Nuclear Power is Dangerous - Use with Care

Calliban · 2022-04-25 04:59:11

Kbd512, indeed. I wonder about the wisdom of attempting to develop technological solutions to a problem that is ideological rather than technological in nature. Most of the solution to our energy crisis would appear to lie in institutional reform. That said, anything that reduces build time for new nuclear reactors will be beneficial for reducing capital cost. This is where modular construction would pay dividends. Eventually, we should be aiming at reducing build time for new nuclear units to months, rather than decades. There is no technological reason why this cannot happen.

Louis's idea of early political independence for a Martian colony does make some sense to me. It isolates the said colony from the corruption and ideology of the regimes back on Earth. It is no good trying to build a nuclear reactor on Mars if we have to wait 18 months for the NRC to travel from Earth, only to tell us that we need to change the design halfway through build! Presumably, if US law applies in the colony, then nuclear power plants will need to suffer NRC bureaucracy. You won't even be able to build a reactor on Mars unless they have spent several years reviewing the design. Not much good when you are freezing your ass off in Utopia Planetia!

On the design front of things, I do think that the discovery of Lattice Confinement Fusion has the potential to be revolutionary for nuclear fission. It effectively provides the reactor with a lot more neutrons than it would otherwise have. With this innovation, nuclear reactors do not need uranium enrichment. They could run on natural U or even DU with light water coolants. If it can be scaled in this way, it changes everything. It would make it relatively straightforward building a nuclear reactor that can be shipped to Mars even for the first mission. On Mars, we can building nuclear reactors that are nothing more complex than DU metal slugs, with an LCF module fitted into a tube running up their centre. The DU slug would be clad in stainless steel and immersed in a water boiler.

Last edited by Calliban (2022-04-25 07:12:09)

kbd512 · 2022-04-25 08:21:54

Calliban,

It's possible that NRC will have to be appeased, but the requirements for operating a reactor on Mars could be very different from the requirements for operating a reactor here on Earth. It would be great if Mars reactors could be that simple, but the technology needs to be tested on Earth first.

tahanson43206 · 2022-05-19 08:01:38

For Calliban re Nuclear Fission Synthetic Fuel Global production facility....

While I am confident this list is not complete, here is Google's impression of where islands exist that are still under British sovereignty after 1965:

What islands are still under British rule?
Current territories
Anguilla.
Bermuda.
British Antarctic Territory.
British Indian Ocean Territory.
British Virgin Islands.
Cayman Islands.
Falkland Islands.
Gibraltar.

A population willing to accept the risks of having a facility of this massive size in their neighborhood should be rewarded handsomely for their part of the venture.

In addition to world class education for every citizen, the residents should receive compensation commensurate with the risks, and the opportunity to relocate or to remain in place as desired.

This would be an ideal opportunity to test public election processes.

I would be surprised if any population anywhere would be willing to try something like this.

Still, the exercise of finding out would be enlightening.

(th)

Calliban · 2022-05-19 11:10:37

Below is a link to the summary of the generic probabilistic safety assessment for the AP1000.

https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1117/ML11171A411.pdf

'The core damage frequency (CDF) and large release frequency (LRF) for at-power internal events (excluding seismic, fire, and flood events) are 2.41E-07 events per reactor-year and 1.95E-08 events per reactor-year.'

LRF (flooding) = 5.37E-10 (low power / shutdown); 7.14E-11 (at power).
LRF (fire) = 4.54E-9

Overall LRF is therefore <3E-08 per year.

Even a site containing three hundred reactors would have LRF no greater than once in a hundred thousand years. A large nuclear site containing hundreds of passively safe reactors would not neccesarily see regular meltdown events. In the event of a large release, you have contaminated land to deal with. That is not a good situation. But it isn't the end of the world. People living on the land face a pollution hazard. But the level of risk is comparable to the pollution hazard you experience living in a large city. And this is something that might happen once every 30 million years per reactor.

Last edited by Calliban (2022-05-19 11:35:22)

tahanson43206 · 2022-05-19 11:25:53

For Calliban re #79

Thanks for the link to the safety assessment for AP1000!

***
Your post about a farm of reactors in a space a few kilometers on a side inspired me to imagine an island setting.

So far, no one else has picked up on the idea.

Depending upon the location of the island, it could be a financial windfall of epic proportions for the residents, assuming they are willing to accept the risks.

As stated earlier, this enterprise must be protected by a Nation State that means business.

That means no submarines or surface craft, or air craft or descending space craft within some significant distance.

It also means the ability to enforce restrictions.

The security protocols will be a tax on the enterprise, and all involved will willingly pay that tax.

(th)

Calliban · 2022-05-19 11:48:48

As I noted above, risk is vanishingly small. Modern design light water reactors all employ passive safety. There would appear to be no safety reason to limit this development to an isolated island. It does need to be on a coast however.

Nuclear waste is an objection that would certainly come up. With so many reactors on a single site, it makes sense to build a reprocessing plant on site. It is always preferable to avoid transporting nuclear waste long distances. A long-term waste repository shoukd be built close to the site as well. For such a large nuclear power development uranium depletion is an issue. Reprocessing and use of MOX fuel would help moderate this. But ultimately, a large nuclear build up may need reactors to be designed with high conversion ratio. Sodium cooled breeder reactors are possible. Light water reactors could be designed using higher enrichment and lower coolant volume fraction. These would have higher conversion ratio, which wouod reduce uranium fuel requirements. But it is difficult for conversion ratio to reach or exceed 1.0 in a light water reactor.

Last edited by Calliban (2022-05-19 11:58:02)

tahanson43206 · 2022-05-19 12:11:15

For Calliban re flow of thought ...

This is an opportunity for you to imagine a global-class nuclear fission facility able to generate much of the world's needs for long chain hydrocarbons.

It seems to me you are heading along a productive path by trying to think of all the features that would be present, if a way were found to create social momentum around the concept.

By addressing waste head on, it seems to me you are making moves that would be helpful in a campaign to win hearts and minds for this project.

I am back from reading the dismal story of California objections to nuclear fission power. I have to admit, some of what I read came across as justified.

The permanent fear of children growing up next to a plant on an earthquake fault line is hard to confront. It appears (as I interpret the reports) that politicians are simply taking the easy way out and eliminating all nuclear fission power from California as fast and as safely as they can.

On the ** other ** hand, the State that needs sea water from the Pacific Ocean seems to have a more favorable attitude toward nuclear power.

I looked at the route along Route 80 from Salt Lake City to San Francisco, and there are certainly plenty of sites for solar trough facilities, to push sea water up hill and over 700+ miles of terrain, but it seems to me wise to plan for a nuclear fission power facility to operate the pipeline overnight.

There may be areas where wind power would be reliable more of the time than solar, but I ** still ** think a nuclear fission plant would be a wise investment.

The needs of Western US States for water are most certainly going to increase over time, and having sea water delivered to facilities inside a state will provide opportunities for entrepreneurs to show their savvy in making use of every molecule that arrives from the Pacific Ocean. The market for separated Chlorine and Sodium will surely grow, as those valuable elements become available in quantity.

There's a lot to like about the Great Salt Lake idea that just came to light.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2022-05-19 20:33:34

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-05-20 17:38:19

Chernobyl manager ‘collaborated with Russia and helped them seize control’

https://metro.co.uk/2022/05/20/chernoby … -16677957/

Russian tanks entered the plant that same day and took control of the facility, the site of one of the world's worst nuclear disasters in 1986, for around a month before retreating back across the border.

SpaceNut · 2022-05-20 18:22:58

The solders fell victim to radiation poisoning....

tahanson43206 · 2022-05-20 19:55:13

For SpaceNut re #85

The soldiers were exposed to contaminated soil, but I have seen no reports on their condition after leaving the reactor site.

Have you seen any reports? Your statement seems to indicate you've seen reports.

Otherwise, we are only speculating that the soldiers are in fact suffering from radiation poisoning.

The Russians are not forthcoming, and some of their pronouncements are misleading at best.

(th)

Calliban · 2022-05-21 08:11:51

To receive a high enough dose to induce radiation sickness some 35 years after cessation of power production, suggests prolonged exposure to irradiated fuel or core materials. The cleanup teams had collected and isolated most of this material by the 1990s. For anyone to be exposed at this point, suggests utter incompetance or carelessness on behalf of the troop commanders. Then again, we are talking about people that shoot their own wounded if they can't walk. So maybe we shouldn't be surprised at reckless behaviour.

tahanson43206 · 2022-05-21 08:25:32

For Calliban, if anyone can find out what radiation sickness the Russian soldiers may be suffering, it would be SpaceNut.

According to reports I have seen, many of those soldiers were digging foxholes and living in/with the soil immediately around the defunct power plant for up to a month before they were withdrawn.

Thanks too, for noting reports of the officer shooting a wounded soldier. That report should be considered anecdotal at this point. Hopefully post-war investigations will solidify such hints of malfeasance.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2022-05-24 17:24:55

Here is a report that came in from our Arizona onside reporter ...

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/ … crisis-smr

by Taboola
Rolls-Royce to be 'major energy exporter' as new reactors destined for EU 'with UK stamp'
BRITAIN'S own Rolls-Royce is set to lead the way in slashing European reliance on Russian gas with its revolutionary small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs), Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng has exclusively told Express.co.uk.
By ANTONY ASHKENAZ
08:01, Sun, May 22, 2022 | UPDATED: 10:29, Sun, May 22, 2022
Rolls-Royce Chief discusses target for Sustainable Aviation Fuel
European countries have been scrambling to end their reliance on Russian gas since Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine on February 24. Aside from exposing the EU's dependence on Moscow’s energy exports, the war also aggravated an already crippling energy crisis as the wholesale costs of oil and gas skyrocketed.
Energy crisis: UK invests £60m to 'accelerate development' of hydrogen
Italy’s shamed for buying FOUR times more oil from Russia
In a bid to slash electricity bills and boost energy security, European countries have shifted their focus onto renewable energy like wind power and nuclear.
And Rolls-Royce’s SMRs have been tipped to play a critical role, too.
Speaking to Express.co.uk, Business and Energy Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng said: “While the technology doesn’t quite exist yet, SMRs could be a huge opportunity for the UK as we work to ensure greater energy independence.

“These cheap and quick to build mini reactors could bring clean, homegrown electricity to people’s homes whilst reducing our exposure to expensive gas prices and cutting foreign imports."
Rolls-Royce to be 'major energy exporter' as new reactors destined for EU 'with UK stamp' (Image: Getty)
A look at the Rolls Royce SMR
A look at the Rolls Royce SMR (Image: Rolls Royce)
In the Prime Minister’s energy security strategy that was unveiled last month, the Government announced that it is investing £210million to help develop the innovative new technology, which is said to be much cheaper and easier to deploy than traditional nuclear power stations.
These SMRs, which are approximately the size of two football pitches, can reportedly power around half a million homes, equivalent to a city the size of Leeds.
This puts the Rolls-Royce reactor’s estimated energy output at roughly a quarter of the larger traditional nuclear reactors like the upcoming Hinkley Point C.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2022-05-30 07:51:45

California and Texas perhaps might not be the only locations with rolling black outs as America’s electric grid is being mismanaged and consumers will pay a heavy price for that mismanagement.

More evidence of that came with the recent closure of the Palisades Power Plant in Michigan. The 811-megawatt nuclear plant was shut down on the same day that the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) issued a report saying the U.S. electric grid doesn’t have enough generation capacity and that blackouts are almost certain to occur across the country this summer.
Palisades was producing about 7 terawatt-hours of juice per year.
Palisades was located in the heart of the Midwest, immediately adjacent to the area served by the Mid-continent Independent System Operator (MISO), the region that NERC identified as being particularly short on juice. NERC said the MISO region has 3,200 megawatts less generation capacity this summer than it did in 2021.
Despite this loss of generation capacity, NERC expects demand in the region to increase by about 1.7 percent this summer and warned that “extreme temperatures, higher generation outages, or low wind conditions” will mean that MISO will have a “higher risk” of “load-shedding to maintain system reliability” — the industry’s preferred term for rolling blackouts.

kbd512 · 2022-05-30 10:03:25

We don't have enough generating capacity, so let's shut down the power plants. That's brilliant. Why didn't I think of that?

It's almost as if there's a deliberate plan to destroy the country. If there's not, then these people could've fooled me.

SpaceNut · 2022-05-30 10:51:44

Research shows it opened in 1971 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palisades … ng_Station

The question then is how long should an old design be used for even with an extension for use?

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/what … ight-think

Eighty-eight of America’s 93 reactors have received approval of their first 20-year extension. The majority of these will expire in the 2030s.

so 40 years initial with a followup 20 of which it could be extended but it would seem that most have not decided to do so.

kbd512 · 2022-05-30 11:06:13

SpaceNut,

No, the question should be whether or not you have a suitable replacement. If you don't, then why isn't one ready to go?

40 to 60 years later, you can't validly claim that you didn't know that nothing lasts forever.

SpaceNut · 2022-05-30 19:23:08

With most nuclear sites not only going over budget but also to be delayed for decades just to get running.
I think you are also forgetting that the decommissioning costs are now forever for the company owners.
Why would any of them want to do it again as most can not build another on existing sites....

kbd512 · 2022-05-30 22:20:38

SpaceNut,

Since the NRC intentionally bankrupts investors by changing the rules after the certification process starts, I don't think we'll see many more reactors built in the US. That's the primary reason why they go over-budget. The NRC promises certification if all boxes are checked, then after the operator checks all boxes, NRC adds more boxes to check off. They go through that rigamarole for years until the investors lose all their money or pull the plug. NRC has done that frequently enough that investment dollars have all but disappeared. The decommissioning costs are accounted for by the operators, who set aside money each year for that purpose.

tahanson43206 · 2022-06-01 20:36:38

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/smal … 45331.html

The author of this study may have been trying to make a buck with a skeptical take on waste from SMR.s.

Reuters
Small nuclear power projects may have big waste problems -study
Timothy Gardner
Tue, May 31, 2022, 5:44 PM
By Timothy Gardner
WASHINGTON, May 31 (Reuters) - A planned new generation of small nuclear reactors will create more waste than conventional reactors, while treatments to make some types of waste safe could be exploited by militants trying to obtain fissile materials, a study published on Tuesday said.
The projects, called small modular reactors (SMR), are designed to be simpler and safer than conventional plants in the case of accident. They are also expected to be built in factories as opposed to today's massive light-water reactors that are built on site and typically run billions of dollars over budget.
SMR backers say they are a safe way to boost generation of virtually emissions-free electricity and will help curb climate change.

But the reactors would create more radioactive waste, per unit of electricity they generate, than conventional reactors by a factor of up to 30 according to a study https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2111833119 published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Some of the reactors, with molten salt and sodium-cooled designs, are expected to create waste that needs to go through additional conditioning to make it safe to store in a repository. Those treatments are vulnerable to being converted by militants to make fissile materials for a crude nuclear bomb, it said.
Allison Macfarlane, a co-author of the study and former head of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said SMR designers "don't pay that much attention in general to the waste ... because the thing that makes money for them is the reactor."
"But it's important to know about the waste products and whether they're going to pose any difficulties in disposing of them and in managing them," Macfarlane said.
The United States has no plan to permanently store long lasting, toxic nuclear waste, after Washington stopped funding the Yucca Mountain waste site in Nevada. Instead, the waste, which the industry calls spent nuclear fuel, mostly sits at nuclear plants in pools and later in dry casks made of steel and concrete.
"Even if we had a robust waste management program, we think there would be a lot of challenges to deal with some of the SMR waste," said Lindsay Krall, the study's lead author.
NuScale Power Corp reactors, which could use light water as a coolant, as do conventional nuclear plants, would produce about 1.7 times more waste per energy equivalent than traditional reactors, the study found.
Diane Hughes, a NuScale spokesperson, said the study used outdated design information and incorrect assumptions about the plants.
Other reactors, being planned by Terrestrial Energy and Toshiba Corp that plan to use fuels and coolants different than traditional reactors are also expected to create more waste per unit of energy, the study said. Those reactors would likely require additional procedures known as conditioning which offer pathways to proliferation, it said.
Simon Irish, Terrestrial Energy's chief executive, said its plant would generate less waste per unit of power and the company is developing a conversion process to make waste more geologically stable than waste from current reactors.
Toshiba did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
(Reporting by Timothy Gardner; editing by Richard Pullin)

(th)

Calliban · 2022-06-02 02:18:23

Smaller reactors suffer more neutron leakage. This means that higher enrichment is needed with more tailings generated. It also makes it more difficult to achieve high burn up. Higher neutron leakage also means more irradiated steel. I can see how this might add up to a factor of two increase in waste generated, but 30?

tahanson43206 · 2022-06-02 06:17:02

For Calliban re #87

Thank you for your thoughtful evaluation of the claims made in what appears to me to have been an attempt to reach the alarmist market. There is always a huge payout to anyone who can reach that market.

Your more measured perspective is useful, for those who may wish to encourage development of SMR's.

One detail of your reply caught my eye, and I'm hoping you might be able to follow up on the concept of irradiated steel. Iron is the end product of fusion in suns, and i assume something similar happens on the fission side.

There is some carbon in steel, so I suppose it could be damaged by neutrons.

By deduction, I assume the iron atoms must be split into fragments by abundant neutrons in the vicinity, and quite possibly some of these fragments are unstable.

Is there any reason (there may be of course) why the irradiated steel can't be melted down and re-used for new SMR's? The neutron flux is going to weaken the steel. How long can steel withstand those conditions before it no longer can hold the hot fluids in use?

Can the process of melting and reworking the steel return it to useful condition?

What other waste products might be produced?

Can any of those be fed into larger reactors designed to consume that waste?

We're talking about thousands of SMR's, if we are serious about addressing global energy needs.

At that scale, and industrial scale waste treatment facility seems worth considering.

Ultimately, the subduction zones of the Earth seem to me to be the best long term "storage" facility for nuclear waste. I've been offering those as a solution for a while now, but so far I've seen no indication this sensible idea has occurred to anyone else.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2022-06-02 10:50:10

This is a report that I'm ** hoping ** will be of interest to Calliban ...

URL here: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/th … 8ad270293c

CNBC
The energy in nuclear waste could power the U.S. for 100 years, but the technology was never commercialized
Catherine Clifford - 40m ago
There is enough energy in the nuclear waste in the United States to power the entire country for 100 years with clean energy, says Jess C. Gehin at the Idaho National Laboratory.
The technology to turn nuclear waste into energy, known as a nuclear fast reactor, has existed for decades. It was proven out by a United States government research lab pilot plant that operated from the 1960s through the 1990s. But it was never economical enough to develop at scale.
Several private nuclear innovation companies are developing commercial fast reactors, namely Oklo and TerraPower. But even still, there are supply chain issues in the United States for producing the fuel that goes into fast reactors.
EBR-II at the US Department of Energy's Idaho National Laboratory.
© Provided by CNBC
EBR-II at the US Department of Energy's Idaho National Laboratory.
There is enough energy in the nuclear waste in the United States to power the entire country for 100 years, and doing so could help solve the thorny and politically fraught problem of managing spent nuclear waste.
That's according to Jess C. Gehin, an associate laboratory director at Idaho National Laboratory, one of the government's premier energy research labs.
The technology necessary to turn nuclear waste into energy is known as a nuclear fast reactor, and has existed for decades. It was proven out by a United States government research lab pilot plant that operated from the 1960s through the 1990s.
For political and economic reasons, the technology has never been developed at commercial scale. Today, there's an increased urgency to address climate change by decarbonizing out energy grids, and nuclear power has become part of the clean energy zeitgeist. As a result, nuclear fast reactors are once again getting a serious look.
Continue reading

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2022-06-09 17:08:22

Here's an update from the Military side of the house ...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/pentagon-cho … 09794.html

Defense News
Pentagon chooses design for ‘Project Pele’ portable nuclear reactor prototype
Courtney Albon
Thu, June 9, 2022, 11:22 AM
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon selected BWXT Advanced Technologies to build a prototype of a mobile nuclear reactor that will demonstrate the utility of a portable alternate energy source to support military operations in austere locations.
The U.S. Department of Defense’s Strategic Capabilities Office last year selected Lynchburg, Virginia-based BWXT and X-energy, a nuclear reactor company based in Rockville, Maryland, to design prototypes of a small, portable nuclear reactor under an effort called “Project Pele.” BWXT announced June 9 that the Pentagon chose its prototype and awarded a contract worth as much as $300 million.
Under the contract, the company will deliver its full-scale microreactor in fiscal 2024. The system will then undergo up to three years of testing at Idaho National Laboratory to validate its performance and demonstrate that the prototype can provide “reliable off-grid electric power,” BWXT said in a press release.
“We are on a mission to design, build and test new nuclear technology to protect the environment while providing power, and we are thrilled with this competitively bid award after years of hard work by our design and engineering team,” Joe Miller, BWXT president, said in a statement. “The entire nuclear industry recognizes that advanced reactors are an important step forward to support growing power needs and significant carbon reduction imperatives.”
The department does not yet have a strategy for procuring additional reactors beyond the initial Project Pele prototype. Its longer-term vision is to reduce energy spending and dependence on fuel and local power grids. The department uses some 30 terawatt hours of electricity annually and more than 10 million gallons of fuel each day and expects those levels to increase.
“A safe, transportable nuclear reactor would address this growing demand with a resilient, carbon-free energy source that would not add to the DoD’s fuel needs, while supporting mission-critical operations in remote and austere environments,” the department said in an April 13 press release.
BWXT will serve as the prime contractor and integration lead for the effort and is responsible for manufacturing the reactor module. It is also teaming with a number of companies to develop its prototype, including Northrop Grumman, Aerojet Rocketdyne, Rolls-Royce and Torch Technologies.
Our goal is to create a safe and engaging place for users to connect over interests and passions. In order to improve our community experience, we are temporarily suspending article commenting.

(th)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2022-04-25 04:59:11

Re: Nuclear Power is Dangerous - Use with Care

#77 2022-04-25 08:21:54

Re: Nuclear Power is Dangerous - Use with Care

#78 2022-05-19 08:01:38

Re: Nuclear Power is Dangerous - Use with Care

#79 2022-05-19 11:10:37

Re: Nuclear Power is Dangerous - Use with Care

#80 2022-05-19 11:25:53

Re: Nuclear Power is Dangerous - Use with Care

#81 2022-05-19 11:48:48

Re: Nuclear Power is Dangerous - Use with Care

#82 2022-05-19 12:11:15

Re: Nuclear Power is Dangerous - Use with Care

#83 2022-05-19 20:33:34

Re: Nuclear Power is Dangerous - Use with Care

#84 2022-05-20 17:38:19

Re: Nuclear Power is Dangerous - Use with Care

#85 2022-05-20 18:22:58

Re: Nuclear Power is Dangerous - Use with Care

#86 2022-05-20 19:55:13

Re: Nuclear Power is Dangerous - Use with Care

#87 2022-05-21 08:11:51

Re: Nuclear Power is Dangerous - Use with Care

#88 2022-05-21 08:25:32

Re: Nuclear Power is Dangerous - Use with Care

#89 2022-05-24 17:24:55

Re: Nuclear Power is Dangerous - Use with Care

#90 2022-05-30 07:51:45

Re: Nuclear Power is Dangerous - Use with Care

#91 2022-05-30 10:03:25

Re: Nuclear Power is Dangerous - Use with Care

#92 2022-05-30 10:51:44

Re: Nuclear Power is Dangerous - Use with Care

#93 2022-05-30 11:06:13

Re: Nuclear Power is Dangerous - Use with Care

#94 2022-05-30 19:23:08

Re: Nuclear Power is Dangerous - Use with Care

#95 2022-05-30 22:20:38

Re: Nuclear Power is Dangerous - Use with Care

#96 2022-06-01 20:36:38

Re: Nuclear Power is Dangerous - Use with Care

#97 2022-06-02 02:18:23

Re: Nuclear Power is Dangerous - Use with Care

#98 2022-06-02 06:17:02

Re: Nuclear Power is Dangerous - Use with Care

#99 2022-06-02 10:50:10

Re: Nuclear Power is Dangerous - Use with Care

#100 2022-06-09 17:08:22

Re: Nuclear Power is Dangerous - Use with Care

Board footer