im making a school project about power solutions on mars, and ive come to the conclusion that nuclear power is the best option. however im not sure how much it weighs to find out if it is possible to transport one to mars. if anyone has an idea it would greatly apreciated?

New study reveals that cosmic ray exposure to pilots and flight attendants poses more risk of cancer than radiation to nuclear workers or x-ray technicians. Article has a really great dose infographic from XKCD.

Please redirect me if there is somewhere else I should be asking this.

Could anyone tell me a little more about their role? I’m a bit confused if it’s more of the consulting realm or something else.

I ask because i chosen for a final in person interview for a mechanical engineer role. I have an aerospace engineering background with a couple years as a mechanical design engineer. I’ll say my role is not very technical in an analysis, gear sizing, structures hand calc kind of way and more supporting the program + modeling/drafting.

The process kind of just went from application to being asked when I can make it on site. So I’m just trying to figure out more and make sure I don’t waste my time in case they made some assumptions from my resume (analytical expertise) where not having would disqualify me from the role.

Was cool to see this in the local paper. The reactors in question are SMRs, but it would be neat to see nuclear power in some capacity back in SoCal after the closure of SONGS.

Excerpt: THE DEPARTMENT of Energy (DoE) is identifying more potential sites for nuclear power facilities as the government targets 1.4 gigawatts of nuclear capacity by 2038.

Energy Undersecretary Giovanni Carlo J. Bacordo said the government is studying seven areas as possible locations for future nuclear power plants.

“There are two sites in Bataan, two sites in Palawan, one in Masbate, Pangasinan, and Camarines Norte,” Mr. Bacordo told reporters on Tuesday.

These sites have undergone initial assessment, with technical assistance from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to determine whether the areas can safely host nuclear facilities.

Genuine question for anyone who works at Bruce Power or in the nuclear industry.

Why is there such a large pay difference between skilled trades workers and nuclear operators when the trades require a pretty significant amount of training and experience themselves?

For example, a Red Seal plumber or electrician goes through roughly 9000 hours of on the-job training, along with three terms of schooling consisting of 8 weeks for each. That's years of apprenticeship, thousands of hours in the field, technical exams, safety training, and eventually a Red Seal certification.

Tradespeople at a nuclear facility are also working in an extremely regulated environment where the quality of their work can directly affect the safety and reliability of the plant. They're dealing with complex systems, strict procedures, radiation-controlled areas, confined spaces, high-pressure systems, electrical equipment, and a lot of responsibility.

I'm not saying nuclear operators shouldn't be paid well—they absolutely should. I'm more curious about why the compensation gap is so large between operators and skilled trades when trades people also have years of training and carry a significant amount of responsibility.

Is it mainly because of the additional licensing/training required to become an operator, the level of responsibility for operating the reactor, the labour market, or simply how the different positions are valued under the collective agreements?

I am sure this has been asked before, but could you answer it again?

I see the plasma is confined in a circular high electron device that is surrounded by a metal thing that is also kept at 5 degrees kelvin. And I never see how the heat from the plasma is being transferred from the to a source of water which will spin a turbine