1950s Chest Freezer Refurbish

Page 9 of 10  
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

The _systems_ did work correctly as is demonstrated by having no offsite or onsite consequences other than mechanical damage. That's what they were designed to do and what they did.
As noted in another response in which I summarized the accident scenario, the actual failure was in the intervention of the operators in the automatic response of the system to the incident w/o which the whole thing would have been over and the reactor online again within a month or so at the outside.
So, again, your lack of knowledge of what actually happened and what it really shows is apparent. If it didn't say so much about what is wrong w/ our overall level of scientific and technical education in the country it would almost be funny.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In article

error. You can't ask for much better safety than a system that compensates for the mistakes those dern humans make.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim Yanik wrote: ...

In fact, if the operators had just sat back and done essentially nothing instead of intervening, there would have been no "TMI" anybody would remember. Only a short outage similar to that in FL the other day...
...

"haller" and "research" in the same sentence? There's an oxymoron for ya! :(
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What's weird, though, is that, prior to this stupid thread, I always thought his stuff was worth reading. I guess that, if you keep scratching LONG enough...
--
<sigh>
JR

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

yes,it's very clear he didn't bother to look up pebble-bed reactor technology.

some people can be very competent in one area,and completely wacked in another.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim Yanik wrote:

As long as there's a steady supply of stupid people for reactor sites to hire, there's no safety in nuclear power.
--
If they could invoke Dubya,
I can certainly call a jerk Hussein.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

you watch too much "Simpsons" TV.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
as to hiroshima they were really low yield weapons detonated at higher altitude, which caused more damage but created less radioactive debris. no doubt this helped in rebuilding.
plus the types of radiation from a nuke plant was different from hiroshima.
long lived highly enriched nastys in reactors are highly dangerous.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yeah, if you consider 20Ktons low yield. It did wipe out the city. As to how much radioactive waste it created vs Chernobly, I'm actually not sure about that, one way or the other. Chernobly was such a half assed hell hole to begin with that it was easy to just walk away from it instead of rebuilding it.

The uranium used in commercial reactors is enriched to a whopping 2 or 3%. Before those rods go into the nuke, you could hold them in your hand. Weapons grade uranium like that used at Hiroshima is what's highly enriched, which is to 80 or 90%.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote in wrote:

well,they were air-burst,not ground burst,which digs a lot of dirt up and spreads it.I'm not so sure about "higher altitude",as nukes usually are detonated at around 3-5 thousand feet.

And they VERY rarely get released.That's the important part.

actually,those early nukes were very dirty,as they didn't know enough to fine-tune the amount of fissionables so that ALL the fissionables actually fissioned.IOW,they wasted a lot of uranium and plutonium to be sure the bombs would fission.
Unlike N.Korea's recent nuke test "fizzle".
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim Yanik wrote:

No, I've seen the effects stupid people can have on even the simplest operations. Plus, I can't at this moment think of a single incident at a nuclear power facility that wasn't caused by stupidity. Not even one single incident caused by an actual materials or design failure runs through my mind.
--
If they could invoke Dubya,
I can certainly call a jerk Hussein.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

and how do you guarantee a stupid person in the future wouldnt create a disaster.
one tech looking for air leaks caused a electrical fire in the control cables....
top of reactor core nearly ate thru, one and i believe it was around the great lakes, a water deflector came loose and blocked cooling water, the nearly brand new reactor nearly melted down and was permanetely shut down and encased in a oncrete vault.
how many old reactors have been shut down, disassembled and the ground cleaned up, core sent for proper disposal?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

Detroit. No idea how accurate the book was.

Not very many, so far. I think NRC and the Navy just got around to dismantling the R&D reactors for the original nuke sub program a couple of years ago. The earliest commercial reactors are just now reaching end-of-life, and many got their licenses extended (according to the papers) by doing upgrades and reinspections. Commercial ones that are offline permanently are mothballed in place, if the newspaper reports are accurate.
They really do need to move all those old fuel rods to a centrally located real deep hole, sooner rather than later. I'm sure the taxpayers will end footing most of that bill. After a century or so, the stainless cylinders inside those concrete casks will start to deteriorate.
They put a lot of thought into the 'keep out' markers for Yucca Mountain and similar sites. Granite and gold for durability, supposed to still be legible in 10k years. Multiple languages, as well as diagrams showing atomic structure of the stored materials, that will hopefully mean something to anyone still around then. (presuming no current languages will still be spoken.) ISTR they also buried markers around the perimeter in some way that would call attention to itself to any prospectors, in case the above-ground markers got stolen or recycled as grave markers or something.
Of course, if some calamity produces a general societal collapse and loss of all historical records, and a reversion to a barely literate agrarian economy led by local Jefes and Shamans, the dump sites may become very holy places.
aem sends...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'll lay you odds that Hallerburton is also _against_ the Yucca mountain project. From his reasoning in this thread, he probably figures it is too dangerous to store there while ignoring the danger of having it scattered in sites all over the country.
Harry K
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

Nothing external to the plant, yes--they did melt the core to about 2/3rds but it was all contained in the vessel...

All it took to restore cooling was to turn the RCP (reactor coolant pumps) back on. They had been shut off (manually) owing to operator error and misinterpretation of instrumentation data. Once forced circulation was reestablished, the situation was stabilized.
There was far more concern in the media over the "H-bubble" than there was in reality.

There was no containment at Chernobyl--there was no idea that it was anything other than weather protection. Not a good design, but then again, in their regime they could do as they saw fit.
OTOH, at their LWRs (Westinghouse design copies) they have containments same as any other.
I haven't checked for certain, but I believe all the Chernobyl-style reactors have been retired.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
ok on the spent fuel rods in a pool right next to the reactor........... non hardened buildings, no heavy concrete steel reinforced containment.
if a terrorist somehow blew up the building by either smuggling a bomb onto the grounds or the more likely flying a bomb into the building. the newest fuel rods will be hot enough to melt down and all the rods, in a explosion will be a bad day.
very bad..............
the ower companies should be required to have a plan with funding in place to handle spent fuel safely.
those who worked or work for the nuke power industry have a vested interest in reassuring the public its safe......
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

unless the bomb is right IN the pool,an explosion is not going to harm the rods in the belowground pool.

Once the rods cool enough[in short a time frame for terrorist planning],the rods get shipped to Yucca Mtn secure storage site.

All the greater reason to build pebble-bed reactors,no fuel rod problems. The fuel "pebbles" are extremely durable.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

so how long has work been done on yucca mountain? how much old fuel has been moved there? whats the ultimate price tag for yucca and moving, storing, and monitoring this hopefully forever tomb? who is paying for all this?
what about shipping danger?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote: ...

No, a bomb would tend scatter stuff around, not put it in closer proximity to the small number of "hot" assemblies which would be required to heat up all the rest.

They have been funding it since the beginning of commercial nuclear power in the 60s...

And we've been extremely successful despite the irrational fears of folks like you who rant about stuff they have no idea of how it actually works...
Just like the Chernobyl/LWR comparison -- can you explain the difference between the two reactor designs or even the mechanism by which the Chernobyl accident caused the dispersion? If you understood anything about the reactor design and the accident scenario itself, you would have an understanding of why that type of accident can't physically occur at a LWR.
--


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

you know if it werent for 3 mile island, nuke power would be much more common today.
but building something that can in any degree create another chernobyl here in our country is folly.
your statement that things are safe there except for one city shows how little you know of the after effects.......
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.