Just ask him!

How long before the three-eyed children start being born? They sound cool.

Have you ever met Homer Simpson?

Follow up: Are you Homer Simpson?

Are liquid-sodium cooled reactors potentially safer and more efficient that water-cooled designs?

Fission? Fusion? New-clear? New-clee-er?

What kind of energy would be necessary to run a newspaper taxi?

Mutations attributable to Nuclear Power haven't been proven scientifically. However, my son seems to be able to climb walls, so three eyes may be around the corner.

Homer Simpson embodies many of the qualities of a Nuclear Operator, and donuts are great. I am not Homer Simpson, but maybe someday...someday!

Should the Oyster Creek Generating Station be re-licensed?

They may be more efficient, but seem to be somewhat more unstable. The upside is that they can be made extremely small and self contained. This makes them the only viable (current) choice for a "maintenance free home reactor" God help you if it breaks open and the sodium flares into a fire though.

Fish-un, few-shun, New-klee-ur. War-shing mash-een

I would assume wind power would be sufficient. That and LSD will get ya where you're going.

Absolutely. Most commercial nuclear plants have been upgrading systems continually for the last 15 years, including piping replacement. Nuclear power is good for the environment, and essential to attain energy independence for our country. That, and where else those guys gonna work?

Should the Oyster Creek Generating Station build some cooling towers? 'Cause it doesn't have any.

No. The effects on the fish population are exaggerated. Fish killed in the intake structure are very nearly offset by the number of fish that survive and thrive in the warmer water coming from the outfall, fish that wouldn't survive the winter. Nature adapts and overcomes us, and we adapt and overcome nature. As with Indian Point, groups like Riverkeeper ignore figures that don't fit with their political agenda for Oyster Creek. Fear Mongering at it's finest.

Addendum. Riverkeeper was a supporter of Indian Point, until our contract with them to monitor our environmental impact wasn't renewed. When they stopped getting paid, they went on the offensive.

You havent lived until you have seen metal burning in air because of the humidity. It is so fking cool.

Titanium, zirconium... I never want to see these on fire. No matter how neat it looks

Yeah.



Burning in Nitrogen may be scarier than burning in water.

http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/20 ... s_time.php


Sand Won't Save You This Time

In a comment to my post on putting out fires last week, one commenter mentioned the utility of the good old sand bucket, and wondered if there was anything that would go on to set the sand on fire. Thanks to a note from reader Robert L., I can report that there is indeed such a reagent: chlorine trifluoride.

I have not encountered this fine substance myself, but reading up on its properties immediately gives it a spot on my “no way, no how” list. Let's put it this way: during World War II, the Germans were very interested in using it in self-igniting flamethrowers, but found it too nasty to work with. It is apparently about the most vigorous fluorinating agent known, and is much more difficult to handle than fluorine gas. That’s one of those statements you don’t get to hear very often, and it should be enough to make any sensible chemist turn around smartly and head down the hall in the other direction.

The compound also a stronger oxidizing agent than oxygen itself, which also puts it into rare territory. That means that it can potentially go on to “burn” things that you would normally consider already burnt to hell and gone, and a practical consequence of that is that it’ll start roaring reactions with things like bricks and asbestos tile. It’s been used in the semiconductor industry to clean oxides off of surfaces, at which activity it no doubt excels.

There’s a report from the early 1950s of a one-ton spill of the stuff. It burned its way through a foot of concrete floor and chewed up another meter of sand and gravel beneath, completing a day that I'm sure no one involved ever forgot. That process, I should add, would necessarily have been accompanied by copious amounts of horribly toxic and corrosive by-products: it’s bad enough when your reagent ignites wet sand, but the clouds of hot hydrofluoric acid are your special door prize if you’re foolhardy enough to hang around and watch the fireworks.

I’ll let the late John Clark describe the stuff, since he had first-hand experience in attempts to use it as rocket fuel. From his out-of-print classic Ignition! we have:

No chlorine trifloride on site that I know of. I think I'm glad.

After seeing what the Mythbusters did with everyday powdered non-dairy creamer, I don't want to be anywhere near any of that other stuff!

That was one funny book! Who knew a book about rocket fuel could have so many funny passages. I especially like the way his lab learned the meaning of the world "disestablishment."