Yes, keeping the streams cool is good.I like that it is not dumping heat into the local river or sea and doesn't have the high pressures involved. Compared to water-cooled, liquid metals can absorb a lot more heat while maintaining a consistent pressure. Liquid sodium has a boiling point more than 8 times higher than water so it can absorb all the extra heat generated in the nuclear core. The pitch is that the sodium doesn’t need to be pumped, because as it gets hot, it rises, and as it rises, it cools off. Even if the plant loses power, the sodium just keeps absorbing heat without getting to a dangerous temperature that would cause a meltdown.
If I understand the tech correctly, the Natrium design also includes an energy storage system that will allow it to control how much electricity it produces at any given time which I think is unique among nuclear reactors. This feature is important for integrating with power grids that use variable sources like solar and wind.
The downside is that it will take years to build. Getting a lot of them online to replace coal and natural gas plants would take over a decade.
I've noticed my professors don't even check my references. After going back to grab older references for new work I noticed every once in a while the link is wrong. I'm sure that nobody cares about my undergrad citations for random assignments, it just makes me chuckle when the assignment got a 100.Lots of legacy for sodium cooled reactors, mostly breeder type.
A fun article about how that work in the 60s was later abandoned:
Apparently the early sodium test reactors were a bit accident prone.
Fun fact: one person, Al Crewe, named in the article was on my PhD thesis cmte. He clearly never read my thesis, and only looked at the graphs and their captions.
No one checks links. I do check the important ones (important for the reasoning) for accuracy on volume and page or article numbers.I've noticed my professors don't even check my references. After going back to grab older references for new work I noticed every once in a while the link is wrong. I'm sure that nobody cares about my undergrad citations for random assignments, it just makes me chuckle when the assignment got a 100.
Do you really want the the "father of Windows" in charge of nuclear power plant project? The tech industry specializes in "good enough" to get it out the door. A nuclear power plant needs to work the first time.
My guess is the new Westinghouse AP 300 mini nuke plants have a lot better chance of going than an entirely new plant concept.
No one checks links. I do check the important ones (important for the reasoning) for accuracy on volume and page or article numbers.
I don't expect them to click every link, but the text of the link/source didn't match the citation at all in a few cases. Just a copy/paste error on my part, but still funny. I also get a chuckle when I submit an assignment and the plagiarism checker comes back and says that I've plagiarized myself.No one checks links. I do check the important ones (important for the reasoning) for accuracy on volume and page or article numbers.
Yes but he was talking about assignments, not journal papers.Most journals now do an automatic reference scan when you submit your paper. And many writing tools pull them from online databases anyway, so numerical errors are rare. Actually the Google biblio database (Scholar) has correct data, but janky formatting/capitalization... so the refs are correct but need to be manually reformatted.
Last few times I submitted to PR they had an (optional) ref check on the submission page.Yes but he was talking about assignments, not journal papers.
I know my go-to journals (Physical Review) don't check upon submission, but do so in proof stage , using CrossRef.
Yes, but it's optional and they won't send it back to you if something is wrong in there. They fix things up after acceptance. Which is nice as it avoids wasting time on formatting etc if the paper gets rejected and you have to go elsewhere.Last few times I submitted to PR they had an (optional) ref check on the submission page.
I don't think its bomb-grade. According to the website:What fuel is this plant using???
Former US State Department and nuclear regulatory officials said its use could encourage such tests in other countries.www.reuters.com
Letting the nasty alternative emissions collect to the point where they are a global, unsolvable problem is a far worse alternative IMO.Valid point, and one I hadn't considered.
Of course, keeping the nasty stuff local is the challenge when an unplanned release occurs.