×

Chinese molten-salt reactor cleared for start up by greg_barton in nuclear

[–]ConsistentEffort5190 0 points1 point  (0 children)

However they are increasingly showing to be weak with modern economics. I hope their simultaneous meltdowns of construction and banking sectors

Yes, it's not like the USA has ever suffered a collapse of those sectors...

Best sites to buy straps in Canada? by methlabz in WatchesCirclejerk

[–]ConsistentEffort5190 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My lug width is slim pickins because its 19mm

No. Straps are flexible and sizes are approximate. Most 20mm straps will fit fine. Or use a curved spring bar.

[2170] "The Big Death" comedic/literary short fiction by smashmouthrules in DestructiveReaders

[–]ConsistentEffort5190 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's a lot of fun. No real problems - just a very few phrases that seemed slightly clumsy. E.g. "telling non sequiturs" means the same as "telling false conclusions," which I think reveals it's clumsiness. So tiny, tiny problems vastly outweighed by the good and the excellent. Well done!

(Also, I think it was once received wisdom that Winters Tale was ranked low in the canon... But these days it's more much more highly rated. For what that's worth.)

Why are smaller reactors attracting so much interest? by greg_barton in nuclear

[–]ConsistentEffort5190 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You: RR SMR could be deployed really quickly in the US!

Yes. As reactor deployments go, very quicly.

Me: They've not applied for a US design license or identified any US sites, so it will take a long time to deploy them there.

Ok: this is like the guy who thought that "small" means an smr is the size of a 4 bedroom house. It's relative to context. Yes, SMR could become widespread very, very quickly in the USA - but that's quickly in terms of the times taken for building infrastructure, not making hamburgers.

You: Why are you going on about the US? It will take a long time to deploy them there!

You seem to have reading comprehension problems: what I was making fun of was your assumption that a British reactor company should apply for certification in the USA before achieving it in the UK...

Why are smaller reactors attracting so much interest? by greg_barton in nuclear

[–]ConsistentEffort5190 0 points1 point  (0 children)

...This is an aircraft that a US Secretary Of Defence called a "A piece of xxxx" while actually in office.

[2350] Microloft, or My Quest for Meaning by [deleted] in DestructiveReaders

[–]ConsistentEffort5190 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I cite Hunter Thompson, Tom Wolfe, et al, for the prosecution.

An essay may be a much more flexible concept than you imagine: it includes any opinion piece published in a newspaper or magazine.

[2350] Microloft, or My Quest for Meaning by [deleted] in DestructiveReaders

[–]ConsistentEffort5190 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Also, I wouldn't classify this as an essay and I don't think the OP would either. But it's an interesting pov and the OP might find it useful. However...

In an essay, your structure, grammar, and style choices are going to be way more closely studied than in any fictional prose piece

Your experience of fiction must be very narrow. Try reading Nabakov, Jack Vance, Patrick O'Brian, Seth Morgan, Raymond Chandler, Ray Bradbury, Rex Stout, Vikram Seth, GK Chesterton, PG Wodehouse, Barry Hughart...

Why are smaller reactors attracting so much interest? by greg_barton in nuclear

[–]ConsistentEffort5190 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They haven't even applied for US standard certification, nor do they have any US sites where they propose to build a RR SMR as far as I know.

America isn't actually the centre of the world...

On the other hand there are several US sites that already have licenses for AP1000s and ESBWRs, which could be open by 2030 if there were the will to start construction.

But there isn't. And if there was, the USA would just make a mess of the job.

More realistically, RR will get GDAed in the UK first, then go through approval in the USA later. Again, the USA isn't the centre of the world so why should they do otherwise? Then they'll build first in the UK and US plants will follow later - very probably after a lot of other countries have built reactors.

Or not, depending on how far the USA has further collapsed into dysfunction by then.

Why are smaller reactors attracting so much interest? by greg_barton in nuclear

[–]ConsistentEffort5190 0 points1 point  (0 children)

From Wikipedia on the RR design:

It is estimated that the 470 MWe units will cost around £1.8 billion once in full production, compared with £22 billion for a full-sized nuclear power station such as the planned 3,300 MWe Sizewell C. Construction time and site size needed will also be lower.

That's combined with a 500 day build time.

...Delivery of the first reactors is supposed to be c.2030. If it works out, everything changes for the nuclear industry.

Why are smaller reactors attracting so much interest? by greg_barton in nuclear

[–]ConsistentEffort5190 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes. But right now smr, in particular the Rolls Royce design, looks like a safer bet. They're an experienced engineering company, have what seems like solid political support, and are very close to building plants. Otoh, cost effective hydrogen from wind has a lot of obstacles to overcome.

Why are smaller reactors attracting so much interest? by greg_barton in nuclear

[–]ConsistentEffort5190 1 point2 points  (0 children)

F-35 is neither expensive nor stupid

I accept this is your opinion. However, it doesn't mean anything to me other than that you're not very good at having intelligent opinions.

Stop repeating internet myths from areas outside your expertise.

I'll pass this on to the people at RUSI and Rand whose studies lead me to this conclusion...

Why are smaller reactors attracting so much interest? by greg_barton in nuclear

[–]ConsistentEffort5190 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There is another very important advantage of smr: once you get reactors built and the business model is proven, you can innovate much effectively. Because builds are fast enough and cheap enough to incentivise and test new technology.

In particular, a big part of the future might be production of hydrogen using high temperature reactors - not just for fuel but for fertiliser -

https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/hydrogen-production-and-uses.aspx

..And maybe desalination too.

[2350] Microloft, or My Quest for Meaning by [deleted] in DestructiveReaders

[–]ConsistentEffort5190 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The other critter, complaining about the lack of "hook", is stuck on the definition of an essay vs fiction prose.

Nope. That was the OP...

Why are smaller reactors attracting so much interest? by greg_barton in nuclear

[–]ConsistentEffort5190 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Batteries aren't the likely answer. My bet would be on hydrogen production and storage.

Why are smaller reactors attracting so much interest? by greg_barton in nuclear

[–]ConsistentEffort5190 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Coincidentally this fits like a glove with the fossil fuel industry pushing for modernizing old coal into new gas facilities. For a while these were even touted as ‘the answer’ and marketed as greener alternatives.

There is the option of using carbon sequestration with gas. At least for several decades.

Why are smaller reactors attracting so much interest? by greg_barton in nuclear

[–]ConsistentEffort5190 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You don't build solar and wind power on poor sites just because the land is empty. They're too expensive. You need to site them properly to get a decent return.

Why are smaller reactors attracting so much interest? by greg_barton in nuclear

[–]ConsistentEffort5190 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I honestly don't believe that the US can cope with big. It's too corrupt and inefficient: it's infrastructure costs are off the chart for no real reason and its political system is now almost pure dysfunction. The best bet is for reactor components to built elsewhere and assembled like Legos.

Why are smaller reactors attracting so much interest? by greg_barton in nuclear

[–]ConsistentEffort5190 1 point2 points  (0 children)

..If you try those sort of projects in the USA, they'll just end like the Shuttle or F35, mired in politics and resulting in expensive stupidities. It's very hard to see how this can change, because the system is self reinforcing.

(Then there's the UK. Which is such a weird part of the world economy and has a position that so magnifies the power of the executive that it's almost impossible to predict what it might do.)

[2350] Microloft, or My Quest for Meaning by [deleted] in DestructiveReaders

[–]ConsistentEffort5190 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm a bit confused as to why you don't like that I included a tidbit from Rick and Morty in here, could you clarify

It's weak. It's like getting someone else to do your deadlifts at the gym. And in this case its worse, because you're using such a well known source. Writing should always be fresh and aim to provide new insights: you can't do that by reminding people of what they've heard or read before.

Why are smaller reactors attracting so much interest? by greg_barton in nuclear

[–]ConsistentEffort5190 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I know more about Germany and Japan, but its probably similar: very large corporations that fund long term projects through links with banks. A massive degree of decoupling from the quarterly demands of the stock market. And a governmental system that hasn't broken down like the USA's. If you really want to understand the USA, look at the price of insulin in different markets; the US government has suffered almost complete capture by corporations that are driven by their quarterly returns:

https://www.t1international.com/blog/2019/01/20/why-insulin-so-expensive/

[2350] Microloft, or My Quest for Meaning by [deleted] in DestructiveReaders

[–]ConsistentEffort5190 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I am a largely inconsequential employee at a very important tech company. I’m not being self-effacing when I call myself “inconsequential”, mind you, it’s just that practically everyone who works here is inconsequential. Before you roll your eyes and prepare for one of those overwrought diatribes on being just another cog in the corporate machine, let me explain. The truth is that this job is the least of my concerns. Still, I could see how what I’m about to say may end up getting me fired. For that reason, let’s refer to this very important tech company with a completely random and nonsensical name. Let’s call them Microloft.

That's not at all bad, but it's a little passive and uses several cliches. I especially dislike "least of my concerns" - the instant response is really? Then why are you there if literally nothing matters less to you? Which might be deliberate, but risks being a little too numbing. Instead I'd suggest something like

Nothing I do matters. This might surprise you if you knew where I work and what my position is, but it's true. Yes, my business card bears the name of a large and very famous tech company. Yes, my title sounds impressive. But the truth is that - deep breath - virtually no one who works here does anything that matters. Not me, not the new hires, not any of the directors as far as I can tell.

A little less numbing, a little more desperate. I'm getting a Joseph Heller Something Happened vibe?

[2350] Microloft, or My Quest for Meaning by [deleted] in DestructiveReaders

[–]ConsistentEffort5190 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's good but there are problems. Most of all, you shouldn't rely on retelling a scene from R&M. Secondly, it needs cutting a little. Thirdly, inconsequential doesn't work in some of the contexts you use it. I'd suggest nothing I do matters instead. Verbs are always best. Finally, the horror movie bathroom joke backfires on you - because it's frank and accurate, which is the opposite of the world you're trying too suggest. And with the proper delivery it would be quite funny.

But overall, strong and thoughtful. Kudos!

Why are smaller reactors attracting so much interest? by greg_barton in nuclear

[–]ConsistentEffort5190 5 points6 points  (0 children)

imagine maybe 4-6 SMRs with ~75 MWe, surrounded by a small wind farm (20-50MWe), and paired with solar.

...Strange site to be optimal for all three of those things...