PDA

View Full Version : the trouble with nuclear reactors



Phillip Allen
03-15-2011, 09:46 AM
you cannot get rid of the waste products... regardless of what marketing firms may say

like the gated communities supported by many here... the neighbors are responsible for maintaining the value of our property (down wind from the rx's for many miles can become worthless over night)

once started up, they can never go cold-iron again... so that means when they wear out or fail that they cannot be just "parked" out of the way (as it were)

this means that our commitment for today is also a commitment for our great, great grandchildren and so on

LeeG
03-15-2011, 10:00 AM
maybe we're just used to power generation where the waste products can be sent into the air and downstream.

Phillip Allen
03-15-2011, 10:04 AM
maybe we're just used to power generation where the waste products can be sent into the air and downstream.

every half-generation, a bunch of voters enter the equation believing that "it's always been this way"

Iceboy
03-15-2011, 12:53 PM
Phillip while I usually respect your opinion about most things perhaps a little research is in order as to shutting down plants. http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/decommissioning.html


you cannot get rid of the waste products... regardless of what marketing firms may say

like the gated communities supported by many here... the neighbors are responsible for maintaining the value of our property (down wind from the rx's for many miles can become worthless over night)

once started up, they can never go cold-iron again... so that means when they wear out or fail that they cannot be just "parked" out of the way (as it were)

this means that our commitment for today is also a commitment for our great, great grandchildren and so on

Iceboy
03-15-2011, 12:59 PM
Just one other point to make. The U.S. Navy has decommisioned several nuke plants safely. Let us also not forget the NS Savannah.

Bob Adams
03-15-2011, 01:02 PM
Just one other point to make. The U.S. Navy has decommisioned several nuke plants safely. Let us also not forget the NS Savannah.

Yup...Savannah is about 1/2 mile from me as I type this, I'm not scared.

Iceboy
03-15-2011, 01:07 PM
No need to fear Bob. I'm sure quite a few nuke ships make their appearance in Baltimore from time to time.

Phillip Allen
03-15-2011, 01:20 PM
Just one other point to make. The U.S. Navy has decommisioned several nuke plants safely. Let us also not forget the NS Savannah.

the money spent on making safe military stuff is not in the same universe as commercial use...

Phillip Allen
03-15-2011, 01:22 PM
Yup...Savannah is about 1/2 mile from me as I type this, I'm not scared.

she was an experiment at the beginning of the process... I"m betting the core hasn't been there for many years...just dirty piping is all that's left

Iceboy
03-15-2011, 01:33 PM
Did you bother to follow the link I provided Phillip? 23 plants decommissioned. 22 if you don't count the Savannah. 5 were returned as license terminated. That means you could sell them as lakefront resorts if you wished. All commercial. When it comes to nuclear power the money spent is comparable though it is about the only time that is true.

the money spent on making safe military stuff is not in the same universe as commercial use...

Iceboy
03-15-2011, 01:34 PM
she was an experiment at the beginning of the process... I"m betting the core hasn't been there for many years...just dirty piping is all that's left

Fuel is gone. Remainder of core is being removed as we speak.

Bob Adams
03-15-2011, 01:41 PM
Fuel is gone. Remainder of core is being removed as we speak.

Are they? I knew she was defueled, I thought the reactor demo had been put off.

Phillip Allen
03-15-2011, 01:44 PM
Fuel is gone. Remainder of core is being removed as we speak.

the fuel IS the core...the rest is auxiliary to the core

Nicholas Scheuer
03-15-2011, 02:44 PM
Two options have yet to be tried in the USA, and if the so-called conservatives have their way, neither ever will be tried.

The French, with more nuke power per capita than anyone else, RECYCLE the waste from their nuclear reactors. We've never tried that.

I've long said that we could engineer a FOOLPROOF solid fuel rocket (we'er very close now) and send our waste to the Sun, without any lead shielding, except for the trucks that bring it to the launch pad, the launch appratus, and the loading machinery. This would take some intestinal fortitude, and we all know who lacks enough of that.

Moby Nick

Iceboy
03-15-2011, 03:13 PM
As far as I know that is what is happening. My source was from Wiki so if you have newer info please post the same.
Are they? I knew she was defueled, I thought the reactor demo had been put off.

Iceboy
03-15-2011, 03:20 PM
the fuel IS the core...the rest is auxiliary to the core
Once again a little research would pay off. The core also contains the control rod assemblies' cooling apparatus and the moderator. In some instances the reaction containment vessel is also considered part of the core depending on what type of reactor it is. It's called fuel not the core for a reason. I'm assuming that you were not a nuclear rating in the USN. Please correct me if I'm wrong in making that assumption.

Phillip Allen
03-15-2011, 04:33 PM
ice,,,the core doesn't get moved without the control rods...for all practical purposes the control rods are part of the core...re-defining various terms does not change that fact that everything INSIDE the reactor chamber is "core"...showing off a knowledge of minutia and semantics serves no practical purpose

it's been more than 40 years since I sat at a rx control panel...much of what I was taught was secret. I have forgotten a lot as well...I do not know what remains secret so I speak in broad generalities...those generalities certainly serve the purpose unless the purpose is to pad your prose or add confusion or alarm or any other sort of complication

The549
03-15-2011, 04:38 PM
Did you bother to follow the link I provided Phillip? 23 plants decommissioned. 22 if you don't count the Savannah. 5 were returned as license terminated. That means you could sell them as lakefront resorts if you wished. All commercial. When it comes to nuclear power the money spent is comparable though it is about the only time that is true.

Of course the majority of them store nuclear waste onsite. Unlike in Europe where we could pay the mafia to dump it in the ocean and Africa. Storage is still an unresolved political issue for good reason. Nuclear waste is a problem. I'm against cheap energy leaving the next generation to deal with current f*** ups. That waste can technically be 'solved' or dealt with hardly has to do with reality and the reason why we need to be cautious about nuclear power.

Bob Adams
03-15-2011, 05:05 PM
As far as I know that is what is happening. My source was from Wiki so if you have newer info please post the same.

I read about it sometime ago, they don't seem to be in a hurry, from your NRC link:
NS SAVANNAH

The ship was removed from service in 1970 and its fuel removed in October 1971. The reactor is currently in SAFSTOR. The Nuclear Ship (NS) Savannah was removed from the Maritime Administration Reserve Fleet in the James River, Va. In May 2008, the NS Savannah was relocated from the Hampton Roads area of Virginia to Baltimore, Md. The Department of Transportation plans to complete decommissioning and terminate the license by 2031.

Iceboy
03-15-2011, 07:53 PM
Hey, your the one who brought it up after I quoted a source. The fact you chose to try and correct me is just as telling.You are awfully quick to attempt to show superior knowledge without elaborating. Talk about no practical purpose except to stroke your own ego.
Nor Phillip did I try to pad my prose or add confusion or alarm. I cited my sources one being the NRC. I would surely take that into consideration more than a self professed expert that admits that his knowledge is 40 years out of date. The only one who tried to instill any fear or alarm was you in your opening thread. Why even open a thread for discussion if you don't want to bother having one. Might just as well start a thread and lock it right away so you don't appear foolish.
ice,,,the core doesn't get moved without the control rods...for all practical purposes the control rods are part of the core...re-defining various terms does not change that fact that everything INSIDE the reactor chamber is "core"...showing off a knowledge of minutia and semantics serves no practical purpose

it's been more than 40 years since I sat at a rx control panel...much of what I was taught was secret. I have forgotten a lot as well...I do not know what remains secret so I speak in broad generalities...those generalities certainly serve the purpose unless the purpose is to pad your prose or add confusion or alarm or any other sort of complication

Iceboy
03-15-2011, 07:58 PM
[QUOTE=Bob Adams;2920290]I read about it sometime ago, they don't seem to be in a hurry, from your NRC link:
NS SAVANNAH

No kidding, I went on the tour and was amazed that it was still fueled and ready to go. It really was interesting to see a civilian nuclear ship.

Phillip Allen
03-15-2011, 08:40 PM
Hey, your the one who brought it up after I quoted a source. The fact you chose to try and correct me is just as telling.You are awfully quick to attempt to show superior knowledge without elaborating. Talk about no practical purpose except to stroke your own ego.
Nor Phillip did I try to pad my prose or add confusion or alarm. I cited my sources one being the NRC. I would surely take that into consideration more than a self professed expert that admits that his knowledge is 40 years out of date. The only one who tried to instill any fear or alarm was you in your opening thread. Why even open a thread for discussion if you don't want to bother having one. Might just as well start a thread and lock it right away so you don't appear foolish.

I wasn't trying to pick on you...I speak to general audiences in general terms...there is a huge ignorance as to how the whole business works...not particularly YOUR ignorance...just general...I responded to your post as a starting point for general information...as in "speaking of" so you needn't take things personally.

the news agencies are the ones who pad their prose and try and alarm as many as possible...it directly affects their bottom line.If you are intelligent and self-possessed as you appear then I don't think I need to be careful of your feelers...so I'm not

okay?

BTW...how old are the designs for these plants in Japan?

Iceboy
03-15-2011, 09:00 PM
Sorry about jumping so quick. No harm no foul on my side. I'm just a bit touchy these days when it comes to leaking nuke plants and their residue. http://robertsingleton.wordpress.com/2011/03/07/antarctic-reactor-leaks-may-have-caused-cancer-deaths/ I just went through another check out yesterday for this.



I can't say for sure how old the design is but the NYT says in the 60's. I know the first one on fire in Japan was installed in 1971. Seems there would be a way to convert to a safer system on the same site as technology became available. I would suppose as always profit was the deciding factor.

Phillip Allen
03-15-2011, 09:04 PM
Sorry about jumping so quick. No harm no foul on my side. I'm just a bit touchy these days when it comes to leaking nuke plants and their residue. http://robertsingleton.wordpress.com/2011/03/07/antarctic-reactor-leaks-may-have-caused-cancer-deaths/ I just went through another check out yesterday for this.



I can't say for sure how old the design is but the NYT says in the 60's. I know the first one on fire in Japan was installed in 1971. Seems there would be a way to convert to a safer system on the same site as technology became available. I would suppose as always profit was the deciding factor.
thanks for your response...I'm sorry I aggravated you, it was not my intention

willmarsh3
03-15-2011, 10:39 PM
What's really crappy about the spent fuel sitting in pools is what is happening now.

See Rachel Maddow: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/

Basically they are saying that the spent fuel can be an even bigger problem than the reactor!

skuthorp
03-16-2011, 08:00 AM
Yeah, it's just the time you have to keep the spent fuel. Political memory is short, generational memory is non existent. Chances of keeping this stuff safe in supervised storage for even 100 years is close to zero I reckon. 'Security' will be a rusting and much breached chain wire fence and a contract let to some small private firm that never goes near the place, after all it's dangerous isn't it?

Phillip Allen
03-16-2011, 08:17 AM
Yeah, it's just the time you have to keep the spent fuel. Political memory is short, generational memory is non existent. Chances of keeping this stuff safe in supervised storage for even 100 years is close to zero I reckon. 'Security' will be a rusting and much breached chain wire fence and a contract let to some small private firm that never goes near the place, after all it's dangerous isn't it?

pretty much what concerns me...

willmarsh3
03-16-2011, 10:06 AM
No doublt long term security and custodialship are serious unresolved issues but what Rachel is referring to is that the spent rods in the pool are burning up and giving off clouds of radiation much like the reactors themselves are. I'm not a nuclear physicist so I really can't judge if this is a real threat or an exaggeration.

Phillip Allen
03-16-2011, 10:14 AM
No doublt long term security and custodialship are serious unresolved issues but what Rachel is referring to is that the spent rods in the pool are burning up and giving off clouds of radiation much like the reactors themselves are. I'm not a nuclear physicist so I really can't judge if this is a real threat or an exaggeration.

I don't know any details but what goes into the air from cooling ponds is "likely" mostly water vapor...as in distilled water...think about it

yes there are other gasses but the bulk is water vapor...most radio active gas has a short half-life I think

willmarsh3
03-17-2011, 03:57 PM
Here's an article that gives more details of the nature of what is going on in spent fuel pools and what might happen next.

They are talking about iodine 131 spurting out when the fuel bundles melt, zirconium fires, and even situations where the spent uranium pellets reach criticality and start reacting again.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/18/world/asia/18spent.html?pagewanted=2&hp

yzer
03-17-2011, 04:21 PM
Here's an article that gives more details of the nature of what is going on in spent fuel pools and what might happen next.

They are talking about iodine 131 spurting out when the fuel bundles melt, zirconium fires, and even situations where the spent uranium pellets reach criticality and start reacting again.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/18/world/asia/18spent.html?pagewanted=2&hpIf there was damage to the pools it more than likely came from the hydrogen blast, not the quake. When these experts start talking about the Fukushima plant undergoing a 9.0 quake I begin to wonder how expert they really are. The epicenter of this quake measured 9.0, but the magnitude at Fukushima was somewhere between 5 and 6. Fukushima is 80 miles away from the quake epicenter. I see this error in elementary earthquake science getting repeated by a lot of the talking head experts.

The half-life of iodine 131 is 8 days.

Phillip Allen
03-17-2011, 04:27 PM
If there was damage to the pools it more than likely came from the hydrogen blast, not the quake. When these experts start talking about the Fukushima plant undergoing a 9.0 quake I begin to wonder how expert they really are. The epicenter of this quake measured 9.0, but the magnitude at Fukushima was somewhere between 5 and 6. Fukushima is 80 miles away from the quake epicenter. I see this error in elementary earthquake science getting repeated by a lot of the talking head experts.

The half-life of iodine 131 is 8 days.
that is what I mean by not having any reliable news source... they all...ALL have a vested interest in spreading alarm... whether nuclear alarm or child molesters it doesn't matter... alarm is their stock in trade

yzer
03-17-2011, 04:33 PM
The #1 priority of any news agency is to provide stories that they can sell.

Phillip Allen
03-17-2011, 04:57 PM
The #1 priority of any news agency is to provide stories that they can sell.

what a polite way of putting it