Earth's Mantle Affects Long-Term Sea-Level Rise Estimates

[rushmc 23]

StreetScooby

So you're saying that, even with well established designs, taking years/decade to site a nuclear plant is reasonable?

design is the shortest part of the path

It can take up to 12 years to get site permits however

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

You're just an oil company shill who is against any form of power that would put you out of business. No wonder you're so against nuclear power!

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

It can take up to 12 years to get site permits however

I can understand billvon's point that these aren't Walmart permits. Are there sound technical reasons why it takes 12 years, or is really because of government
bureaucracy?

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 3,118]

>So you're saying that, even with well established designs, taking years/decade to
>site a nuclear plant is reasonable?

Taking years? Yes; that's how long it takes. It takes years just to figure out where nuclear materials released into a river will wind up, for example.

Taking decades? That's probably more time than you need.

[lawrocket 3]

It's just the start. Getting a permit. Then you have EIR battles. Land acquisition. Thirty different agencies to deal with.

30 years is a timeframe to expect from end of feasibility study to start of operation of a reactor.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

StreetScooby

So you're saying that, even with well established designs, taking years/decade to site a nuclear plant is reasonable?

the actual build out of a complex piece of infrastructure still takes years, even with a blue print. That doesn't support decades, but expecting to complete a nuclear plant from start to finish in under 5 years isn't very realistic.

[StreetScooby 5]

From billvon:

Quote

Taking decades? That's probably more time than you need.

From lawrocket:

Quote

30 years is a timeframe to expect from end of feasibility study to start of operation of a reactor.

From kelpdiver:

Quote

That doesn't support decades,

Sounds like we're in agreement that something is wrong with the process. So, if folks are really serious about CO2 emissions, why is this?

We are all engines of karma

[kelpdiver 2]

StreetScooby

Sounds like we're in agreement that something is wrong with the process. So, if folks are really serious about CO2 emissions, why is this?

Because people aren't in agreement when it comes to nuclear power - Greenpeace types in particular don't want to be realistic. Others are just afraid of the worst case scenarios, not knowing the guaranteed issues with large coal consumption.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Because people aren't in agreement when it comes to nuclear power - Greenpeace types in particular don't want to be realistic.

Yes, the very people that condemn others for being "anti-science", yet probably can't even spell thermodynamics.

Quote

Others are just afraid of the worst case scenarios, not knowing the guaranteed issues with large coal consumption.

Isn't the nuclear recycle problem solved? I've heard the French have that figured out (aren't they something like 80% nuclear?).

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 3,118]

>Isn't the nuclear recycle problem solved?

Solved? It's still one of the dirtiest processes around. Fuel reprocessing is a technology that you (literally) can't get near; you have to stay quite far away from any actual reprocessing due to the highly radioactive short half life radioisotopes, and even trying to fix the equipment when it breaks is problematic because all that radiation induces secondary radiation in the tools used.

The second problem is that if you have the technology to reprocess and re-enrich uranium/plutonium for reactors, you have the technology to do the same for nuclear weapons. Open a plant to do that and you've opened a training center for anyone who wants to build a bomb.

The third problem is that the chemicals used are perhaps the most toxic chemicals we have ever created.

That being said, it's doable. France has had good luck reprocessing fuel, primarily to MOX (mixed oxide) fuel that combines plutonium and uranium into a usable reactor fuel. However it has a ways to go before we can call the problem solved.

A cheap alternative is to mix degraded weapons plutonium with either natural uranium or spent uranium fuel. (This gives us MOX, which is almost identical to enriched uranium fuel.) Much easier, considerably cleaner and we have a lot of degraded plutonium from old weapons we can use.

[StreetScooby 5]

Thanks.

We are all engines of karma