Sounds like a dietary problem, Hornetball.

 

Definitely. I just spit my food out, flushed my nasal passages with liquid and passed gas at the same time. Thanks!

 

UT Scientists Fuel Method for Cleaning up Nuclear Waste | The Alcalde

 

Some more linkies

General article on nuke power
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/1...sy-of-all-time

Thorium:
Is safe, green thorium power finally ready for prime time? | ExtremeTech

Bill Gates funded Thorium startup:
TerraPower

Deaths per TW-h for different energy sources:
Many Eyes : Deaths per TWh by energy sources

 

more Thorium goodness:

As thorium tests begin in Norway, the nuclear industry watches closely | SmartPlanet

 

It is nice to see nuclear making a come back. But remember that NIMBY is being replaced by BANANA in many places.

N - Not
I - In
M - My
B - Back
Y - Yard

B - Build
A - Abolutely
N -Nothing
A - Anywhere
N - Near
A - Anything

 

 

My soon-to-be neighbor, the stately Indian Point Energy Center looms majestically over the Hudson river:

 

do they just dump hot water into the river? or is closed cycle cooling?

not related to this thread specifically, but I found this article reading JasonC's article:Riding bikes harmful to female sexual health - SmartPlanet

bikers beware!

 

Sweet. Hoboken was way too convenient, now you get to commute properly. Too bad the subway doesn't need to be involved.

 

Yeah, it's a similar design to a lot of other PWRs located on large bodies of water. The tertiary "loop" is an open design, with water from the Hudson river cooling the condenser, which cools the secondary loop, which cools the steam generators, which cools the primary loop, which is the one that flows through the reactor.

Each unit (there are two) flows 840,000 gpm of river water, and while 4MWt sounds like a lot of heat, when you actually stand at the bank of the Hudson you get a real appreciation for just how big the river is and how trivial that amount of heat is. I'll put it this way- in winter, when the river starts to freeze, you don't see any difference at all downstream of the plant vs upstream.




Wide saddle, upright cruiser bars. Win.

 

Well, the missus works up north near Catskill, so this kind of splits the difference. About an hour drive for her, a little more than that on the Metro North Railroad for me. And living up there is downright cheap- you can rent a really nice 3br apartment for less than $2k/mo, so we'll be able to put more money away for the future.

 

Very practical, especially if she indeed turns out to be THE ONE. And for that money, you might even get a garage with the apartment. Turbo miata to follow soon after.

I often take the Harlem line into GCT on weekends, and it really doesn't suck - There's decent 4G all the way down, and minimal exposure to traffic.

This sounds terrifyingly similar to the arc of my life about 30 years ago. Worked out OK for me, but I suggest a 5-day tequila, mole and ether binge. Just because.

 

My girlfriend was once groped by Cliff Williams of AC/DC, in his own home, and reports that he's a terrible kisser.

She's the one.

 

Maybe the river size is the difference, they constructed a new supercritical coal plant in our service territory and they were not allowed to discharge into the river, even with cooling towers because of thermal pollution concerns. There is another supercritical about a mile away that does discharge into the river, which does not help, but this is in WV (environment? what's that?).


related to water cooling: Mount Storm
While I have never seen it, I have heard stories of people water skiing there in December with snow on the ground.



don't tell hustler...

 

Joe,

Ran across The EPA carbon plan: Coal loses, but nuclear doesn't win | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists - thoughts?

 

A number of claims in that blog jumped out at me. Here's one which is representative of the overall tone of the posting:


This is an interesting statement, as it mixes quantifiable fact with complete fiction. The part about gas and wind, no pun intended, is probably true and easily verifiable. But then there's the statement that "efficiency was the least costly way to meet the need for electricity." That interesting loophole in the regulations seems to defy belief when you understand what it means.

"Efficiency" is a fancy way of saying "use less electricity." It doesn't increase the supply of electricity, it proposes to reduce the demand for it. You see, the way the rules are structured, if you submit a plan which says "we are going to convince the residents of this state to use 20% less energy," the EPA allows you to count that in the same way as if you said "we are going to increase our generating capacity by 20% with zero emissions increase and at zero cost." It's just not a realistic thing, especially since populations tend to grow, and moving away from petroleum for things like heating and automotive propulsion will tend to increase the demand for electricity even further.

At the end of the day, Mark Cooper is just another ivory-tower liberal who elects to substitute his own deluded ideals for the truth in an attempt to push an agenda founded on his own personal fears rather than an objective analysis of the facts.

 

Molten Salt Nuclear Reactors: Part Of America's Long-Term Energy Future? - Forbes

 

Energy fuels prosperity. Not government programs, and not conservation.

 

Problem solved: