OT Hinkely Nuclear power

http://www.carboncommentary.com/2014/10/22/cambridge-nuclear-engineer-casts-doubt-on-whether-hinkley-point-epr-nuclear-plant-can-be-constructed/
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
harryagain wrote:

Finland, France and China are building these "unconstructable" constructions, it's all good experience for Sizewell C.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 7 Nov 2014 17:38:33 -0000, "harryagain"

Interesting comment. But there's nothing special about concrete walls 6m thick and 70m tall; many modern dams have them of comparable size. The idea of smaller nukes but more of them is interesting, a bit like the coal-fired power stations of old, where they were widely distributed. But no doubt there would be opposition, so bigger and fewer is to some extent a reaction to that opposition: you have fewer planning battles to fight.
--

Chris

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/11/2014 08:17, Chris Hogg wrote:

Creating a concrete mass of that sort of size is, however, challenging. There is a conflict between avoiding overheating from the curing process and maintaining the pour to ensure that the mass is homogeneous.

Micro nukes make sense where power is needed in remote locations. They make less sense as a distributed generation network.
--
Colin Bignell

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
在 2014年11月8日星期六UTC+ 8下午1时22分21秒,harry写 道:

ts-doubt-on-whether-hinkley-point-epr-nuclear-plant-can-be-constructed/
I'm a senior undergraduate students in Toronto. I like Miami's sunbath, and something new about Apple. Reviewing app on my iPad and iPhone is one of m y part-time jobs. I often download some new apps on bestreviewapp, and give my review on iTunes to earn money. I need to buy a paid app in front, and complete the review with money back. Every day I could get $5 more or less. What's more important is to try the up-to-date apps FREE. As some of them are really nice, I'd like to help th e developers to find bugs and update with some function I need. I think it' s a kind of emotion like you and your sweet Teddy bear. Together with each other, and feel happy for its good looking with my little attempts. No fidd ling with my apple devices, I've using them. Let's hit it :http://bestreviewapp.com/indexs.php
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 7 Nov 2014 17:38:33 -0000, "harryagain"

The major costs (and problems) all seem to stem from the expensive containment structure required of the classic cold war based design.
It staggers me that the nuclear energy industry is still pursuing such follies which can all be avoided by the use of the almost equally ancient but superior MSR based technology first tested out in the 60s at the Oakridge facility.
Apparently, the phrase, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink." seems to apply in spades in this case.
I find it hard to believe that the promise of MSR (in the form of LFTR) of inherently safer by design reactors and the savings on construction costs of a now redundent massive pressure containment building[1] is, even now, still being studiously ignored.
[1] The percieved need for a massively strong containment building around the reactor core to protect against terrorist attacks is a much cheaper add-on when you don't have to contain the much larger volume required by the cold war designs.
--
J B Good

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/11/2014 14:45, Johny B Good wrote:

In the current edition of Professional Engineering the guy who has just been given £100k of taxpayers' money for a feasibility study on them says "the MSR is the best out of the six Gen IV options". Well he would say that, wouldn't he; but he doesn't explain *why* it might be the best.
As an aside, the containment vessel on light water reactors isn't to keep terrorists out, it's to protect against internal overpressure if hot pressurised water is released. Only serious military hardware is going to breach a secondary containment, and that really won't matter much unless the primary containment is breached as well. An A380 will just bounce off.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 08 Nov 2014 14:45:16 +0000, Johny B Good

I think you're being a little harsh. There's plenty of MSR activity going on (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor#Recent_developments) which to some extent may be part of the problem. Too many designs to choose from, with, as yet, no front runners emerging to concentrate on and start a new generation (oops, sorry) of generator designs.
--

Chris

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 08 Nov 2014 15:58:47 +0000, newshound

My point was that there being no need of such a containment vessel for the sake of high pressure steam release accidents in a LFTR design, means that the 'protection dome' against a terrorist aimed A380 can be a much smaller and cheaper add-on to the design.
--
J B Good

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

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.