User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/5/2017 12:48:55 AM EDT
[#1]
Water boils off creating radioactive steam that has to go somewhere. That is just one of the issues. They could dump a shit load of concrete on it like Chernobyl and then build a metal casket for it. Yet it is still there creating radiation.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2017 12:54:28 AM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:
or cooled down with water or something ? why it takes decades or more Half-lifes |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2017 12:58:23 AM EDT
[#3]
Combustion is a chemical reaction, and can be extinguished with water. However, nuclear reactions and decay are not chemical reactions. We can stop fission reactions by geometric means. We, however, cannot stop radioactive decay by any practical means. Once you've created those radioactive isotopes through nuclear fission, they're going to do what they are going to do. We might be able to bump them up or down to a new isotope through additional irradiation, but then they are just going to be a different, but still unstable, isotope - it's still going to decay at some rate in some manner.
Radionuclides have are the emo/goth/whatever kids of the periodic table. Most other kids don't know much about them, but what little they do know is that some are weirder than others. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2017 12:59:42 AM EDT
[#4]
That's why we should be putting more money into developing a moon base so we can put all the nuclear plants up there. We still would have to further out super conductor and nano tube technology to the point we could actually transfer the energy down.
Another theory was that if we had a space elevator and battery cells advanced enough we could send batteries back and forth on space elevators to the moon to be charged from the lunar nuke plants back and forth to earth. In the future...all pollution emitting events/things will happen in space or on the moon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2017 1:05:46 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Combustion is a chemical reaction, and can be extinguished with water. However, nuclear reactions and decay are not chemical reactions. We can stop fission reactions by geometric means. We, however, cannot stop radioactive decay by any practical means. Once you've created those radioactive isotopes through nuclear fission, they're going to do what they are going to do. We might be able to bump them up or down to a new isotope through additional irradiation, but then they are just going to be a different, but still unstable, isotope - it's still going to decay at some rate in some manner. Radionuclides have are the emo/goth/whatever kids of the periodic table. Most other kids don't know much about them, but what little they do know is that some are weirder than others. Wow, are you smart! |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2017 1:13:23 AM EDT
[#6]
Don't we have a member that works as a nuke engineer in Mi?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2017 1:26:14 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's why we should be putting more money into developing a moon base so we can put all the nuclear plants up there. We still would have to further out super conductor and nano tube technology to the point we could actually transfer the energy down. Another theory was that if we had a space elevator and battery cells advanced enough we could send batteries back and forth on space elevators to the moon to be charged from the lunar nuke plants back and forth to earth. In the future...all pollution emitting events/things will happen in space or on the moon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2017 1:31:13 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's why we should be putting more money into developing a moon base so we can put all the nuclear plants up there. We still would have to further out super conductor and nano tube technology to the point we could actually transfer the energy down. Another theory was that if we had a space elevator and battery cells advanced enough we could send batteries back and forth on space elevators to the moon to be charged from the lunar nuke plants back and forth to earth. In the future...all pollution emitting events/things will happen in space or on the moon. Fuckin sweet!! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2017 1:31:23 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yea or just stop using way outdated 70's technology and move on to 4th gen+ and stop wasting unspent fuel because of "skeerry terrist dirty bombs". Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
That's why we should be putting more money into developing a moon base so we can put all the nuclear plants up there. We still would have to further out super conductor and nano tube technology to the point we could actually transfer the energy down. Another theory was that if we had a space elevator and battery cells advanced enough we could send batteries back and forth on space elevators to the moon to be charged from the lunar nuke plants back and forth to earth. In the future...all pollution emitting events/things will happen in space or on the moon. Your way sounds much easier I'll admit... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2017 1:33:19 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you're telling me I'll be able to roll coal in my brodozer on the moon? Fuckin sweet!! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
That's why we should be putting more money into developing a moon base so we can put all the nuclear plants up there. We still would have to further out super conductor and nano tube technology to the point we could actually transfer the energy down. Another theory was that if we had a space elevator and battery cells advanced enough we could send batteries back and forth on space elevators to the moon to be charged from the lunar nuke plants back and forth to earth. In the future...all pollution emitting events/things will happen in space or on the moon. Fuckin sweet!! Hells yeah...you will need a tank of both liquid oxygen and nitrogen for the diesel to run but other than that you are golden, well besides the big temp swings you may have to find a nice spot to drive it where it's not too cold or hot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2017 1:36:17 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wow, are you smart! Are you being sarcastic? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2017 1:39:55 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Combustion is a chemical reaction, and can be extinguished with water. However, nuclear reactions and decay are not chemical reactions. We can stop fission reactions by geometric means. We, however, cannot stop radioactive decay by any practical means. Once you've created those radioactive isotopes through nuclear fission, they're going to do what they are going to do. We might be able to bump them up or down to a new isotope through additional irradiation, but then they are just going to be a different, but still unstable, isotope - it's still going to decay at some rate in some manner. Radionuclides have are the emo/goth/whatever kids of the periodic table. Most other kids don't know much about them, but what little they do know is that some are weirder than others. What about transmutation? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2017 1:46:48 AM EDT
[#13]
While we are on this subject here is an interesting documentary on Fukushima and the future of nuclear power:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-pbYQ9pScw |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2017 1:47:15 AM EDT
[#14]
Is anyone building liquid salt thorium reactors? or was that a pipe dream?
Seems like those had a fail safe where the fuel would be mixed with coolant and a melt down would be prevented. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2017 1:59:05 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your way sounds much easier I'll admit... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Your way sounds much easier I'll admit... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2017 2:02:05 AM EDT
[#16]
So just how many people died at Chernobyl?as bad as it was it seems overhyped as a disaster.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2017 2:05:31 AM EDT
[#17]
Shit gets hot, yo!
And it makes everything it touches hot. And it flies through the air. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2017 2:07:39 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Don't we have a member that works as a nuke engineer in Mi? I am waiting on him too, not sure who he is or his user. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2017 2:08:10 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So just how many people died at Chernobyl?as bad as it was it seems overhyped as a disaster. everyone. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2017 2:10:42 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So just how many people died at Chernobyl?as bad as it was it seems overhyped as a disaster. i've been told by Nuke Folks that it was worse than what the world was told. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2017 2:14:09 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
i've been told by Nuke Folks that it was worse than what the world was told. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2017 2:20:28 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What about transmutation? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2017 2:27:24 AM EDT
[#23]
Water is also the moderator to achieve criticality. Depending on the type of reactor, when the water is absent the reactor shuts down, loses it's reaction. I don't know "who's" reactor is in Japan, or what type it is. Can't be an old graphite reactor I would not think. Chernobyl = graphite.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2017 3:03:18 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's why we should be putting more money into developing a moon base so we can put all the nuclear plants up there. We still would have to further out super conductor and nano tube technology to the point we could actually transfer the energy down. Another theory was that if we had a space elevator and battery cells advanced enough we could send batteries back and forth on space elevators to the moon to be charged from the lunar nuke plants back and forth to earth. In the future...all pollution emitting events/things will happen in space or on the moon. Why screw with putting big nukes in orbit or on the moon? You have massive and unobstructed solar exposure, if you can transmit power or charge batteries, use pv. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2017 3:24:13 AM EDT
[#25]
Sitting 200 feet away from a purring reactor....right now!
(not an engineer, sorry) A member here by the name of Oven Master might be paged to the courtesy phone. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2017 3:37:33 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Water is also the moderator to achieve criticality. Depending on the type of reactor, when the water is absent the reactor shuts down, loses it's reaction. I don't know "who's" reactor is in Japan, or what type it is. Can't be an old graphite reactor I would not think. Chernobyl = graphite. RBMK style reactors were not used outside of soviet block states. Fukushima was a GE BWR. Hydrogen explosions are no joke. Control your water bro. As for Thorium reactors and other molten salts, you need to have the design approved by the regulator. Can't just make up a nuke plant and say, Fuck it we'll do it live! There are newer plans that have been approved, but it is still a multi billion dollar gamble to go with nuke becasue of hippies and the NIMBY crowd. Sad really, I would love to see many more 4th gen plants come online. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2017 3:47:55 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am waiting on him too, not sure who he is or his user. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Don't we have a member that works as a nuke engineer in Mi? I am waiting on him too, not sure who he is or his user. Mongo I think? I remember him walking us through the Fukushima deal |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2017 3:48:23 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wiki says 50 dead,untold number with shortened life spans due to cancer Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
i've been told by Nuke Folks that it was worse than what the world was told. I sincerely, sincerely doubt a communist government would be honest about that kind of thing
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2017 4:16:01 AM EDT
[#29]
dump concrete on it
best option |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2017 4:16:36 AM EDT
[#30]
Work at one, not an engineer or ro or anything, its pretty chill and the $$$$$'s pretty baller.
Hope that answers your question, op. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2017 4:47:59 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is anyone building liquid salt thorium reactors? or was that a pipe dream? Seems like those had a fail safe where the fuel would be mixed with coolant and a melt down would be prevented. As I understand it there's still quite a bit of research and engineering to be done. Corrosion and neutron output weakening the pressure vessel seem to be big issues. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2017 11:56:00 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is anyone building liquid salt thorium reactors? or was that a pipe dream? Seems like those had a fail safe where the fuel would be mixed with coolant and a melt down would be prevented. On your second statement: The nuclear fuel is dissolved in the molten salt and then the molten salt is pumped through the reactor creating heat that is then used to make steam and then power. Here's a simple diagram: 
Note from above: - There is no water anywhere near the reactor, hence, no high pressure (+2500 psi) like in a LWR; i.e. no Ticking Time Bomb - Molten salt has a liquid range of +1000 degrees (350-450 to 1400-1500 degrees depending on actual chemical makeup) and operate at about 1000 degrees. hence, there is little if any chance of boiling; again preventing the need for high pressure reactor vessels or piping - No cooling water for the reactor = no need to be next to a large body of water like the vast majority of LWRs (Palo Verde units notably excepted) - There is no "nuclear meltdown" because the fuel is already melted in the molten salt. In the case of an emergency, they simply turn power off to the freeze plug and gravity drains the molten salt into the drain tanks where it eventually passively loses heat and freezes in place. - See the chemical processing plant on the left? That's to take out the reactor "poisons" that usually will inhibit and then finally stop a nuclear reaction in solid fueled LWRs; since it can be eliminated from the reactor molten salt stream, the nuclear fuel keeps going around and around and around until about >99% fuel burn up is achieved vs. less than 1% for LWR/sold fueled reactors today. LWR high level nuclear waste stream vs. LFTR waste stream diagram below. Basically 35 tons of high level waste that has to be safely stored for over 100's of thousands of years vs. one ton that is background level in 300 years. 
Hope this helps. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2017 11:56:37 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am waiting on him too, not sure who he is or his user. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2017 11:59:33 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Water is also the moderator to achieve criticality. Depending on the type of reactor, when the water is absent the reactor shuts down, loses it's reaction. I don't know "who's" reactor is in Japan, or what type it is. Can't be an old graphite reactor I would not think. Chernobyl = graphite. 
Cross-section sketch of a typical BWR Mark I containment, as used in Units 1 to 5. The reactor core (1) consists of fuel rods and moderator rods (39) which are moved in and out by the device (31). Around the pressure vessel (8), there is an outer containment (19) which is closed by a concrete plug (2). When fuel rods are moved in or out, the crane (26) will move this plug to the pool for facilities (3). Steam from the dry well (11) can move to the wet well (24) through jet nozzles (14) to condense there (18). In the spent fuel pool (5), the used fuel rods (27) are stored. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2017 12:16:23 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Water is also the moderator to achieve criticality. Depending on the type of reactor, when the water is absent the reactor shuts down, loses it's reaction. I don't know "who's" reactor is in Japan, or what type it is. Can't be an old graphite reactor I would not think. Chernobyl = graphite. You are correct that this type of reaction becomes sub-critical without water. It also becomes massively sub-critical after a SCRAM when all the control rods are fully inserted, and all the Fukushima reactors were SCRAMed successfully afaik. Unfortunately, while there may no longer be a self sustaining chain reaction while the reactor is "shut down", there is still tons of VERY unstable fission products in the fuel which will still decay naturally and create huge amounts of heat even without the neutron flux that would be present in a running reactor. This natural decay heat of the fission products can be more than enough to melt the core without the constant flow of coolant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2017 12:40:06 PM EDT
[#36]
Tag for knowledge
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2017 12:41:53 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
or cooled down with water or something ? why it takes decades or more The problems usually occur when there isn't water to cool it down |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2017 1:07:33 PM EDT
[#38]
Nuclear "events" (ranging to minor fuel damage all the way to a melted core) and "containment" are really separate issues...
Chernobyl was caused by utter human stupidity, people caused it to happen not the plant, mother nature, etc Add to that the the Russian "containment" was little more than a cheap metal building. Fukushima, can be attributed to mother nature (the tsunami), but POOR DESIGN played a crucial role. Building a nuclear power plant at/below sea level, right next to the ocean. See anything wrong with that picture? When you rely on emergency diesel generators to power critical plant equipment when offsite power is lost, you damn well better be able to count on them. Unfortunately the Japanese put them in a place that went underwater, no diesels, no AC/DC, well, the rest is history... I work as a mechanical (NOT nuclear) engineer at a domestic nuclear power plant. The outfall from Fukushima (as in new Federal Regulations) has cost my plant alone upwards of 50 million dollars to address (new electrical and mechanical systems, additional electric generators, etc.) . So, to the OP, understand that the nuclear industry continues to "learn" and address lessons learned. EVERY single nuclear power plant in this country had to do the same thing... To this day we are required to receive training on the Chernobyl event every year to reinforce the utmost importance of not being "stupid" and allowing human error to cause any sort of nuclear event. The safeguards and automatic protection systems WILL WORK, but not if you purposely defeat them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2017 3:26:25 PM EDT
[#39]
JReno solved this containment problem
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1962585_High-radiation-levels-at-Fukushima-reactor-is-bad--bad-news.html&page=2#i64493347 |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2017 6:45:40 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nuclear "events" (ranging to minor fuel damage all the way to a melted core) and "containment" are really separate issues... Chernobyl was caused by utter human stupidity, people caused it to happen not the plant, mother nature, etc Add to that the the Russian "containment" was little more than a cheap metal building. Fukushima, can be attributed to mother nature (the tsunami), but POOR DESIGN played a crucial role. Building a nuclear power plant at/below sea level, right next to the ocean. See anything wrong with that picture? When you rely on emergency diesel generators to power critical plant equipment when offsite power is lost, you damn well better be able to count on them. Unfortunately the Japanese put them in a place that went underwater, no diesels, no AC/DC, well, the rest is history... I work as a mechanical (NOT nuclear) engineer at a domestic nuclear power plant. The outfall from Fukushima (as in new Federal Regulations) has cost my plant alone upwards of 50 million dollars to address (new electrical and mechanical systems, additional electric generators, etc.) . So, to the OP, understand that the nuclear industry continues to "learn" and address lessons learned. EVERY single nuclear power plant in this country had to do the same thing... To this day we are required to receive training on the Chernobyl event every year to reinforce the utmost importance of not being "stupid" and allowing human error to cause any sort of nuclear event. The safeguards and automatic protection systems WILL WORK, but not if you purposely defeat them. And that's good because that's exactly what didn't happen after the pre-TMI accident - which of course led directly to TMI. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2017 6:47:50 PM EDT
[#41]
Half life. It's not just a video game.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2017 6:48:16 PM EDT
[#42]
Lead. Lots and lots of Lead.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2017 6:49:24 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Half life. It's not just a video game. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2017 7:14:45 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are correct that this type of reaction becomes sub-critical without water. It also becomes massively sub-critical after a SCRAM when all the control rods are fully inserted, and all the Fukushima reactors were SCRAMed successfully afaik. Unfortunately, while there may no longer be a self sustaining chain reaction while the reactor is "shut down", there is still tons of VERY unstable fission products in the fuel which will still decay naturally and create huge amounts of heat even without the neutron flux that would be present in a running reactor. This natural decay heat of the fission products can be more than enough to melt the core without the constant flow of coolant. This. The decay of the highly radioactive stuff takes many years. Think like the sun burning out long time. OP, why it can't be contained. Even after the "heat" is gone, the long half life, highly radioactive stuff (spent fuel/fission products from the fuel "cells/rods" ruptured by the heat) is spread all over the place. Especially in this case where the containment vessel/containment building were breached. So its like throwing powdered cement into the ocean and all over the site and trying to contain it while dealing with the high radiation emanating from said material. Radiation so high that robots brains fry if not shielded. Pilot who flew over Chernobyl in helos died from radiation exposure in days. Fire fighters died as they ran away from the fire after fighting it for minutes= bad juju. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2017 7:22:17 PM EDT
[#45]
I'm impressed. There are some seriously fart smuckers posting in this thread.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2017 7:37:22 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Molten salt reactors are currently a pipe dream, unfortunately. Hopefully that will change in the near future. On your second statement: The nuclear fuel is dissolved in the molten salt and then the molten salt is pumped through the reactor creating heat that is then used to make steam and then power. Here's a simple diagram: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2012/ph241/berryrieser1/images/f1big.png Note from above: - There is no water anywhere near the reactor, hence, no high pressure (+2500 psi) like in a LWR; i.e. no Ticking Time Bomb - Molten salt has a liquid range of +1000 degrees (350-450 to 1400-1500 degrees depending on actual chemical makeup) and operate at about 1000 degrees. hence, there is little if any chance of boiling; again preventing the need for high pressure reactor vessels or piping - No cooling water for the reactor = no need to be next to a large body of water like the vast majority of LWRs (Palo Verde units notably excepted) - There is no "nuclear meltdown" because the fuel is already melted in the molten salt. In the case of an emergency, they simply turn power off to the freeze plug and gravity drains the molten salt into the drain tanks where it eventually passively loses heat and freezes in place. - See the chemical processing plant on the left? That's to take out the reactor "poisons" that usually will inhibit and then finally stop a nuclear reaction in solid fueled LWRs; since it can be eliminated from the reactor molten salt stream, the nuclear fuel keeps going around and around and around until about >99% fuel burn up is achieved vs. less than 1% for LWR/sold fueled reactors today. LWR high level nuclear waste stream vs. LFTR waste stream diagram below. Basically 35 tons of high level waste that has to be safely stored for over 100's of thousands of years vs. one ton that is background level in 300 years. http://www.freegrab.net/thorium_uranium2.jpg Hope this helps. Thanks - I haven't followed up on LFTRs lately, really hoped that we'd be seeing some come online in the next 10-20 years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2017 7:42:40 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Combustion is a chemical reaction, and can be extinguished with water. However, nuclear reactions and decay are not chemical reactions. We can stop fission reactions by geometric means. We, however, cannot stop radioactive decay by any practical means. Once you've created those radioactive isotopes through nuclear fission, they're going to do what they are going to do. We might be able to bump them up or down to a new isotope through additional irradiation, but then they are just going to be a different, but still unstable, isotope - it's still going to decay at some rate in some manner. Radionuclides have are the emo/goth/whatever kids of the periodic table. Most other kids don't know much about them, but what little they do know is that some are weirder than others. I knew a guy who was a physics major in college (I think anyway) tell me that a core meltdown could theoretically result in a mass that would literally burn holes in the earth - i.e., entirely through the planet, and continue doing so. True? Not sure if I remember what he said correctly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2017 7:44:04 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm impressed. There are some seriously fart smuckers posting in this thread. Agreed. TONS if youtube videos out there than can give you the education you seek OP. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2017 7:48:41 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I knew a guy who was a physics major in college (I think anyway) tell me that a core meltdown could theoretically result in mass that would literally burn holes in the earth - i.e., entirely through the planet, and continue doing so. True? Not sure if I remember what he said correctly. remember the movie "The China Syndrome" ...based on that idea. I always figured it was hype but who knows |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2017 7:49:45 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm impressed. There are some seriously fart smuckers posting in this thread. This is GD. Half of the people know shit, the other half just shitpost! |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
