Whelp..... progress? Hellcat engine to cease production after 2023 model.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Supercharged111

Comic Book Super Hero
Oct 25, 2019
4,942
7,740
113
Colorado Springs, CO
Funny thing about designs and modern engineering... testing in design phases is increasingly being done by simulations instead of building full-scale working units.

It's a great idea until it isn't. Flawed data in leads to flawed data out. Let's not pretend we perfectly know how everything in the universe interacts, it's why 'new' discoveries are constantly being made. You could leave some unknown or thought insignificant thing out and all of a sudden what worked one way in simulation does something.... somehow different in real life.

Kinda how old cars keep running somewhat broken and falling apart, and new junk sits bricked until you fix piddling crap. The newer, the more modern... the more to break and go wrong.

Test? Now we're in my bread and butter. Simulations suck, garbage in garbage out. Gotta run it end to end if you want a straight answer. Don't try and tell me a software only upgrade doesn't need the same rigor of test.



8123a132c007eab782d6ca9bed517eb3.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Clone TIE Pilot

Comic Book Super Hero
Aug 14, 2011
3,868
2,620
113
Galaxy far far away
In a power loss scenario, how would have superior reactors saved the day?
Better containment shells, Mark 1s have weak containment shells that 100% failed to contain the overpressurizations they are supposed to contain. Thus they ruptured from a buildup of hydrogen. In short, the mark 1s could not withstand major accidents as well as they should have and are less robust than better reactor designs. Hell, GE even marketed mark 1s as low cost reactor partly due to the less expensive containment shells. This doesn't absolve TEPCO of responsibility who should prevented such accidents, but GE is not innocent either as leaked internal memos reveal they were aware of design issues.
 
Last edited:

Supercharged111

Comic Book Super Hero
Oct 25, 2019
4,942
7,740
113
Colorado Springs, CO
Better containment shells, Mark 1s have weak containment shells that 100% failed to contain the overpressurizations they are supposed to contain. Thus they ruptured from a buildup of hydrogen. In short, the mark 1s could not withstand major accidents as well as they should have and are less robust than better reactor designs. Hell, GE even marketed mark 1s as low cost reactor partly due to the less expensive containment shells. This doesn't absolve TEPCO of responsibility who should prevented such accidents, but GE is not innocent either as leaked internal memos reveal they were aware of design issues.

Crazy, so a better reactor could have survived in a similar situation? It's just that every major mishap is the perfect storm of fvkkups. In the event that the multiple power redundancies were able to do their thing, the inferior reactors would have been a non factor.
 

jiho

Royal Smart Person
Jul 26, 2013
1,002
508
113
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

jiho

Royal Smart Person
Jul 26, 2013
1,002
508
113
The Fukushima plant was using really cheap and outdated reactors from GE that had known design flaws.

That's the problem with commercial nuclear right there. Unlike the military, utilities must consider cost, because they have to make a buck while trying to hold rates down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

jiho

Royal Smart Person
Jul 26, 2013
1,002
508
113
Dyson Sphere!

I had to look that one up.

I see we're getting a new federal office to study UFOs. Do you think if we build a Dyson Sphere the aliens will change their mind and decide we might be intelligent enough to talk to after all?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user

64nailhead

Goat Herder
Dec 1, 2014
5,711
1
12,224
113
Upstate NY
That's the problem with commercial nuclear right there. Unlike the military, utilities must consider cost, because they have to make a buck while trying to hold rates down.
I respectfully disagree with 'utilities must consider costs'. Profits are their primary concern, whereas a military type operation has little to no concern of cost. The main concern is to obtain the desired outcome. I'm basing this off from the usual program of excuses to raise the price of energy that stem from fabricated sources. And I have rarely seen an energy supplier not pass on real expenses to the consumer.

Kind of like the natural gas situation in the northeast, mostly PA. Those fighting for the production describe all of the benefits that we want to hear about - good for local economy, cheaper and local energy for us. But very few of the facts about the gas production are common knowledge. The largest one being who is going to benefit from the production? The answer lies within where the pipelines are taking the gas - to the shore to be exported.

Considering that the Marcellus Shale has been stated to be the largest gas reserve in the world, why aren't we building electric cogeneration plants to power our EV's? Short answer - follow the money (same as always.)
 

69hurstolds

Geezer
Supporting Member
Jan 2, 2006
8,221
17,665
113
That's the problem with commercial nuclear right there. Unlike the military, utilities must consider cost, because they have to make a buck while trying to hold rates down.
Here's a back in the day story...when I was working at Turkey Point and then Crystal River Unit 3 in the mid-late 90s, commercial nuclear power I experienced didn't have any problem making money hand over fist. Commercial generation units of any sort has to show the public they're holding down rates, but in reality, rates could've been plenty lower and they still would make a buck. It's expensive to keep a nuclear plant running, but the money pumps (generators) do an excellent job paying all the bills and lining the pockets of investors.

It's weird how when building the plants they poor-mouth and hold their hats out usually getting the community to pay higher taxes to raise construction money. But once the plant gets going, the rates go up anyway. The toughest part about nuclear power, at least back then, was figuring out what to do with the spent control rods. 99% of all commercial nuclear reactor catastrophes are not operator error post-3 mile island. Believe me, operator training is pretty intense. Too many were from construction flaws/equipment failure. Plus, containment walls have to meet certain criteria for plane crashes, earthquakes, etc. Sometimes they don't. :(
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

ck80

Moderator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Feb 18, 2014
5,743
9,123
113
The toughest part about nuclear power, at least back then, was figuring out what to do with the spent control rods.
That's the easy part. Ship em to kalifornia. For all the undesirable crap they keep trying to jam down our throats it's time they get some back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Status
Not open for further replies.

GBodyForum is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com. Amazon, the Amazon logo, AmazonSupply, and the AmazonSupply logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.

Please support GBodyForum Sponsors

Classic Truck Consoles Dixie Restoration Depot UMI Performance

Contact [email protected] for info on becoming a sponsor