Large Hardon Collider

[Kryssan]

Not mentioned in the article: how horrible it must have been trying this on Pennsylvania roads. They're bloody horrible.

Award for nuclear haul engineering


Crossposted:

Award for nuclear haul
09 February 2010

A road trip to remember (Image: Michael Baker Corp)
Engineering to move two new steam generators to the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant has been recognised with an award.

In September 2009 Michael Baker Jr Inc. supported the haulage of the 510 tonne components along a 120 kilometer route characterised by hilly terrain, narrow rural roadways and many water crossings. At some 750 tonnes including vehicles the loads were the largest ever moved by road in the US states of Pennsylvania and Maryland. The journey required a crew of about 100 on a daily basis and at times the convoy stretched over 3 kilometers in length.

Baker won the Special Projects award of the Amercian Council of Engineering Companies of Pennsylvania for its "outstanding route planning and bridge and highway engineering."

Baker was working for components supplier Areva, which called the job "the most challenging large component delivery in Areva's history." The steam generators were manufactured at Chalon/Saint Marcel in eastern France.

Sorry not groundbreaking new science stuff. But the size of the components the thermal fission reactor plants use is impressive.





Edit:


In other news, it looks like some progress has been made by Westinghouse regarding the NRCs doubts of the integrity of the new containment building design from the AP1000 model with some minor changes. Hopefully we'll see the NRC backing off soon. Links to the public slideshows:


NRC January 28, 2010 Public Meeting on AP1000 Shield Building: Public Slides

NRC November 18, 2009 Public Meeting on AP1000 Shield Building: Public Slides


Containment buildings for the current nuclear reactors are so overengineered its funny in the ridiculousness of it all. And the belief that these buildings honestly need 'more' protection.

[Deftscythe]

[Eliseos]

Related to the title of this thread:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/snow_tracking.png

[Mizango]

I was just coming to post this lol. Nice heads up my man.

[Eliseos]

Might have to put that up in the cubicle, but I already have 3 other xkcd comics up lol.

[Qalbert]

[Kryssan]

Hi there HSE. Jumping on the NRC bandwagon, are we? Don't mind me, just bitchin'. See my earlier post with the slideshow pdfs to see how Westinghouse has been responding.


Questions on AP1000 Structures

Crossposted:

UK regulators have warned that they need more information from Westinghouse on the AP1000 reactor before it can be certified for build.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/up...ng_cutaway.jpg AP1000

On Britain's tight schedule for replacement reactors, nuclear regulators at the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) have said they will assess reactor designs by the end of June 2011. At the end of that period will come Generic Design Assessment (GDA) statements on the Areva EPR and Westinghouse AP1000, but any outstanding technical queries technical could mean still more work needs to be done.

If the regulator is not happy that reactor companies have shown the safety of their designs clearly enough, then an 'exclusions' could be made in the GDA statements, meaning more analysis to address that aspect of the design before build can really begin. The raising of a 'regulatory issue' is an early notification from the regulator that it considers an exclusion could potentially follow.

Yesterday the HSE said that it has raised such a regulatory issue concerning the construction of some plant buildings of the AP1000. It said that "there is a lack of evidence to demonstrate that they would be sufficiently robust" under normal conditions and also in case of severe weather or external hazard.

The issue for Westinghouse is to show that its new steel-concrete-steel modular construction technique could protect major reactor safety systems adequately. The HSE described it as a "sandwich of steel plates filled with concrete" rather than "more conventional reinforced concrete, which is strengthened with internal steel bars" and reminded Westinghouse that extra assurance is required for novel techniques. US regulators have also asked Westinghouse for more information on the same topic, and the company is currently working with Purdue University to study earthquake resistance.

This is the second such issue raised in the GDA process - the other concerns the EPR, which has not yet been shown to have sufficient independence between control systems and safety systems. The HSE said it expects a forthcoming report from Areva to address that concern.

The HSE noted carefully that the raising of the issue with AP1000 does not indicate any deficiency in the design, but shows how the GDA system identifies potential regulatory problems early on, "when a solution can be identified and implemented more effectively and efficiently."

The worst-case scenario regarding a regulatory issue would be that it remains until July 2011 and results in an exclusion. Then, a utility that wanted to build the reactor would have to submit separate documentation to cover the excluded area, potentially making new build more difficult, less predictable and marring the intended simplicity of the new UK system. Generic reactor assessments are meant to be combined with generic site assessments to create an overall application for an independent panel to consider in line with published national policies.

Edit:


Just got the email for the March 2010 issue of SciAm. Anyone seen this yet? The three articles that nabbed my attention were "The Dark Side of Black Holes", "The Brain's Dark Energy", and "Fusion's False Dawn". "Fusion's False Dawn" has some nice pictures and some amplifying information regarding both NiF and ITER.




I also found it amusing after seeing the recent Palin QQ thread that SciAM would have an article involving Palin. "Critical Mass - End of Days Danger". Not a lot of substance in that though, just pushbacks.

[Woozie]

Related to the title of this thread:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/snow_tracking.png

ROFL. The Prius and the Knight were the best.

edit:

Just got the email for the March 2010 issue of SciAm. Anyone seen this yet? The three articles that nabbed my attention were "The Dark Side of Black Holes", "The Brain's Dark Energy", and "Fusion's False Dawn". "Fusion's False Dawn" has some nice pictures and some amplifying information regarding both NiF and ITER.




I also found it amusing after seeing the recent Palin QQ thread that SciAM would have an article involving Palin. "Critical Mass - End of Days Danger". Not a lot of substance in that though, just pushbacks.

Wait, what? I got the email for the March 2010 issue but it doesn't say anything that you're saying. The email I got was about one of those mind issues. Though I did read an article in SciAm last night about the mysteries we still face in star formation (I think that's the February or January issue). They also had a good article about why humans don't have hair.

Edit: You're right, I just went to the site and they have the issue you're talking about.

Edit: By the way, is The New Scientist worth subscribing to (assuming someone here reads it)? How good is it compared to SciAm? The subscription is like 50 dollars per year, which seems kinda high.

Edit: By the way, Miz, speaking of the New Scientist, they had this article about rediculously large stars that shouldn't even exist. You're really into the astrophysics stuff so I figured you'd be interested in the article. I found that issue on Demonoid (I should just start downloadinig this stuff from demonoid at home and putting it on a flash drive so I can read it at work without subscribing to the online magazines).

Edit: http://www.newscientist.com/article/...me-forgot.html

Edit: Another interesting article from the site:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...arp-speed.html

Starship pilots: speed kills, especially warp speed
Updated 18:02 17 February 2010 by Valerie Jamieson, Washington DC
For similar stories, visit the Spaceflight Topic Guide
Update: An earlier version of this story referred to the Borg using cloaking technology, which several readers pointed out is not supported by televisual evidence. Of course, we were speculating on the technology existing in the alternate universe created by J. J. Abrams. However, to avoid confusion we have amended the decloaking reference to cite the Romulans.

Star Trek fans, prepare to be disappointed. Kirk, Spock and the rest of the crew would die within a second of the USS Enterprise approaching the speed of light.

The problem lies with Einstein's special theory of relativity. It transforms the thin wisp of hydrogen gas that permeates interstellar space into an intense radiation beam that would kill humans within seconds and destroy the spacecraft's electronic instruments.

Interstellar space is an empty place. For every cubic centimetre, there are fewer than two hydrogen atoms, on average, compared with 30 billion billion atoms of air here on Earth. But according to William Edelstein of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland, that sparse interstellar gas should worry the crew of a spaceship travelling close to the speed of light even more than Romulans decloaking off the starboard bow.

Special relativity describes how space and time are distorted for observers travelling at different speeds. For the crew of a spacecraft ramping up to light speed, interstellar space would appear highly compressed, thereby increasing the number of hydrogen atoms hitting the craft.

Death ray
Worse is that the atoms' kinetic energy also increases. For a crew to make the 50,000-light-year journey to the centre of the Milky Way within 10 years, they would have to travel at 99.999998 per cent the speed of light. At these speeds, hydrogen atoms would seem to reach a staggering 7 teraelectron volts – the same energy that protons will eventually reach in the Large Hadron Collider when it runs at full throttle. "For the crew, it would be like standing in front of the LHC beam," says Edelstein.

The spacecraft's hull would provide little protection. Edelstein calculates that a 10-centimetre-thick layer of aluminium would absorb less than 1 per cent of the energy. Because hydrogen atoms have a proton for a nucleus, this leaves the crew exposed to dangerous ionising radiation that breaks chemical bonds and damages DNA. "Hydrogen atoms are unavoidable space mines," says Edelstein.

The fatal dose of radiation for a human is 6 sieverts. Edelstein's calculations show that the crew would receive a radiation dose of more than 10,000 sieverts within a second. Intense radiation would also weaken the structure of the spacecraft and damage its electronic instruments.

Edelstein speculates this might be one reason why extraterrestrial civilisations haven't paid us a visit. Even if ET has mastered building a rocket that can travel at the speed of light, he may be lying dead inside a weakened craft whose navigation systems have short-circuited.

Of all the problems with traveling through space at near light speed, this is one I would have never even thought of. Though I guess if you have the technology of star trek, you'll have the means of solving this problem.

[Eliseos]

The definitely had technology to eliminate that, deflectors and shields and not aluminum hulls. I am nerd raging at that article.

[Max™]

Ugh, of all the technological ways to get around that, you would almost think they were seriously expecting NASA to send up a tin-can like the space shuttle and push it up to relativistic velocities.

[Woozie]

I never really watched star trek, so I wasn't sure. In most futuristic stuff they have some sort of shields in place that can withstand a lot, so I just assumed it would be the same for star trek.

[Eliseos]

I think the deflector (the big circley thing on the ships, usually blue, see pic) was specifically designed to deflect space debris, small asteroids, and other things like space dust. But yeah, for us right now it'd be impossible to deflect that, much less going close to the speed of light.

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/me..._deflector.jpg

[Kryssan]

I never really watched star trek, so I wasn't sure. In most futuristic stuff they have some sort of shields in place that can withstand a lot, so I just assumed it would be the same for star trek.

[nerd on]Star Trek ships specifically have several different deflector screens. You can really see it in the TOS and TMP eras, where the shields are broken down into something more than an incongruous 'bubble' that covers the hull. Different alert status back then meant different shields would be online. In my canon blueprints of the Enterprise D (did I seriously just admit to having those?) the deflector shields are different from the defense shields. What Eliseos posted is called the 'navigational deflector', and it does do exactly that. Protect the ship when at high speed. Some ST references state the deflector is also a part of the ship's shield systems, while others have many varying ideas to how ST ships make their defense shields.[/nerd off]


Star Trek is definitely not the only place to find it though. In the games IWar and IWar 2, the equivocal item to a cruise drive is the LDS unit. The LDS unit allows ships to approach several factors within light speed. In Weber's book Path of the Fury starships use microsingularities for drives, where the drive maw 'eats' its way through space, thus avoiding that issue. In Wing Commander shields are referred to as 'barriers', and in one of my favourite classifications barriers in WC are referred to in cm equivalents, where your barrier rating is specified in cm (of equivocal armor), so if you had a 1000cm barrier, it was worth the same as stacking that much armor on your ship.

[Woozie]

Today one of my math professors did a lot of hand waving in his proofs.

He literally wrote on the board "Thus, by hand waving..." a few times. At least he's honest though. I hate how physicists/physics books hand wave their proofs and pretend they're doing a satisfactory job at explaining the stuff. And the reason the professor didn't rigorously prove the stuff today is because he was short on time and the proofs for that class literally take 20~60 minutes or more sometimes.

Though I was upset when he said we can't hand wave on our homework D:

[Max™]

http://www.rebelo.co.uk/these_are_not_the_droids.jpg

"These are the proofs you're looking for."

[Kryssan]

This is for Eliseos:


Training the next generation - ITER Newsline #119

Crossposted:

"Nuclear fusion may have a wonderful image as a sustainable energy source," says Niek Lopes Cardozo, "but it has one big drawback: building a fusion reactor is of surpassing scientific and technological difficulty." "And," he adds, "a whole generation of fusion experts is going to retire soon. So if we want to establish fusion as an energy source for the future, we have to train the new generation of engineers and researchers. The good thing about ITER is that it provides a long-term program and clear career perspectives. So students can choose to specialize in fusion and see where this will bring them." Niek Lopes Cardozo is one of the most prominent ambassadors for fusion research in the Netherlands (see portrait in this issue). Until recently, he was Head of the Department of Fusion Physics at the FOM Institute for Plasma Physics Rijnhuizen, where he was in charge of Dutch research in the field of nuclear fusion (part of the Euratom-coordinated European fusion research program.)

In May 2009 Lopes Cardozo made a career switch, when he was appointed as the first full Chair in Science and Technology of Nuclear Fusion at Eindhoven University of Technology. Here he is currently setting up a dedicated Fusion Master curriculum. "The goal of the Fusion Master is to feed the fusion community with the brightest and best-prepared minds," explains Niek. The Fusion Master program presently comprises five courses in fusion physics and two in fusion technology, plus a full year internship in one of the fusion research centres.

The Fusion Master will be launched in September 2011, but students can already follow a fusion "track" within the Applied Physics Master. Already, the program is attracting many students, who are motivated in their choice both because of the challenging science and the desire to use their talents to contribute to society.

"In fact, we see similar initiatives in several European countries, which is a very hopeful sign. It clearly shows the viability of fusion research," sais Niek. Spurred by these developments, 36 partners - universities as well as research labs across Europe - started the FuseNet European Fusion Education Network, which Niek chairs. This coordination program aims at enhancing the fusion training and education activities in Europe, and getting the word out to interested students.

The project received a grant of EUR 2 million from the European Commission, and covers all education levels - from secondary school through Bachelor and Master's level, to PhD, with an emphasis on the Master. The main actions of the projects are: the establishment and running of the FuseNet network; the development of individual learning opportunities and establishment of common educational goals; the joint development of educational materials and hands-on experiments; and the funding of joint educational activities.

And for everyone else ~ Monju Restart!

For those of us that even remember Monju, that is.

The Monju prototype fast reactor (FBR) in Japan has completed a government-mandated procedure to ensure the reactor is safe to restart following a sodium coolant leak which forced it out of action almost 15 years ago. It could restart as early as next month.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/up...%28JAEA%29.jpg Monju (Image: JAEA)

The final requirement in the procedure was cleared with a decision by the Cabinet Office's Nuclear Safety Commission (NSC) to support the evaluation by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry's (METI's) Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) that Monju is safe to resume operation.
METI told the NSC on 15 February that it had determined that the Monju FBR was ready for safe operation. NSC announced on 22 February that it had now completed its assessment of METI's evaluation and found it to be "reasonable."

Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA), which operates Monju, will now seek permission from the Fukui prefectural government and the municipal government of Tsuruga to restart the reactor. JAEA said that it hopes to restart the unit by the end of March. The FBR will operate on a trial basis for the first three years after it resumes operation.

However, according to the Daily Yomiuri newspaper, Monju's restart could be delayed as "NISA and other related entities are still in the midst of procedures to confirm Monju's earthquake resistance, which is one of the conditions imposed by local governments."

The prototype fast reactor, which would produce more nuclear fuel than it consumes, is a key part of Japan's national energy strategy and politicians have urged its speedy return. Nuclear reactors already provide 30% of Japanese electricity, and this is expected to grow beyond 40% into the middle of the century when fast reactors like Monju should be ready for widespread deployment. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries has been tasked with developing suitable designs, while Japan as a nation is cooperating in efforts like the Generation IV International Forum.

Monju started up in April 1994 and was meant to generate 280 MWe, but a leak of its liquid sodium coolant during performance tests put it out of action from December 1995.

Only Russia currently has fast reactors that provide power to the grid, the 560 MWe Beloyarsk 3 and a 12 MWe unit at Dimitrovgrad. Other nations that have used the design experimentally in the past include France, Germany, Kazakhstan, the UK and the USA. A further Beloyarsk fast reactor is under construction at the moment and should produce 880 MWe from 2014, while there are plans for a 1200 MWe unit to start at Beloyarsk in the 2020s.

Tsuruga 1 seeks life extension

Meanwhile, local governments have approved Japan Atomic Power Co's (Japco's) plan to continue operating Unit 1 of its Tsuruga nuclear power plant until March 2016, the Japan Times reported. "I have no hesitation in extending its operations if the reactor is safe," said Kazuharu Kawase, mayor of Tsuruga.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/up...%28JAPC%29.jpg Tsuruga 1 (Image: Japco)

The 341 MWE boiling water reactor (BWR), which began operating in March 1970, is Japan's oldest commercial nuclear power reactor.
Should the Fukui prefectural government also approve the plan, Tsuruga 1 would be the country's first power reactor to operate beyond 40 years. Eight other Japanese reactors will reach the 40-year milestone by 2015.

Japco announced a year ago that it planned to postpone the shutdown of Tsuruga 1 beyond the originally scheduled 2010 due to delays in the construction of two new units at the site. At the end of 2006, Japco announced that construction of the Tsuruga 3 and 4 reactors had been delayed by two years due a revision in construction regulations following the government's new earthquake resistance guidelines. Construction of the two 1538 MWe advanced pressurized water reactors (APWRs) will now begin in October 2010, with commercial operation of unit 3 set to start in March 2016 and unit 4 in March 2017.

Bring on the fast reactors, lets make it happen.

[Eliseos]

Damn Europeans If only I could move there and attend this fancy fusion school. They'd probably reject me anyways since I'm an American and our schools are dumber etc.

[Kryssan]

More stuff from 'Climategate', nothing really juicy though just a recently published memo :: Link

Memorandum submitted by the Institute of Physics (CRU 39)



The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia

The Institute of Physics is a scientific charity devoted to increasing the practice, understanding and application of physics. It has a worldwide membership of over 36,000 and is a leading communicator of physics-related science to all audiences, from specialists through to government and the general public. Its publishing company, IOP Publishing, is a world leader in scientific publishing and the electronic dissemination of physics.

The Institute is pleased to submit its views to inform the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee's inquiry, 'The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia'.

The submission details our response to the questions listed in the call for evidence, which was prepared with input from the Institute's Science Board, and its Energy Sub-group.


What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?

1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.

2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facieevidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself - most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change.

3. It is important to recognise that there are two completely different categories of data set that are involved in the CRU e-mail exchanges:

· those compiled from direct instrumental measurements of land and ocean surface temperatures such as the CRU, GISS and NOAA data sets; and
· historic temperature reconstructions from measurements of 'proxies', for example, tree-rings.

4. The second category relating to proxy reconstructions are the basis for the conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented. Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information.

5. The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented; for example, the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements.

6. There is also reason for concern at the intolerance to challenge displayed in the
e-mails. This impedes the process of scientific 'self correction', which is vital to the integrity of the scientific process as a whole, and not just to the research itself. In that context, those CRU e-mails relating to the peer-review process suggest a need for a review of its adequacy and objectivity as practised in this field and its potential vulnerability to bias or manipulation.

7. Fundamentally, we consider it should be inappropriate for the verification of the integrity of the scientific process to depend on appeals to Freedom of Information legislation. Nevertheless, the right to such appeals has been shown to be necessary. The e-mails illustrate the possibility of networks of like-minded researchers effectively excluding newcomers. Requiring data to be electronically accessible to all, at the time of publication, would remove this possibility.

8. As a step towards restoring confidence in the scientific process and to provide greater transparency in future, the editorial boards of scientific journals should work towards setting down requirements for open electronic data archiving by authors, to coincide with publication. Expert input (from journal boards) would be needed to determine the category of data that would be archived. Much 'raw' data requires calibration and processing through interpretive codes at various levels.

9. Where the nature of the study precludes direct replication by experiment, as in the case of time-dependent field measurements, it is important that the requirements include access to all the original raw data and its provenance, together withthe criteria used for, and effects of, any subsequent selections, omissions or adjustments. The details of any statistical procedures, necessary for the independent testing and replication, should also be included. In parallel, consideration should be given to the requirements for minimum disclosure in relation to computer modelling.


Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate?

10. The scope of the UEA review is, not inappropriately, restricted to the allegations of scientific malpractice and evasion of the Freedom of Information Act at the CRU. However, most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other leading institutions involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change. In so far as those scientists were complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices, there is need for a wider inquiry into the integrity of the scientific process in this field.

11. The first of the review's terms of reference is limited to: "...manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice..." The term 'acceptable' is not defined and might better be replaced with 'objective'.

12. The second of the review's terms of reference should extend beyond reviewing the CRU's policies and practices to whether these have been breached by individuals, particularly in respect of other kinds of departure from objective scientific practice, for example, manipulation of the publication and peer review system or allowing pre-formed conclusions to override scientific objectivity.


How independent are the other two international data sets?

13. Published data sets are compiled from a range of sources and are subject to processing and adjustments of various kinds. Differences in judgements and methodologies used in such processing may result in different final data sets even if they are based on the same raw data. Apart from any communality of sources, account must be taken of differences in processing between the published data sets and any data sets on which they draw.



The Institute of Physics

February 2010

And for nuclear stuffs :: Vermont State Senate votes against extension of license

The Vermont Senate has voted against the extension of the operating licence of the US state's only nuclear power plant - Entergy's Vermont Yankee plant - for a further 20 years beyond 2012.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/up...0%28NRC%29.jpg Vermont Yankee - heading for 2012 shut down? (Image: NRC)

The Vermont Yankee plant, comprising a single 600 MWe boiling water reactor (BWR), began operating in November 1972. Its operating licence is due to expire on 21 March 2012, but in January 2006 Entergy submitted an application to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to extend the licence by 20 years to March 2032. The application is currently being reviewed by the applicable regulatory agencies.
Safety-related issues at nuclear power plants are normally handled by the NRC, but the state of Vermont negotiated a role for itself in 2006 as a condition for allowing Entergy to store used fuel in dry casks on-site at Vermont Yankee after the plant’s used fuel storage pool filled up. Vermont is the only US state with a law giving its legislature a say over a nuclear power plant's relicensing.

The Vermont Senate voted by four in favour and 26 against the extended operation of the Vermont Yankee plant, which supplies around one-third of the state's electricity. Their reasons for voting against renewing the plant's operating licence included safety concerns, as well as worries that electricity prices in the state could be higher and more volatile if Entergy continues operating the reactor.

However, the vote may not be final. Vermont lawmakers could vote on the issue again in 2011 - after the November elections - and reverse the decision. Entergy could also seek to override the decision.

In a statement, Entergy said: "The effort to win a 20-year renewal of Vermont Yankee's operating licence is far from over. We remain determined to prove our case to the legislature, state officials and the Vermont public."

Entergy plans to spin-off six nuclear power reactors, including Vermont Yankee, into the USA's first stand-alone nuclear power company, to be called Enexus Energy Corp.

Tritium leak

The discovery last month of increased levels of tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen, in test wells at the Vermont Yankee site has fuelled opposition to the plant. The safety concerns have been coupled with accusations that Entergy misled state officials on the existence of underground piping potentially causing the leak.

Entergy has told the Vermont Attorney General that an internal investigation found its employees did not intentionally mislead state officials, but statements of workers "led to misunderstanding and, taken out of that context, the responses were incomplete and misleading." The company added that it has placed five senior employees on administrative leave and reprimanded six other managers, including Michael Colomb, the vice president of the Vermont Yankee site.

Colomb said in a statement, "While there was no intentional wrongdoing, it is not consistent with our expectations at Vermont Yankee or in the nuclear industry, nor is it consistent with our values at Entergy."

The NRC has said that it will issue a demand for information (DFI) to Entergy to determine what, if any, regulatory actions are necessary regarding the Vermont Yankee plant. NRC chairman Gregory Jaczko said, "Senior [NRC] personnel will soon arrive at Vermont Yankee to verify assertions and information that Entergy has provided regarding its recent licensing activities."

If they do decide to kill it, I wonder who's going to opt in for the ~33% power grid loss they'll have? Damned if you do, damned if you don't at this point. I love how TMI-2 destroyed the nuclear option in America to the point now that we're in danger mode with almost all senior operators looking at retirement with a very short supply of replacements and a wealth of aging plants that require replacement or refurbishment but also are required to operate due to a lack of future planning and scare tactics.

[Kryssan]

Neil deGrasse Tyson was on the Daily Show last night, for those that didn't see it. Talking about water on the Moon. And terraforming stuffs.

[Kaylia]

What did he says about terraforming? Talked about the harsh reality, or did he cultivate everyone wetdream with vague information.