1–10 of 27 posts
An Engineer's Explanation of the Fukushima Incident
docs.google.com
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2411141
it looks like the attribution is different for each presentation, though the content is identical
although not submitted separately, this was discussed a bit yesterday on HN, when plux posted it: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2411141 it looks like the attribution is different for each presentation, though the content is identical
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/science/03meltdown.html?pa...
although not submitted separately, this was discussed a bit yesterday on HN, when plux posted it: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2411141 it looks like the attribution is different for each presentation, though the content is identical
"On March 21, Stanford University presented an invitation-only panel discussion on the Japanese crisis that featured Alan Hanson, an executive vice president of Areva NC, a unit of the company focused on the nuclear fuel cycle."
Source here: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/science/03meltdown.html?pa...
although not submitted separately, this was discussed a bit yesterday on HN, when plux posted it: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2411141 it looks like the attribution is different for each presentation, though the content is identical
The attribution here is correct (Matthias Braun, Areva); the name and logos were stripped when it was released, apparently for some kind of legal reason. This is discussed at the end of this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/science/03meltdown.html?pa...
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2400790
I don't particularly care about my own karma (or lack thereof; and after all I was reformatting someone else's URL, albeit to avoid the PowerPoint dependency (and risk)), but I do care about the contribution of repetition to the increasing volume of noise on HN.
That aside, it is an interesting slide deck.
It seems that it might be a good idea to design future nuclear reactors with pneumatic-powered robots in mind; purpose-built shafts and ramps could allow robots with minimal electronics into areas unsafe for humans. I say pneumatic instead of hydraulic, as based on my very limited understanding of nuclear physics, lightweight gases are less likely to become neutron activated for extended periods of time.
Why not reverse the principle and design the cold-by-default core? For example, instead of inserting graphite rods into the core to calm it down, one would need to insert additional uranium rods (or pump molten uranium salt, or move the 6-8-12 pieces of core close enough, etc...) for the reactor to activate and become "hot".