bill gates and warren buffet building nuclear reactor in Wyoming

[R-T-B]

The Nuclear Batterys in question are not Spaceborne Reactors but a store of shielded Radioactive Plutonium which by natural decay produces heat which is converted into useful Electricty.

I was not talking about RTGs dorset.

 

[claes]

Pretty sure they aren't taking into consideration the fact that spent uranium can be reused in breeder reactors or that other heavy metals can be used like thorium. U-235/U-238 is the preferred fuel because, sadly, it's the only thing that will make it through the mountain of government regulations when commissioning a new reactor.

The IAEA/OECD reports take this into account in their calculations. They are the mouthpieces of the industry after all

As for the rest, exciting technology that we should invest in but still, need proof of concept, regulatory overhaul, investment, public buy-in, and then for the things to actually be built. We’re talking decades.

 

[Deleted member 24505]

Reactors should be Computer managed, not human as it's only us that make mistakes, ala three mile island, chernobyl, windscale.

 

[the54thvoid]

Reactors should be Computer managed, not human as it's only us that make mistakes, ala three mile island, chernobyl, windscale.

Hmm. This innocent story suggests othewrwise:

Robot vacuum cleaner escapes from Cambridge Travelodge

The automated vacuum device ignores a hotel door's threshold and makes a break for freedom.

www.bbc.co.uk

It doesn't start with Skynet; the AI revolution has more humble beginnings.

But seriously, Human oversight is still needed to monitor automated systems of such importance. An errant robo-vacuum is comedy. A glitch in software operating a hazardous process isn't remotely chuckle-worthy. As long as we have bad actors and foreign meddling, software-based systems are subject to corruption.

 

[Deleted member 24505]

Hmm. This innocent story suggests othewrwise:

Robot vacuum cleaner escapes from Cambridge Travelodge

The automated vacuum device ignores a hotel door's threshold and makes a break for freedom.

www.bbc.co.uk

It doesn't start with Skynet; the AI revolution has more humble beginnings.

But seriously, Human oversight is still needed to monitor automated systems of such importance. An errant robo-vacuum is comedy. A glitch in software operating a hazardous process isn't remotely chuckle-worthy. As long as we have bad actors and foreign meddling, software-based systems are subject to corruption.

Maybe they could be Human managed, but with a computer monitored overide for bad decisions or mistakes. Ie if something needed to be done but the humans missed it, the computer would overide and make the changes.

 

[Vayra86]

Maybe they could be Human managed, but with a computer monitored overide for bad decisions or mistakes. Ie if something needed to be done but the humans missed it, the computer would overide and make the changes.

In the end safety is gained by good / tested design, and experienced crews. You can't design security perfectly until you know 100% of all the science surrounding that safety. We don't know 100%. Close, but not 100%.

The meltdown in Chernobyl is the perfect example of why any system, no matter how we design it, is based on current knowledge and we simply don't know what we don't know. So you can't model it. Its why our current climate models need adaptation all the time, and even science itself is just the current state of affairs based on everything we know up to this point.

Chernobyl really didn't just fail because of human action, it failed because of a bad personal interpretation of the design. If a different set of brains was at the helm that night, things could have happened differently. Another reason it failed was because of tunnel vision in an autocratic system. But at its core was still a design mistake. Imagine if a computer was the final word in that situation: it would have simply crashed into the same iceberg without the option for human intervention.

Did you see the movie 'Don't look up' ? It describes a similar problem with science, safety and control, and trying to leave it up to computers. Worth a look!

 

[Deleted member 24505]

In the end safety is gained by good / tested design, and experienced crews. You can't design security perfectly until you know 100% of all the science surrounding that safety. We don't know 100%. Close, but not 100%.

The meltdown in Chernobyl is the perfect example of why any system, no matter how we design it, is based on current knowledge and we simply don't know what we don't know. So you can't model it. Its why our current climate models need adaptation all the time, and even science itself is just the current state of affairs based on everything we know up to this point.

Chernobyl really didn't just fail because of human action, it failed because of a bad personal interpretation of the design. If a different set of brains was at the helm that night, things could have happened differently. Another reason it failed was because of tunnel vision in an autocratic system. But at its core was still a design mistake. Imagine if a computer was the final word in that situation: it would have simply crashed into the same iceberg without the option for human intervention.

Did you see the movie 'Don't look up' ? It describes a similar problem with science, safety and control, and trying to leave it up to computers. Worth a look!

Chernobyl was human error combined with flawed design, ie the rods. There is no doubt the crew made mistakes. When it should have been shut down as they had gone too far, it wasn't because of the rush to get the test completed. In the USSR there was a fair few of the same designed reactor, none of which melted down, which shows it was mostly human error, though that type of reactor at the time was not the best.

I still believe nuclear is the best way to achieve high output with the least impact on the enviroment.

 

[lexluthermiester]

I still believe nuclear is the best way to achieve high output with the least impact on the environment.

This, as long as it's done right...

 

[cst1992]

I hope this new reactor isn't being built so as to enable the RTX 6090Ti to consume 2000W of power.

We need to bring our power consumption under control. That is one of the key requirements for sustainability and for survival of humans as a species.

 

[Deleted member 24505]

Just got to remember, cooling cooling cooling. I'm gonna have a read up on this molten salt cooling thing.

 

[lexluthermiester]

2000W of power.

That would never happen. Electrical load limits in building code for a wall socket is 1500w total power draw. While this is specific to the USA, most of the world general sticks right around those values for safety reasons.

 

[Shrek]

I thought 20A was possible in the US = 2400W

And the British have 13A on 240V = 3000W

 

[lexluthermiester]

I thought 20A was possible in the US = 2400W

Not through a residential general purpose wall socket. The limit everywhere in the US is 1500W. Special use sockets can go as high as 3000W, but that is usually 220v

And the British have 13A on 240V = 3000W

That's what inline fuses are rated for. However, AC voltage works differently at 230v than at 110v in the US. It's complicated and I'm not going into the details here. Everyone has a different safety standard. That's just how it goes, but most of the world is on the 120V 60hz type of system and generally have a 1500w to 2000w power limit in a residential socket.

 

[Deleted member 24505]

We know the volts – the UK uses 230V (+/- 10 percent) – and let's limit Amps to 13 as that's the highest-rated fuse you'll find in a plug, including in multiway adapters. So, you can connect devices which use up to 2990W to a single UK mains socket without overloading. so it is nigh on 3000w in the UK
https://www.techadvisor.com/feature/digital-home/what-is-limit-of-13a-socket-3663653/

 

[R-T-B]

Reactors should be Computer managed, not human as it's only us that make mistakes, ala three mile island, chernobyl, windscale.

Fun fact: Chernobyls computer management played a role in the disaster because it was being fed bad input from sensors and making bad decisions. This isn't well known because it wasn't in the HBO series, but it's true. By the time they realized what the computer was doing, they had far bigger concerns from compounding issues from the human side, but it wasn't helping things at all.

Not through a residential general purpose wall socket.

New build code often calls for 20A wall sockets in many parts of the home, actually. They look like this:

Leviton 20 Amp 125-Volt Duplex Self-Test Slim GFCI Outlet, White (4-Pack) M42-GFNT2-04W - The Home Depot

Peace of mind, all the time. The SmartlockPro Self-Test GFCI tests itself even if you forget. Designed to meet the latest UL standard for auto-monitoring (self-test) our complete line of self-test GFCI's

www.homedepot.com

 

[Deleted member 24505]

Fun fact: Chernobyls computer management played a role in the disaster because it was being fed bad input from sensors and making bad decisions. This isn't well known because it wasn't in the HBO series, but it's true. By the time they realized what the computer was doing, they had far bigger concerns from compounding issues from the human side, but it wasn't helping things at all.


New build code often calls for 20A wall sockets in many parts of the home, actually. They look like this:

Leviton 20 Amp 125-Volt Duplex Self-Test Slim GFCI Outlet, White (4-Pack) M42-GFNT2-04W - The Home Depot

Peace of mind, all the time. The SmartlockPro Self-Test GFCI tests itself even if you forget. Designed to meet the latest UL standard for auto-monitoring (self-test) our complete line of self-test GFCI's

www.homedepot.com

What happened was near enough like steering over compensation. Rods too far in, power too low, oh crap then too far out, power too high, then boom when replacing them. I guess the power indications they where been shown played a part in it.

 

[Shrek]

Boom because the ends of the rods were graphite, a moderator.

 

[R-T-B]

I'm well aware guys. I was just commenting that it's not impossible for a computer to make mistakes when its sensors are designed and installed by humans.

 

[lexluthermiester]

New build code often calls for 20A wall sockets in many parts of the home, actually. They look like this:

Leviton 20 Amp 125-Volt Duplex Self-Test Slim GFCI Outlet, White (4-Pack) M42-GFNT2-04W - The Home Depot

Peace of mind, all the time. The SmartlockPro Self-Test GFCI tests itself even if you forget. Designed to meet the latest UL standard for auto-monitoring (self-test) our complete line of self-test GFCI's

www.homedepot.com

As I understand things, this is only in parts of the home where water hazards are possible, like the bathroom, kitchen and laundry rooms. Common rooms where water is not expected still have the 1500w standard, at least where I live. It does vary a little from state to state.

 

[Deleted member 24505]

I'm well aware guys. I was just commenting that it's not impossible for a computer to make mistakes when its sensors are designed and installed by humans.

If it is getting wrong data of course, not disagreeing with you

 

[looniam]

As I understand things, this is only in parts of the home where water hazards are possible, like the bathroom, kitchen and laundry rooms. Common rooms where water is not expected still have the 1500w standard, at least where I live. It does vary a little from state to state.

that is GFI in kitchen/bathroom. 20 amps/12gauge wire is standard local code anymore. the trick is all lightning fixtures need to be on a seperate circuit cuz tiny wires can be a fire hazard.

 

[Deleted member 24505]

In the UK even the kitchen can have normal 13A sockets, a lot of high amp kitchen appliances exist. Most bathrooms in the UK don't have any sockets, if you're lucky there might be a shaver socket, that will not take a 13A plug.

 

[lexluthermiester]

that is GFI in kitchen/bathroom. 20 amps/12gauge wire is standard local code anymore. the trick is all lightning fixtures need to be on a seperate circuit cuz tiny wires can be a fire hazard.

Fair enough. Didn't know that.

 

[dorsetknob]

In UK
1.0mm twin + Earth rated for 5A (lighting ring main).
2.5mm twin + Earth rated for 15A (13A power Ring main).
6.0mm twin + Earth rated for 30A (Electrical Cooker point).
Voltage is nominally Rated as 240 Volt

in most of Europe its 220 Volt
most of continental US its 110 V

As i understand it its because of Distance from Supply Originally
in the US each town had its own power station and the voltage Drop on a 110v supply was deemed acceptable.
in Europe and UK Houses were further from power stations and the Volt drop was too much on 110v
220/240 V had a more acceptable Supply Volt Drop ( and thus was more efficient ).

Of Course this was set up before the National Grid was introduced ( and local step down substations ).

With the local area allready set up with their 110/220/240 V it was deemed too expensive to change the set up to a Global Standard
thats how i believe is the origion of our Respective Grids.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

New build code often calls for 20A wall sockets in many parts of the home, actually. They look like this:

Leviton 20 Amp 125-Volt Duplex Self-Test Slim GFCI Outlet, White (4-Pack) M42-GFNT2-04W - The Home Depot

Peace of mind, all the time. The SmartlockPro Self-Test GFCI tests itself even if you forget. Designed to meet the latest UL standard for auto-monitoring (self-test) our complete line of self-test GFCI's

www.homedepot.com

I live in new house (2021). Only 20 amp outlets are literally under the breaker panel. I asked for a 20 amp outlet to be installed by my computers and they put in a 15 amp.

I've seen 20 amp the most in hospitals where some machines require it. Newish RVs require a 30 amp.

that is GFI in kitchen/bathroom. 20 amps/12gauge wire is standard local code anymore. the trick is all lightning fixtures need to be on a seperate circuit cuz tiny wires can be a fire hazard.

Code is 14-gauge wire for lights and 12-gauge wire for outlets.

Just got to remember, cooling cooling cooling. I'm gonna have a read up on this molten salt cooling thing.

It's just liquid sodium coming into contact with the reactor instead of water. When water gets hot, it wants to phase change into steam which is a completely different animal and potentially dangerous. Sodium doesn't do that so it can get much, much hotter.

More info: https://natriumpower.com/

As the link says, the heat cycle (reactor) is 345 MWe while the electric generation/cooling cycle is 500 MWe. If the grid is consuming less than 345 MWe, the heat is stored in the reactor cycle until it is discharged into electricity at a rate of up to 500 MWe. If the reactor has a lot of stored heat and electric demand is low, the reactor can use the stored heat to supply the grid without firing up the reactor for potentially days. Even in cases where there is an emergency cut from the grid, current Gen 2 and most Gen 3+ reactors take all that energy from the reactor and vent it to the environment via their cooling loop. These natrium reactors will instead store most of it (if not all of it) so when the power plant is reconnected to the grid, it won't even have to start up the reactor for hours (depending on demand). Most of that gap is covered by the molten sodium where it is vented with water loops.



Nuclear power is the best path to cheaply mass produce hydrogen. The hotter the water is, the more willing the atoms are to separate.

https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review08/3_production_nuclear_energy_thomas_oconner.pdf

Very-High-Temperature Reactor (VHTR)

Very-High-Temperature Reactor (VHTR)

www.gen-4.org