O/T: Nuclear Reactor Problems

Page 13 of 16  
On 8/11/2011 7:11 AM, Han wrote:

Actually, I think the biggest problem is shipping - freighters. Dig into that some.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Depending on the size of the ship, nuclear could be an option, although I don't think any ships apart from navy have been nuclear so far.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Fuel is hard to get a hold of.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/11/2011 8:11 PM, Robatoy wrote:
in

You have to be a first world government to be abe to affore fuel.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not Navy, but not commercial either (Atomic Energy, Maritime, and Commerce).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I stand corrected, Thanks! So the potential is there. Probably cost and proliferation concerns prevent any real implementations.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, IIRC, proliferation and security were the primary concerns with the Savanah. It certainly wasn't an economic success but it wasn't designed to be, either.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 17:59:06 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"

Cites? The only reason I've ever seen is cost. It appears that it's cheaper to mine and enrich fresh uranium than it is to reprocess it.
-- The general effect was exactly like a microscopic view of a small detachment of black beetles, in search of a dead rat. -- John Ruskin
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Larry Jaques" wrote:

----------------------------- I am reminded of the old story about what part of the body was the most important.
If the ass hole quit working, the whole body had a real problem.
Right now when it comes to spent fuel rods, the ass hole isn't working.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/29/2011 9:05 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:

Because the politicians put a cork in the orifice, not because there isn't something that _could_ be done...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/29/2011 9:09 PM, dpb wrote:

And, BTW, perhaps Japan's current situation will be the impetus required to consider that leaving spent fuel just sitting in the (intended only for short-term storage) spent fuel pools at the various reactors isn't really ideal.
Who knows, if somebody were really on the ball, maybe they would actually for the interim kick H in the teeth and go ahead an put it in Yucca Mtn where it was intended to go until somebody got the gumption to actually make a rational policy decision--altho expecting that is undoubtedly too much to hope for.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"dpb" wrote:

---------------------------------------- I suspect that developing and implementing a safe disposal plan for spent fuel rods may not be very high on the priority list compared to all the other problems this disaster has uncovered that need major attention.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/29/2011 9:48 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:

...
One of the key problem areas the Japanese are having is the spent fuel pools--I have no data on how much spent fuel is onsite there but presume there isn't 40-yrs of operation worth given that Japan does recycle/reprocess at least some.
Certainly if they were operating under US constraints every bit of spent fuel from the first reload would still be there and the problems would be even greater.
One would hope that realization of that would break the current political stalemate here and get us moving away from that (altho I hold little optimism, one can always hope for _some_ enlightenment out of DC eventually).
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"dpb" wrote:

----------------------------------- Let's face reality.
The nuclear process allows absolutely ZERO tolerance for error.
Ever since the first reactor was commissioned, 40+ years ago, the industry has been kicking the "spent fuel disposal" can down the road.
There may be no solution to the problem.
Putting spent fuel rods in a welded cask, or burying them certainly are not long term solutions.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/30/2011 7:55 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote: ...

Again, it isn't "the industry" that's done the kicking, it's been the US government that has hog-tied the industries hands; most notably w/ the Carter Executive Order.

Of course there's a solution

Of course not--that's what I've been saying that the legislative geniuses need to get out of the way.
_BUT_, given the legislative mandates that were in place, certainly having it located at Yucca Mtn would be better than the current alternative that there is no alternative permitted except to let it accumulate in the spent fuel pools at the reactor sites.
Again, the problem is primarily political first and to complain that "industry" hasn't done something when there's no permitting for them to do anything is pointing the finger at the wrong party.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"dpb" wrote:

----------------------------- Remember Pogo, "We have met the enemy and he is us." ----------------------------
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This is an interesting idea, if it can be made to work.
<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/24/bill_gates_and_terrapower/
<http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/next/archives/2010/02/bill_gates_g oes_nuclear.html>
<http://intellectualventureslab.com/?page_idS2
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/30/2011 3:41 PM, Dave Balderstone wrote: ...

...
Yeah, I've looked at before.
I don't see how they're going to get around the issues of LOCA, etc., entirely any more than any other fission reactor--basic thermodynamics will require a given amount of heat energy from a reactor to produce a comparable amount of steam to drive the turbines and there's no less decay heat from a given number of fissions/second spread over some amorphous blob than there is in a cylindrical fuel rod of the same number of fissioned nuclei in a conventional reactor design.
I don't see where it really solves the fundamental problems of accidents or natural disasters however novel the physics.
I don't say there's no chance I'm missing something major here, but I don't see it. If they're going to generate 1000 MWe, say, they've got to have something like 3000 MWt from the reactor. What cools it any differently?
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Dave Balderstone" wrote:

--------------------------- Looks like there is some mental and financial horsepower involved, so even though it may not be the end game, who knows where it will lead.
After all, isn't that what research is all about?
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 19:05:52 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"

What a clever way to avoid giving cites!
-- The general effect was exactly like a microscopic view of a small detachment of black beetles, in search of a dead rat. -- John Ruskin
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.