nukeworker10

joined 1 year ago
[–] nukeworker10@lemmy.world 26 points 9 months ago

You can contact Stripe at the link to let them know about the company they are associating with.

[–] nukeworker10@lemmy.world 21 points 10 months ago

That's why I use a B&W Lazer printer, and have dedicated prosumer Canon photo printer for the few times I need color prints.

[–] nukeworker10@lemmy.world 49 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I think you misunderstand Isreals role in the region, as far as US politics is concerned. As long as Isreal is a viable force in the region, They are seen as a knife at the collective Arab/Iranian/Egyptian throat. They act as a US proxy providing a counter weight to other regional powers. I'm no defender of Isreal, there actions, or Netanyahu, just providing another point of view.

[–] nukeworker10@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

You use seawater for cooling the systems. You could use excess power to run desalination plants, but not use the reactor directly.

[–] nukeworker10@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

Start Here I think your answer is somewhere in the IEC ELV standards.

[–] nukeworker10@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

True, but there are grades of racing. I don't know what the current class structure is, but a 7k CBR is spitting distance of super street or whatever that AMA class is called now. I think the point being made is still valid. I can't go out and buy a motogp bike, and the manufacturer isn't pretending to sell me one.

[–] nukeworker10@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Plus one for Ice Pirates. It gave us Space Herpes

[–] nukeworker10@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
  1. No, not breeders, but reprocessing. There is still a lot of usable fuel left in an "expended" fuel cell, just not in enough concentration.
[–] nukeworker10@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Long term storage and/or reprocessing of fuel. On site storage is not a viable long term solution. We need some way to safely store expended fuel or change the rules to allow reprocessing. Commercially, we need to figure out an economical way to build power plants that doesn't die under the weight of its own regulations. Vogtle 3 & 4 went waaayy over budget, and almost bankrupted the partners (Westinghouse I believe). Solar and wind are seeing reduction in cost due to expanding market and the economy of scale that goes with it, along with generous subsidies. For nuclear to get those benefits it would have to be constructed at a rate not seen since Three Mile Island. We lost all of those benefits accrued during the 60s 70s and 80s. We would be starting at least 10 years behind wind and solar.

[–] nukeworker10@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Right, but they don't exist commercially and are 10 years away by best estimate (I think I haven't looked lately). Also, Navy style reactors are not anything like SMR designs currently under development. They are much closer to current PWR reactors in use. I love the idea of more nuclear, hell that's what I do for a living. I just feel like SMRs are more vapor ware that's always "10 years away". I hope not, I know some really smart people who are currently working at Terrapower trying to make it a reality.