US Small-Scale Nuclear Reactor Industry Gains Traction In Missouri 200
trichard writes with this quote from an AP report:
"Ameren Missouri is vying to be the first utility in the country to seek a construction and operating license for a small-scale nuclear reactor, a technology that's appealing to utilities because of the smaller upfront costs and shorter development lead times. The small reactors, about a fourth or less the capacity of full-size nuclear units, are appealing to the nuclear industry because they could be manufactured at a central plant and shipped around the world. By contrast, building nuclear reactors today is a more cumbersome process that must be done largely on site and takes years."
How does the MTBF scale? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How does the MTBF scale? (Score:5, Insightful)
Do lots of smaller reactors fail at a rate statistically below or at least equal to a single larger reactor that generates the same amount of power?
From TFS:
Guessing this means it's probably far to early to tell...
Re: (Score:2)
Guessing this means it's probably far to early to tell..
Should be calculated by the engineers in the design phase of the project.
Re: (Score:3)
Have they applied for a license yet? According to the Wikipedia page on the reactor itself [wikipedia.org], no.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Who isn't considering Alaska part of the country? That plant is only proposed. From Wikipedia:
Toshiba never began the expensive process for approval that is required by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
In other words, no one has yet sought a construction and operating license for a small-scale nuclear reactor yet. TFA is about a company that is, if not at that stage, is certainly under way toward it. Galena's plan is currently stalled.
Re: (Score:3)
Sometimes it is a good idea to do a little more research before whining...
Galena Nuclear Power Plant [wikipedia.org]
Why nuclear energy is on hold for Alaska [newsminer.com]
Re: (Score:2)
So, this means Ameren MO's small reactor will be the nations second, then?
Re: (Score:2)
I just love it that Alaska [wikipedia.org] isn't considered 'part of the country'. Maybe we should just go back to being in Russia, although I would prefer Canada myself.
its probably just wishful thinking ... if only Palin wasn't American
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How does the MTBF scale? (Score:5, Insightful)
California is the 8th largest economy in the world, or so. It is in no way Communist, perhaps it has some social programs but that is not communism. Communism is a real thing, not just some slur you use against people wealthier than you.
Re: (Score:2)
California is the 8th largest economy in the world, or so. It is in no way Communist, perhaps it has some social programs but that is not communism. Communism is a real thing, not just some slur you use against people wealthier than you.
Oh, grow a sense of humor.
Re: (Score:2)
My point is Capitalist nations are generally not what one thinks of as police states. You knew that though. Instead you wanted to distract from the point, I am glad that you live in a country were people have enough free time to do that. I bet it is a capitalist nation or blended economy nation.
Re: (Score:2)
That was not a terrorist attack. It was a legitimate action in a war. Nice try though. Funny how you bring that up but fail to mention that fire bombing killed a lot more people in Japan.
Capitalists are guilty of many things, but so far they have tended to use religion as a reason for those things instead of their own economic ideology.
Re: (Score:2)
That's war, not terrorism. Two different things, both horrific. WWII killed a lot more than a couple hundred thousand people.
Re: (Score:2)
You are not offending communists, your are trivializing what they are. You are no different than those that trivialize what the Nazis did by using that term as a generic slur for anyone they disagree with.
California is our nations largest economy. Wikipedia has a nice article about that. California could probably fund that stuff if they did not give more money in federal income tax than they receive.
Re: (Score:2)
California could probably fund that stuff if they did not give more money in federal income tax than they receive.
They could also fund there programs better if every costly program came with a funding section too. Something like the taxes/fees go up by x% to fund this program. The problem has been that California separates funding bills from spending bills, and all funding bills must be voted on by the populous.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You're absolutely correct, they're not communists (well, very few are).
He should have said the "Social Democrat Republic of California".
They're not socialists either, but they do lean that direction, as long as it doesn't hurt the revenues of Hollywood or Silicon Valley.
Re: (Score:2)
Like you said they are not socialists so that does not fit either. Nor are they a republic, they are a state in our union. They lack national sovereignty.
Socialism is another thing all together. That again ignorant Americans seem to enjoy using as some sort of catchall slur at their opponents. I say Americans because I know of no other nation that has so many people that like to use labels for political ideologies as generic slurs. It is quite possible this happens in other nations I have not visited.
Re: (Score:2)
They are a republic [reference.com]. They're not an independent nation, but they are a sovereign state organized as a republic.
Re: (Score:2)
My mistake I thought republics had to be sovereign in the actual sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Look for yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP [wikipedia.org]
Re:How does the MTBF scale? (Score:4)
Or is there an exception that I haven't heard about where if a state is facing a deficit, they don't need to pay federal taxes? Because if so, then those thousands of dollars I gave to the IRS, I'd like them back.
Sorry to sound bitter, but it's personal: California is not fucking dead weight, Tennessee and other red states that take in more federal funding than they contribute are dead weight. Worse actually: they're a drain on the economy. California keeps it's budget problems in-state.
Re: (Score:2)
The USA would only have one real economy left, Texas.
Why do you want our country to be poor?
Why do you hate America and those Americans that make our country so rich and powerful?
Re:How does the MTBF scale? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Most [small reactors] are also designed for a high level of passive or inherent safety in the event of malfunction. A 2010 report by a special committee convened by the American Nuclear Society showed that many safety provisions necessary, or at least prudent, in large reactors are not necessary in the small designs forthcoming."
From http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf33.html [world-nuclear.org].
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose it depends on the design, but a smaller reactor can be built so that if it loses cooling it just shuts down (i.e. the reaction stops), not melts down. I remember reading about this a long time ago, about how we could have reactors in neighborhoods with no problems. Oh wait, here we go: "Most [small reactors] are also designed for a high level of passive or inherent safety in the event of malfunction. A 2010 report by a special committee convened by the American Nuclear Society showed that many safety provisions necessary, or at least prudent, in large reactors are not necessary in the small designs forthcoming."
Yeah, let's downplay the need for safety measures. What could go wrong? Whatever you do, don't employ the truly fail-safe measures that CANDU reactors [wikipedia.org] have proven effective since the 60's. I mean, where's the fun in that?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yeah, let's downplay the need for safety measures. What could go wrong? Whatever you do, don't employ the truly fail-safe measures that CANDU reactors [wikipedia.org] have proven effective since the 60's. I mean, where's the fun in that?
I see your CANDU and I raise you LFTR reactors [wikipedia.org]
Re:How does the MTBF scale? (Score:4, Informative)
Anyway, yeah, I'm just a shill for the nuclear industry. Caught me. Dang.
Re: (Score:3)
Also, the Toshiba 4S (which this is most likely) is pretty safe to begin with as it is sealed, and uses liquid sodium which has a tendency not to boil (understatement...)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba_4S [wikipedia.org]
There are also some designs utilizing Thorium that look pretty promising. The Thorium232 requires neutron input to convert to U235, which then is the fission source, so when something happens, power to the reaction is cut off and the thorium just stops being converted, and no more reaction.
http://en.w [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A 2010 report by a special committee convened by the American Nuclear Society showed that many safety provisions necessary, or at least prudent, in large reactors are not necessary in the small designs forthcoming.
Wow, seriously, you are happy to take the word of the pro-nuclear lobby in this matter? You know that most of the accidents we have had were due to overconfidence, mismanagement, operators lying to regulators...
Re: (Score:2)
Pity. Thorium reactors are much safer all the way around
Re: (Score:2)
"econutters" have never stopped any plants before. They make a great strawman though, don't they?
The reality is plants tend to not get built due to them not being a very high return on investment.
Re: (Score:3)
"econutters" have never stopped any plants before. They make a great strawman though, don't they?
Yes they have [wikipedia.org]. Sorry if the link is in french. Just search for Plogoff.
Re: (Score:2)
They just put up lawsuits against the reactors, which causes the energy company to spend money defending themselves, and either delay the reactor, or get it completely stopped. The "econutters", or NIMBYS as I prefer to call them, are the biggest problem with getting new reactors online in the US.
Re:How does the MTBF scale? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:How does the MTBF scale? (Score:4, Interesting)
A small reactor in simulations fails about as much as a big reactor, only it can be built to be a tomb if something goes wrong and the worst happens. Look at B&W's mPower modular reactor design, for example.
Re: (Score:3)
I guess you've never worked construction. :)
We're setting the bar pretty low here.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:How does the MTBF scale? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
"Theoreticaly, the worse failure modes are less likely, even when weighted by produced power. And, also theoreticaly, they should reduce faster than with big sized reactors."
Hmmm, 225MW(electric) let's see, what other nuclear power plants are in the same output range.. Assuming 30% efficiency.. 225MWh(e) /3 *10 == 750MWh Thermal.
Oh were did I see similar numbers recently?? FUKUSHIMA DAIICHI-2 760MWh thermal, FUKUSHIMA DAIICHI-3 760MWh thermal [icjt.org]
Ring a bell anyone?? There goes the safe size argument r
Re:How does the MTBF scale? (Score:4, Informative)
The Japanese reactors are over 40 years old. Comparing modern designs to that is like saying my 2008 Lexus will have the same kind of failure rates as a 1968 .
The two are not even comparable.
Details (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Look up Toshiba 4S. Then give a big 'hello' to Galena, Alaska [wikipedia.org] (who has been trying to do this for a decade or so).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like old fashion Steam producing technology with the same safety issues of larger reactors: 300ÂC high-pressure steam that is begging to break stuff.
We should be going LFTR all the way.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you read about the 4S? It is sodium cooled, not water cooled. I don't even think there is a steam cycle involved with that reactor as it is listed as a sealed reactor. It is probably more like a sodium cooled RTG.
Re: (Score:3)
Here is an article explaining the safety features of the 4S:
http://www.roe.com/pdfs/technical/Galena/20070312_Containment_Whitepaper_Rev01.pdf [roe.com]
Specifically interesting to me:
Important features of the design of the 4S include:
-fModular construction, which will reduce costs and construction time
-Nuclear systems that are embedded below grade, resulting in safety and security
benefits
f-Liquid sodium coolant, which does not react with core internals or piping
f-Coolant that is not highly pressurized, which minimizes stresses on the plant systems
f-Passive safety systems that do not depend on emergency power to function
f-Negative reactivity temperature coefficients that cause the reaction rate in the core to
slow down as temperatures rise
-Air-cooled reactor vessel, steam generator, and condenser, so that no coolant water or
intake structures are required
-30-year core life, which avoids the need to refuel, eliminates fuel storage, and
minimizes fuel handling concerns
-Capability of load following without mechanical operation of reactor control system
f-Ease of decommissioning by containment of all radioactive materials within the
reactor module throughout the life of the plant.
Re:Details (Score:5, Funny)
Anyone have technical details for the reactors?
Of course! Just let us know your location and we'll send a team to deliver them.
Sincerely,
The FBI
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone have technical details for the reactors?
Of course! Just let us know your location and we'll send a team to deliver them. Sincerely, The FBI
I wish I had mod points. Well played, sir, well played.
Re: (Score:3)
Anyone have technical details for the reactors?
Hey, is that you Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
NIMBY (Score:2)
At "about a fourth or less the capacity of full-size nuclear units", I'm sorry but it's still too large.
It just won't fit in my backyard, even if I try.
Re:NIMBY (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because a gas furnace that blows up might leave the house uninhabitable for a few days. A nuclear reactor that melts down might leave a few square miles uninhabitable for a century. I love nuclear power, but unless we can produce some sort of pebble-bed like system where the probability of radioactive contamination is nearly zero, putting them under the control of the average citizen is a terrible idea.
Plus, nuclear proliferation is still a very real problem.
Re: (Score:3)
A nuclear reactor that melts down might leave a few square miles uninhabitable for a century.
Except the type of nuclear "micro-reactor" that would fit within a city lot, typically within a facility the size of a typical substation at most, would be incapable of going into meltdown. Furthermore throium-based reactors produce much more "benign" waste products--certainly they are still toxic but disposal and site remediation would be not that far removed from something like decontaminating the site of an old gas station that once handled leaded fuel.
Also, a gas furnace that blows up would in all like
Re: (Score:2)
How do you secure a reactor like this though?
If I have a gun can I shoot at it and it goes BOOM?
What if I have a grenade?
Rocket?
Large home-made bomb?
Stolen Bunker buster missile?
If you were able to get it to go BOOM or melt down, what are we talking about for containment? If it powers a suburban area 20sq miles, will the melt down only cause health issues for that 20sq miles or larger? If it impacts areas around it, do they get a say on how you deploy it and regulations you need to follow to secure it?
Re: (Score:3)
Have very small nuclear reactors, the kind you find on Navy Submarines that can be used to power a very small area,
Small reactors like those on submarines tend to require weapons-grade fuel.
I see no reason that we allow people to have gas furnaces and water heaters in their houses, but do not allow them to have a small scale nuclear reactor.
See above.
Re: (Score:3)
It just won't fit in my backyard, even if I try.
Put in the front yard. It will keep the kids off your lawn.
Works for me.
These can be boons for small towns... (Score:5, Insightful)
For a small town, a small (~220 MW) plant will come very handy. It helps ensure they will be up if the grid goes down, that businesses would have a utility power guarantee, and it also gives clean power without having to deal with a coal or other fossil fuel plant.
I keep seeing these pieces of a puzzle popping up on /. that would solve the core problems our culture faces. A wind turbine to pull water from the air here, small reactors there, isobutane from CO2, better batteries from IBM, and self driving cars. Putting these technologies together, and we have done a lot for the transportation infrastructure. The reactors would give reliable power, which can be used to charge batteries on electric vehicles or make usable fuel for IC engines. Road congestion and even the need for a vehicle (as opposed to just renting one for a trip) would be eased by self driving cars.
I just wish some of these cool potential ideas came into practical use. Self driving cars would allow for a lot of flexibility especially.
As energy availability improves, so do economies.
Re: (Score:2)
as i understand, nuclear (and hydro) are "base" supplies. they need to run 24/7. fossil fuel, especially liquid fuel and gas plants, can be turned on and off easily (can't close down a dam, or shutdown a reactor).
So the plant will need to power the town constantly and use the grid as backup.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
However, it would be simple to create an overflow system in a hydro dam..Depending on how much power is needed at any one point, divert the water to the overflow system and just have it drain down the river instead of going through the turbines.
Actually, you can use excess energy to pump the water up into a storage facility and let it roll back down later when you need the energy. See Muddy Run Pumped Storage Facility [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Hydro on the other hand is used for base load because it's cheap to run once you have all the infrastructure - but it's used for peak load as well because it takes less than a minute to start up some very large hydro units.
Small Scale Nuclear Power Plants... (Score:5, Interesting)
have been in use by the U.S. Navy for decades. They've plenty of safety and failure rate data on them, they've got a high safety rating, and they're pretty small. Start mass producing them suckers and they'll be cheap as hell. Start peppering the power grid with them here and there, and soon we'll have clean, virtually unlimited power. Most counties in the country can get by with one, and still have plenty of power to spare which can be sold off to the larger cities that need would more than one.
Re:Small Scale Nuclear Power Plants... (Score:5, Insightful)
have been in use by the U.S. Navy for decades. They've plenty of safety and failure rate data on them, they've got a high safety rating, and they're pretty small.
They also require weapons-grade uranium for fuel, which kinda rules out their use in civilian applications.
Re: (Score:2)
Weapons grade or not there will be a ton of security.
And even if there was not military base level of security it's not like you can just go in and pull out the fuel. This reactor will not be sitting in Iran or North Korea, it will be in Missouri.
Navy (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Weapons grade nuclear material. In portable enclosures. That need to be disposed of (hint: the military hasn't figured out a good way yet). There are reasons why it hasn't happened and never will.
The Real Travestry (Score:5, Insightful)
"Ameren said the application process could cost $80 million to $100 million and take four years."
Re: (Score:2)
Four years I can deal with - hell it takes that long to site a hydro plant these days.
Eight to 100 million dollars sounds, shall we say, just a little bit fucking insane.
Re: (Score:3)
Err, 80, eighty.
Although 8 million dollars (said with evil lisp) really should generate enough paper to act as a primary shield for the reactor itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If this number includes the manufacturer ramping up the design and all the engineers needed to fully test and QA the thing, I could understand.
But if they have one completed and running and all this cost is just communicating information to the feds (generating paper work) then it is indeed infuckingsane.
There is some history behind this (Score:3)
As I understand, this comes after russians started to do the same thing making many people realise that this is actually doable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_floating_nuclear_power_station [wikipedia.org]
Basically a small reactor on a floating platform that you pull to the shore, connect to a local prepared transformer station and you have power. It makes a very good alternative to constructing power plants in remote regions for example. I believe the suggestion in OP was mirrored by other nations with capability of building naval nuclear reactors.
Not quite true... (Score:5, Interesting)
That's an editorial addition by the submitter - and not part of TFA. And it's not quite right either.
Regardless of the size of the plant, the major machinery is built off-site and shipped to the construction site for installation. What's time consuming and expensive on site (and it's not clear that small reactors escape this) is the labor intensive work of hooking up all the piping, wiring, and ancillary systems for the plant.
What saves time and money in this kind of construction is eliminating building major machinery only on demand, and instead building it at a slow but steady and predictable pace. I.E. if you can negotiate to buy April's production in February of the previous year, you have less capital tied up (and thus pay less interest) than if you had to order your machinery two, three, or four years in advance. Though standardized serial production isn't quite the same as mass production, it has the same benefits to a lesser degree.
think about tornadoes (Score:3)
I mean seriously, what we're talking about here is literally "the mobile home of nuclear reactors" ;-)
Don't forget Fukushima (Score:2)
http://akiomatsumura.com/2012/04/682.html [akiomatsumura.com]
Re: (Score:3)
I think it's unlikely a tsunami will hit Missouri.
and then Mayhem showed up (Score:3)
MO earthquakes
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ie=UTF-8&ion=1#hl=en&gs_nf=1&tok=0SB6aB3DK2yfA3N-gB-wgw&cp=20&gs_id=d&xhr=t&q=missouri+earthquakes&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=missouri+earthquakes&aq=0&aqi=g4&aql=&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=e790b5a8625b1eb2&ion=1 [google.com]
MO tornadoes
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ie=UTF-8&ion=1#hl=en&pwst=1&sa=X&ei=G_yRT9qiBMjiggel7tXdDw&ved=0CCUQvwUoAQ&q=missouri+tornadoes&spell=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=e790b5a8625b1eb2&ion=1 [google.com]
2005 Energy Act (Score:3)
I'll probably get modded down, but this is exactly the scenario the disassembly of PUCHA in the 2005 Energy act allowed.
The vendor doesn't *have* to build the reactor to get the funding or the tax credits, it just has to be proposed. Can we see the design of the reactor, where it is going to be sited etc.
If five are proposed that's a tidy return on the investment of the license fee. Of course more of these will be proposed for funding remember; Obtaining the license would not require Ameren to add the reactors. Which is a similar scenario that led to the depression and the passing of PUCHA, Why provide the funding if they don't *have* to build the utility? But that's what the act allows. Would you seriously pay money for *anything* up front if you weren't guaranteed that you were getting what you chip in for?
Lame Car analogy: Hey Fred lets go halves in a car. Ok Jack here is half the money. Thanks for that money Fred but I've changed my mind.
"The fact that we are speeding so quickly into the whole small modular nuclear reactor is so frightening," Smith said. Of course - but not because these things will ever be built. It's because it's a con. Pro Nuke or Nuke Free, it doesn't matter. This is a scheme to plunder rate and tax payers money into the coffers of the large business,,, again.
I guess bubbles aren't just limited to the tech sector.
Re:Figures (Score:5, Funny)
Soon you'll finally have electricity!
Running water won't be far behind!
Re:Figures (Score:4, Funny)
Just don't run a Gieger counter over it.
Odd Bit of State-ism Ya Got Yerself Der (Score:3)
Leave it to those of us in "flyover country" to actively move society forward, whilst the coastal elites bicker among themselves.
Just thought you might like to know that the company that is building it for Ameren Missouri is Westinghouse, headquartered in Pennsylvania. As in George Westinghouse's corporation from New York. And they are looking for $452 million of investment funds from the U.S. Department of Energy in order to start this project ... does your state solely fund the DoE?
Also, I might point out to you that recent data shows that in 2005 for every dollar Missouri paid to the federal government you got back $1.32 [taxfoundation.org].
whilst the coastal elites bicker among themselves
Co
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2)
So in places where it is more expensive to live welfare pays more for people to live?
This also ignores federal spending.
You had better alert the press.
Re: (Score:2)
Percapita my state still beats yours, so you just found another way to lose. Of the top 10 more than half are coastal and only 3 are in the midwest.
So you are poor and have a low population density, not anything to be proud of.
You should also look into federal spending in each state vs income taxes paid. Due to farm subsidies and unneeded military bases, also known as more red state subsidies, that also does not go well for you.
1. Delaware $19,493.95
2. Connecticut $15,485.74
3. Minnesota $15,141.03
4. N
Re: (Score:2)
Also a midwestern smartass; however, it appears the east coast still bests the midwest:
Rank State Revenue per capita
District of Columbia $34,665.63
35 Delaware $19,493.95
16 Connecticut $15,485.74
9 Minnesota $15,141.03
6 New Jersey $14,008.70
2 New York $12,678.84
12 Massachusetts$11,594.60
37 Rhode Island $11,312.59
33 Nebraska $10,731.19
5 Illinois $10,539.40
Re: (Score:2)
When did they start designing Airbuses in the USA?
When did Boeing leave Washington?
Re: (Score:2)
Boeing has been in Wichita, KS for generations (since WWII). In 2005, they were Wichita's largest employer. They've pulled back over the past couple of years, but still maintain a significant presence, as does Airbus, Cessna and a couple of other aeronautical companies.
You're all correct....
Re: (Score:2)
You are quite misinformed. Final assembly is performed in Washington. Spirit Aerosystems [spiritaero.com] in Wichita manufactures most of the structures that are shipped to Washington for assembly.
Re: (Score:2)
Since Airbus has had an office in downtown Wichita, has parts of the A320, A330XWB, and A380 engineered and built in south Wichita down at 43rd and MacArthur...
Boeing never left Washington, but that doesn't mean they can't have massive facilities in other places.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the same Cessna that has laid off half of its workforce since 2009 and continues to push more manufacturing to China? Wow, what an impressive story.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't believe me? Read their product list [spiritaero.com].
Re: (Score:2)
And how many time have there been failures of nuclear power plants on ships?
Statistics: There's not many nuclear ships. Given that nuclear reactors hardly ever fail on land you wouldn't expect a lot of failures on ships.
Re: (Score:2)
err the point here is that the list of US/USSR reactor accidents is very very short. since most of those are the result of suicide/sabotage/dumb luck it does show that given enough safe guards nuclear power is "safe".
hint if you design things so that critical is rigged to a DEADMANs switch it has near zero chances of making a county "glow in the dark".
Re: (Score:3)
There are a number
Re: (Score:2)
Weapons are made with plutonium, it is a waste of uranium.
Except when you either can't get your hands on any plutonium, or you can't figure out the difficult engineering required to implode plutonium.
In those cases, they're made with uranium, wasteful or not. See: Hiroshima.
Re: (Score:2)
While the Mississippi and Missouri rivers often flood, that doesn't meant that the entire state is prone to flooding.
And really, river floods are one of the easier natural disasters to account for.
Re: (Score:2)
While the Mississippi and Missouri rivers often flood, that doesn't meant that the entire state is prone to flooding.
And really, river floods are one of the easier natural disasters to account for.
Yeah, just ask the hard drive manufacturers.
Re: (Score:2)
They knew the risks.
Re: (Score:2)
silly poster, nuclear bombs are for islam terrists.
Re:The way this could be made to work (Score:4, Insightful)
None of those methods can contaminate massive areas of land all at once. You can clean up a broken windfarm with ordinary equipment, not specialized robotics, and it's a lot cheaper.
Burning natural gas, while it does have a negative long term consequence for the entire planet, is far cheaper than nuclear, and can provide base-load generation just fine. Natural gas is ideal to use in conjunction with renewable energy because you can easily start up and shut down gas turbines as the wind/solar etc fluctuate.