-2WTgA
offers a very understandable account of what went wrong at Chernobyl.
More interesting to me than the mistakes made is the absolute delicacy
of managing the control rods to counteract the many competing influences
on criticality of the reactor. The reactor weighs tens of tons, the
control rods perhaps a few tons. The criticality can change in
microseconds. The rods move in tens of seconds.
There's a very good reason nuclear power is thought of as
"baseline load only".
Thanks for reading,
On Thu Dec 18 22:45:49 2025 bp@www.zefox.net wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 12/18/2025 2:06 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:For those interested, the video at
On Thu, 18 Dec 2025 13:49:00 -0600, Mark J cleary
<mcleary08@comcast.net> wrote:
On 12/18/2025 12:22 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/18/2025 12:09 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:Definitely a good thing and NE is a great source of power. The major >>>>> caution is cannot have a Chernobyl happen. If you read what went on and >>>>> the history is out of science fiction craziness what they did and did >>>>> not know. It is interesting history to read. Have to cover the basis on >>>>> the safety of the process.
Thank goodness I've lived long enough to see this happening. I always >>>>>>> knew it would.
https://www.ans.org/news/2025-12-11/article-7613/nrc-proposes-rule- >>>>>>> changes-in-response-to-eo/
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Hey that IS good news!
Been waiting all my life. Maybe soon..
Chernobyl was a completely different design from the US nukes.
https://www.businessinsider.com/chernobyl-meltdown-no-graphite-us-nuclear-reactors-2016-4?op=1
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1
Several books (I've read two) point to system/design
failures. In crisis, each person involved acted by the book.
The book, and the system, were flawed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZQwL-2WTgA
offers a very understandable account of what went wrong at Chernobyl.
More interesting to me than the mistakes made is the absolute delicacy
of managing the control rods to counteract the many competing influences
on criticality of the reactor. The reactor weighs tens of tons, the
control rods perhaps a few tons. The criticality can change in
microseconds. The rods move in tens of seconds.
There's a very good reason nuclear power is thought of as
"baseline load only".
Thanks for reading,
I would hardly call that a delacate job. It is nothing more than heat feedback. The same as any other fossil fuel power plant and it is a lot easier to control using microadjustments of the absorption rods. I ccould write a program to start from cold, bring it slowly up to temperature and then hold the ideal temperature through various power requirements probably in a day and certainly less than a week.
I think that people do not understand just how simple a nuclear power plant is.
On 12/27/2025 1:30 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Thu Dec 18 22:45:49 2025 bp@www.zefox.net wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 12/18/2025 2:06 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:For those interested, the video at
On Thu, 18 Dec 2025 13:49:00 -0600, Mark J cleary
<mcleary08@comcast.net> wrote:
On 12/18/2025 12:22 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/18/2025 12:09 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:Definitely a good thing and NE is a great source of power. The major >>>>>> caution is cannot have a Chernobyl happen. If you read what went on and >>>>>> the history is out of science fiction craziness what they did and did >>>>>> not know. It is interesting history to read. Have to cover the basis on >>>>>> the safety of the process.
Thank goodness I've lived long enough to see this happening. I always >>>>>>>> knew it would.
https://www.ans.org/news/2025-12-11/article-7613/nrc-proposes-rule- >>>>>>>> changes-in-response-to-eo/
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Hey that IS good news!
Been waiting all my life. Maybe soon..
Chernobyl was a completely different design from the US nukes.
https://www.businessinsider.com/chernobyl-meltdown-no-graphite-us-nuclear-reactors-2016-4?op=1
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1
Several books (I've read two) point to system/design
failures. In crisis, each person involved acted by the book.
The book, and the system, were flawed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZQwL-2WTgA
offers a very understandable account of what went wrong at Chernobyl.
More interesting to me than the mistakes made is the absolute delicacy
of managing the control rods to counteract the many competing influences >>> on criticality of the reactor. The reactor weighs tens of tons, the
control rods perhaps a few tons. The criticality can change in
microseconds. The rods move in tens of seconds.
There's a very good reason nuclear power is thought of as
"baseline load only".
Thanks for reading,
I would hardly call that a delacate job. It is nothing more than heat feedback. The same as any other fossil fuel power plant and it is a lot easier to control using microadjustments of the absorption rods. I ccould write a program to start from cold, bring it slowly up to temperature and then hold the ideal temperature through various power requirements probably in a day and certainly less than a week.
I think that people do not understand just how simple a nuclear power plant is.
They are indeed simple in some ways.
But once scaled up, there are failure points; plumbing,
coolant pumps, coolant reservoirs which have both the usual >contamination/clogs and now radiation loving bacteria
biofilm mats, electronics both in sensors and servos, power
supply to controls and sensors, all the issues of wiring and
more. As approachable as any power source, but not uniquely
fail safe.
Thorium reactors show some promise on paper but the major
impediment is rarity.
Engineering advances with iterations, for example your basic
GM small block V8 engine which is largely as it was in 1955
but over roughly a hundred million iterations has been
refined to an astounding level of efficiency and durability
in the current GM LS.
https://www.speedwaymotors.com/the-toolbox/sbc-vs-ls-showdown-dimensions-for-swaps-weight-hp-specs/145796
Typical timeline for one aspect showing better understanding
over time:
https://tinyurl.com/25wsk48p
We just don't build enough nuclear plants to feed that
failure-improvement loop.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 01:29:34 |
| Calls: | 743 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| Messages: | 187,735 |