I’m 36 and looking for a new career. I worked my first refueling outage this spring and got hired on for another temp job that runs through fall at my local plant. I enjoy working in the industry so far but don’t have any background in nuclear. I have management experience and I’m currently working in a support role in the plant. What is a logical path forward? Any insight would be helpful.

For example, would making the reactor bigger and more powerful (EPR scale or larger) mean lower initial enrichment levels?

Hello there. Would it be possible for this sub to join the reddit blackout that is happening on the 12th of June? This issue likely affects a lot of the users of this sub because many use third party reddit apps. This may not seem like this will do much but it will still cause a disruption, this is the aim of the protest.

Here is a link to the information post.

I completely understand if this post is removed or denied but please at least consider it.

Emails Reveal: From Anthony Watts’ WUWT

​

Emails Reveal: From Junk Science .com

What if the public’s fears about common exposures to radiation were not only baseless, but the product of epic science fraud? And what if the people we have trusted with setting radiation safety standards have knowingly suppressed that reality for decades, including up to the present day?

JunkScience.com is presenting for the first time emails uncovered via the Freedom of Information Act that expose the inner workings of a little-known bureaucracy dedicated to keeping in place the so-called “linear non-threshold model” (LNT). The LNT is used by regulatory agencies to set permitted exposure standards for radiation.

📷

So if you have been concerned or scared of anything associated with radiation — from medical diagnostics to TSA screening to radon in your basement to nuclear power plants — you have been an unwitting victim of the LNT. As explained in this recent article, the LNT has been responsible for producing crippling fear of low-level radiation exposures.

Hello guys! I have presentation on tuesday and I gotta submit an analytical paper by end of the week about the topic of nuclear power after chernobyl. About nuclear debate in general. I ga e already made the research about the history of nuclear power and atomic bomb and its exploration. Could you please rpovide with sources that I can cover in one day? I do not have any backrgound yet. Plus if anyone is in my situation please reach out so we can work together.

The RBMK reactor is known for it's positive void coefficient, which caused the Chernobyl disaster. It has graphite surrounding the fuel as a moderator, and uses light water as a coolant. My understanding is that because light water is somewhat absorbent of neutrons, a loss of water causes a great reduction in neutron absorption, but with only a slight reduction in moderation, as most of the moderation is from the graphite.

So wouldn't it have worked pretty well if they built a new version that used heavy water as a coolant? Heavy water is much less absorbent of neutrons. It's only half as strong as a moderator, which normally results in heavy water reactors requiring a bigger core. But this wouldn't be a problem if most of the moderation is from the graphite. Perhaps the heavy water version would use a smaller volume of graphite, so that it becomes less moderated if the heavy water boils away.

Is it likely that this would have worked reasonably well?

Just watching that new Netflix show and just end up wondering why they didn't have the military or whoever fly in generators with helicopters to restore basic power to the plant basic operations? They are using car batteries etc. Hard to imagine it wasn't logistically possible to fly in a few generators with some fuel within a few hours... am I missing something?

Per title. I'm researching using formal methods to design and verify safety-critical software designs in the face of hardware failure, and showing that the vulnerabilities of the TMI controller could have been detected in the design stages would be quite a demonstration.

In order to demonstrate a controller with full fidelity, I'd need behavioral info on plumbing, pumps, sensors, wiring harnesses, and the operator manual - but not secret squirrel metallurgy or nuclear secrets.

I get that convincing responsible parties that I'm not a kook is going to take awhile, but would I possibly get this information from NRC, or the construction contractor, or the designer and operator, or who else? Is it public info for some reason?

Has anyone here interveiwed for OPG (ontario power generation) NOIT (nuclear operator in training) position? Just wondering what the technical questions they may ask for an operations interveiw

Imagine a world where the United States embarks on an ambitious endeavor to build 1000 nuclear reactors within a decade, all while costing just $1 trillion. It may sound like an unattainable dream, considering the regulatory and bureaucratic challenges involved. However, from a physics and engineering perspective, this grand vision is not only plausible but entirely achievable.

Let's reflect on the past. In the 1970s, the US constructed 1 GW reactors at a staggering cost of $2 billion each. Keep in mind, these reactors were built using slide rules to compute and rotary phones to communicate, without the advanced aid of CAD programs and modern logistics. Today, we possess over 50 years of additional research and technological advancements that can be harnessed. With these advantages, it is absolutely possible to construct reactors at a remarkable cost of $1 billion per GW.

Now, some skeptics might point to Vogtle 3 and 4, which took 15 years and cost a staggering $30 billion to build 2 GW. However, it is crucial to recognize that this is not the historical norm, nor does it align with international standards when we consider reactor plant constructions in countries like India or China.

Addressing safety concerns is paramount. With a large number of plants, the possibility of accidents cannot be ignored. However, it is worth noting that even in the worst nuclear accident in American history, Three Mile Island, no lives were claimed by radiation. In comparison, fossil fuels carry a mortality rate of nearly 20 people per terawatt hour, whereas nuclear power's current rate stands at a mere 0.03 per terawatt hour.

"But what about the shortage of skilled operators?" one might wonder. Nuclear plants are not mystical entities requiring extraordinary talents to operate. Talented individuals, including high school graduates who undergo extensive training through the Navy, are fully capable of managing nuclear plants.

Concerns about the supply chain and availability of pressure vessels are also valid. However, alternative designs, such as the proven CANDU reactor, offer excellent solutions. This design effectively consists of a network of pipes immersed in a water-filled container. Nuclear power does not need to be treated as an entirely distinct entity from any other industrial plant.

Naturally, one may question the bureaucratic challenges and associated paperwork. Undoubtedly, the existing bureaucracy poses significant hurdles. However, if the political will were to emerge, with a genuine determination to construct 1000 nuclear plants, these obstacles could be overcome. The bureaucracy stands as the sole real impediment to unlocking the full potential of nuclear power.

While I maintain skepticism about the United States embracing a complete nuclear renaissance, it is crucial to acknowledge the immense transformative power such a feat could bring to every facet of our lives.

So I was perusing the EIA realtime data charts for the NW region (as you do) and noticed that the contribution of nuclear power dropped to zero around May 6. This has not happened in the past year.

Is it down for maintenance?

The shutdown seems to coincide with a steep increase in hydro generation as the rivers swell from meltwater. The demand for electricity also hit a low at the same time. Is it just not needed right now? And if that’s the case, why not shut down the coal plants? Maybe more of a grid management question…

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/gridmonitor/expanded-view/custom/pending/GenerationByEnergySource-9 (Not well formatted for mobile)

Timeline: How Georgia and South Carolina nuclear reactors ran so far off course

The first of two nuclear reactors in Georgia is generating electricity and could be days away from achieving full-power operation. But the new units at Georgia Power Co.'s Plant Vogtle are $17 billion over budget and running seven years late.  

Customers of multiple Georgia utilities are already paying billions , although state regulators haven't yet decided how much Georgia Power ratepayers will owe. 

https://candorium.com/news/20230525041809848/timeline-how-georgia-and-south-carolina-nuclear-reactors-ran-so-far-off-course

Ignoring the obvious challenges like getting certification for such a thing, what are the real challenges for someone making a very small scale reactor?

I feel like the concept of fission itself is not complex enough for it to be unachievable on a really small scale. And small size doesn't mean it has to be necessarily efficient or productive but it can just exist as a hobbiest to play with.

This could be total ignorance on my part but seeing some of the failed attempts at making fission reactors makes me think I could do better. Tell me if this is a recipe for disaster

Let's say you have two 3 inch thick tungsten chambers connected in the middle via a gated passage. One chamber containing a fissile material and a temperature sensor and one containing a neutron emitter. Let's say the fissile element was covered in a water jacket where the flow of water could be adjusted depending on the temperature of the material, only purpose of the water jacket being to see if adequate heat can be made to boil water

So if these two chambers have the ability to be totally isolated from eachother in varying degrees and it's adequately shielded and there is safeguards in place to make sure it doesn't eat through the water jacket or start poisoning everything through imperfections in the shielding, would this not be a semi safe way to play with very basic fission? It pretty much covers the whole risk of radiation leaking and uncontrollable reaction

Edit: not talking about building a super critical reactor that would be crazy. Excuse the word salad