![]() |
![]() |
![]() ![]()
Post
#1
|
|
The ShadowComedian ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 14,538 Joined: 3-October 07 From: Hamburg, AGS Member No.: 13,525 ![]() |
so, i just found an article about one Andrea Rossi with his E-Cat ELNR/Cold-Fusion Device for Home-Owners . .
And after some more Research found this, which is the only link on google without ecat or something like that in the link . . http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-02/27/rossi-roundup What does one make of this now? |
|
|
![]() |
![]()
Post
#2
|
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 497 Joined: 16-April 08 From: Alexandria, VA Member No.: 15,900 ![]() |
Good old cold fusion, rearing its mythical head again. The bigfoot of science, seen only through grainy images and looking for all the world to be fake.
It could be quite the game-changer in this world if it ever is figured out and replicated more than once. Not sure how a lot of energy companies would feel about it though. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#3
|
|
The ShadowComedian ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 14,538 Joined: 3-October 07 From: Hamburg, AGS Member No.: 13,525 ![]() |
To be honest, i don't place much trust into Rossi and his E-Cat, but the rest of that did not sound quite as fishy . .
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#4
|
|
Neophyte Runner ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 2,328 Joined: 2-April 07 From: The Center of the Universe Member No.: 11,360 ![]() |
Good old cold fusion, rearing its mythical head again. The bigfoot of science, seen only through grainy images and looking for all the world to be fake. It could be quite the game-changer in this world if it ever is figured out and replicated more than once. Not sure how a lot of energy companies would feel about it though. Hmm, depends on how quickly it is adopted and how expensive it is to make (price per KWH). The reason coal, oil, and natural gas are still used in power plants is that it is still cheaper than wind or solar. Nuclear is cheaper in the long run, but given its radioactive dangers it is usually dismissed as an alternative. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#5
|
|
Immortal Elf ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 10,289 Joined: 2-October 08 Member No.: 16,392 ![]() |
I'll just put this here from Wikipedia.
QUOTE Peter Ekström, lecturer at the Department of Nuclear Physics at Lund University in Sweden, concluded in May 2011, "I am convinced that the whole story is one big scam, and that it will be revealed in less than one year." He cites the unlikelihood of a chemical reaction being strong enough to overcome the Coulomb barrier, the lack of gamma rays, the lack of explanation for the origin of the extra energy, the lack of the expected radioactivity after fusing a proton with 58Ni, the unexplained occurrence of 11% iron in the spent fuel, the 10% copper in the spent fuel strangely having the same isotopic ratios as natural copper, and the lack of any unstable copper isotope in the spent fuel as if the reactor only produced stable isotopes. 10% non-radioactive copper in the spent fuel? CURIOUS. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#6
|
|
The ShadowComedian ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 14,538 Joined: 3-October 07 From: Hamburg, AGS Member No.: 13,525 ![]() |
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#7
|
|
Immortal Elf ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 10,289 Joined: 2-October 08 Member No.: 16,392 ![]() |
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#8
|
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 497 Joined: 16-April 08 From: Alexandria, VA Member No.: 15,900 ![]() |
Yeah, despite marathoning Breaking Bad, this chemistry is over my head (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#9
|
|
The ShadowComedian ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 14,538 Joined: 3-October 07 From: Hamburg, AGS Member No.: 13,525 ![]() |
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#10
|
|
Immortal Elf ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 10,289 Joined: 2-October 08 Member No.: 16,392 ![]() |
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#11
|
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 583 Joined: 6-November 09 From: MTL Member No.: 17,849 ![]() |
Or Science!
Well he said that more than a year ago...anyone disprove it yet? |
|
|
![]()
Post
#12
|
|
Immortal Elf ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 10,289 Joined: 2-October 08 Member No.: 16,392 ![]() |
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#13
|
|
Neophyte Runner ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 2,328 Joined: 2-April 07 From: The Center of the Universe Member No.: 11,360 ![]() |
Blah Blah Blah...Science...Blah Blah Blah..can we go shoot something now? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#14
|
|
Old Man of the North ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 10,273 Joined: 14-August 03 From: Just north of the Centre of the Universe Member No.: 5,463 ![]() |
Blah Blah Blah...Science...Blah Blah Blah..can we go shoot something now? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif) You do realize that it is because of Science that you have a tool with which to shoot something, don't you? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) |
|
|
![]()
Post
#15
|
|
Running Target ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 1,018 Joined: 3-July 10 Member No.: 18,786 ![]() |
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#16
|
|
Immortal Elf ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 10,289 Joined: 2-October 08 Member No.: 16,392 ![]() |
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#17
|
|
Running Target ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 1,003 Joined: 3-May 11 From: Brisbane Australia Member No.: 29,391 ![]() |
Hmm, depends on how quickly it is adopted and how expensive it is to make (price per KWH). The reason coal, oil, and natural gas are still used in power plants is that it is still cheaper than wind or solar. Nuclear is cheaper in the long run, but given its radioactive dangers it is usually dismissed as an alternative. Considering Fukushima Daiichi was a 40yr old reactor with a 50yr old design got hit with a mag 9 earthquake and tsunami and then a mag 7 aftershock centered 40 miles away and there are NO cases of residents suffering from radiation related ailments it is more perception than actual danger. Also if people are still scared you could go for LTFR instead. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#18
|
|
Immortal Elf ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 10,289 Joined: 2-October 08 Member No.: 16,392 ![]() |
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#19
|
|
Great Dragon ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 5,091 Joined: 3-October 09 From: Kohle, Stahl und Bier Member No.: 17,709 ![]() |
I suspect the guy hasn't let anyone get a close enough look at it to say for sure. He has even gone as far as claiming that his reactors would be equipped with a self-destruct to prevent analysis. Oh, and it's not the frist miracle product of this Rossi guy, Google should yield plenty of history. My favorite is the company which could allegedly make toxic waste disappear or even better turn it into raw oil -- turns out they made the waste "disappear" in the deep of night at some unguarded landfills (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) QUOTE Peter Ekström, lecturer at the Department of Nuclear Physics at Lund University in Sweden, concluded in May 2011, "I am convinced that the whole story is one big scam, and that it will be revealed in less than one year." He cites the unlikelihood of a chemical reaction being strong enough to overcome the Coulomb barrier, the lack of gamma rays, the lack of explanation for the origin of the extra energy, the lack of the expected radioactivity after fusing a proton with 58Ni, the unexplained occurrence of 11% iron in the spent fuel, the 10% copper in the spent fuel strangely having the same isotopic ratios as natural copper, and the lack of any unstable copper isotope in the spent fuel as if the reactor only produced stable isotopes. Well, sounds pretty clear to me, without a major in physics: - The nucleus of an atom is positively charged, and nuclear fusion means bringing two cores together. What happens between two equal charges? Exactly, the coulomb force pushes them apart, unless you put in enough energy to overcome that force. The threshold to overcome the Coulomb force is the aforementioned "Coulomb barrier", and it's not exactly minuscule. - What happens during a nuclear reaction is fairly deterministic: The reaction involves X neutrons, Y protons and Z electrons, so the resulting atom should have exactly those numbers. If instead something completely different comes out (in this case iron), there's something fishy. -- The fishy smell gets even stronger because the result is not radioactive. The apparatus does not just produce A when it should produce B. It also happens that out of the the gazillion possible isotopes each element has, it only produces one of the few which are stable (i.e. not radioactive) What this Rossi guy claims is that he can not just ignite a piece of wood by staring at it really hard, but that a fire started that way produces fresh mountain air instead of smoke. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#20
|
|
Old Man of the North ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 10,273 Joined: 14-August 03 From: Just north of the Centre of the Universe Member No.: 5,463 ![]() |
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#21
|
|
The back-up plan ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Retired Admins Posts: 8,423 Joined: 15-January 03 From: San Diego Member No.: 3,910 ![]() |
No "reported" cases perhaps?
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#22
|
|
Running Target ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 1,003 Joined: 3-May 11 From: Brisbane Australia Member No.: 29,391 ![]() |
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#23
|
|
Old Man of the North ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 10,273 Joined: 14-August 03 From: Just north of the Centre of the Universe Member No.: 5,463 ![]() |
I'll take a look at it. In the meantime, seeing as this link is to a page by the World Nuclear Association, is there something that is not produced by an organization with a vested interest in keeping us all happy with nuclear power? EDIT: I see references to UN and WHO studies. I'll see if I can find those, too. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#24
|
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 243 Joined: 15-July 12 From: Everywhere that's in the middle of nowhere. Member No.: 53,043 ![]() |
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#25
|
|
Running Target ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 1,003 Joined: 3-May 11 From: Brisbane Australia Member No.: 29,391 ![]() |
WHO preliminary study
Only one area is believed to have received "significant" doses but even there the assumptions taken were to maximize the potential dosage. Look particularly at section 3.2 on the top of p41 and note 1 at the bottom of p42. They increased the concentration based on an infants smaller size (which is correct) but then assumed that they breathed in the same amount of air as an adult (which is not). The other assumption is that people spent all their time outdoors and never went inside (which is ridiculous). |
|
|
![]()
Post
#26
|
|
Old Man of the North ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 10,273 Joined: 14-August 03 From: Just north of the Centre of the Universe Member No.: 5,463 ![]() |
Thanks.
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#27
|
|
Immortal Elf ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 14,358 Joined: 2-December 07 From: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Member No.: 14,465 ![]() |
WHO preliminary study Won't somebody please think of the Free-Range Babies!!! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)
Only one area is believed to have received "significant" doses but even there the assumptions taken were to maximize the potential dosage. Look particularly at section 3.2 on the top of p41 and note 1 at the bottom of p42. They increased the concentration based on an infants smaller size (which is correct) but then assumed that they breathed in the same amount of air as an adult (which is not). The other assumption is that people spent all their time outdoors and never went inside (which is ridiculous). |
|
|
![]()
Post
#28
|
|
Running Target ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 1,003 Joined: 3-May 11 From: Brisbane Australia Member No.: 29,391 ![]() |
Cruelty free organic soylent green.
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#29
|
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 574 Joined: 22-June 09 From: Ucluelet - Tofino - Nanaimo Salish-Sahide Council Member No.: 17,309 ![]() |
Thorium reactors, the aforementioned LFTR, IMHO are the way to go anyways, forget the hokey cold fusion fellow.
It has a rather interesting history of being a proven technology that was purposely stagnated in favour of the other methods of nuclear energy because those helped with the production of the bomb. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#30
|
|
Running Target ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 1,003 Joined: 3-May 11 From: Brisbane Australia Member No.: 29,391 ![]() |
In particular once all the design costs are out of the way it becomes very easy to determine who wants cheap power and who wants nuclear weapons.
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#31
|
|
Great Dragon ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 5,091 Joined: 3-October 09 From: Kohle, Stahl und Bier Member No.: 17,709 ![]() |
and there are NO cases of residents suffering from radiation related ailments ..because the Government evacuated large areas at tremendous cost. Sure such incidents are ultra-rare (same as another Seveso or Thalidomide). It's also extremely unlikely that I will ever cause so much damage with my car that I couldn't ever pay it back, but just in case I am required to have an insurance and need to factor the insurance premiums into the cost of owning a car. As for the thorium reactors which get brought up every couple of years: Sure they would be great stuff...if we lived on a planet with an atmosphere of pure noble gas. As long as we don't, anything which involves significant amounts of superheated graphite is certainly not inherently safe. But inherent safety was the major promise of thorium technology, without that the cost/benefit ratio tanks heavily. (We'd also need an alternative for concrete which does not release water vapor -- but that's something enough coffee and engineers can surely solve (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) ) |
|
|
![]()
Post
#32
|
|
Running Target ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 1,003 Joined: 3-May 11 From: Brisbane Australia Member No.: 29,391 ![]() |
No buildup of energy in the graphite. A LFTR operates at or above 650C, well above the 250C Wigner annealing temperature of graphite. This prevents Wigner energy from forming in the graphite moderator. The continual annealing bleeds it off. A sudden release of Wigner energy is thus not possible. Therefore, a Windscale-style graphite-incited fire cannot be caused by the graphite's nonexistent Wigner energy. In addition, the graphite does not react with any of the materials found in a LFTR containment.
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#33
|
|
Neophyte Runner ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 2,328 Joined: 2-April 07 From: The Center of the Universe Member No.: 11,360 ![]() |
No "reported" cases perhaps? We'll considering that Hiroshima and Nagasaki had a high number of birth defects for many years after WWII ended, it may take a while to know the full scope of the damage. But my pops was given a "What to do in case of nuclear War" one of the things it noted was that the radiation levels would be safe at three weeks due to rain, wind and other effects dispersing the radioactivity along with the natural decay of the radioactive isotopes. By the way: "safe" meant that you might develop cancer years down the road, but you won't lose your hair and die in the next six months. So if you're stockpiling to survive a nuclear war, it probably be best if you hunkered down for at least 6 months.... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) |
|
|
![]()
Post
#34
|
|
Neophyte Runner ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 2,328 Joined: 2-April 07 From: The Center of the Universe Member No.: 11,360 ![]() |
You do realize that it is because of Science that you have a tool with which to shoot something, don't you? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) No its MAGIC! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif) |
|
|
![]()
Post
#35
|
|
Running Target ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 1,003 Joined: 3-May 11 From: Brisbane Australia Member No.: 29,391 ![]() |
Read the WHO's paper on radiation exposure from Fukushima - there weren't many receiving significant doses even in the worst case estimate.
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#36
|
|
Immortal Elf ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 10,289 Joined: 2-October 08 Member No.: 16,392 ![]() |
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#37
|
|
Running Target ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 1,018 Joined: 3-July 10 Member No.: 18,786 ![]() |
For all the problems with nuclear reactors, a Chernobyl-scale event every 20 years would still result in fewer casualties than coal-fueled power.
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#38
|
|
Great Dragon ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 5,091 Joined: 3-October 09 From: Kohle, Stahl und Bier Member No.: 17,709 ![]() |
Next time try thinking for a second before C&Ping something completely unrelated from WP...
The ignition temperature of carbon is 250-300°C. And as you posted yourself: A LFTR operates at or above 650C Now, what happens when a substance is heated well above its ignition temperature and then exposed to an oxidizer? By the way, this effect was what made Chernobyl so bad. Once the initial explosion had destroyed the reactor building, the graphite moderator caught fire, and this fire swept tons of radioactive material into the atmosphere. So everybody who did some minor reading into reactor safety should know about the risk QUOTE In addition, the graphite does not react with any of the materials found in a LFTR containment. Concrete always contains a certain quantity of water which can evaporate. And C + H2O -> CO + H2 |
|
|
![]()
Post
#39
|
|
Immortal Elf ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 10,289 Joined: 2-October 08 Member No.: 16,392 ![]() |
Curiously, this is relevant.
http://206.188.212.108:8080/BoTPWeb/faces/Splash.xhtml (Support the guy: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/544670...-of-the-planet/ ) |
|
|
![]()
Post
#40
|
|
Running Target ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 1,003 Joined: 3-May 11 From: Brisbane Australia Member No.: 29,391 ![]() |
@Sengir
http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com.au/2011/0...phite-burn.html http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com.au/2011/0...actor-burn.html http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com.au/2011/0...actor-burn.html Read this in particular the last paragraphs of the third article about MSR. "As we have seen, the use of graphite in a reactor core is consistent with safe reactor operations. The danger of a core fire due to graphite burning is quite limited. The time has now arrived to ask the question, is it dangerous to use graphite in the core of a Molten Salt Reactor. We have already noted that the possibility of graphite fires in a reactor core can be eliminated by core design. In the case of Molten Salt Reactors, the possibility of a core fire is eliminated by the two modes of MSR operation. A MSR is only active if liquid salt is present in the core of the reactor. But if liquid salt is present then air cannot be. In the case of the presence of molten salt in the core, the presence of salt would prevent air from reaching the graphite. If the salt is drained, either deliberately, by accident or by operation of the freeze valve safety system, then the heat producing fission products will be drained from the core as well. The absence of fission products in the core would mean that a high enough temperature required to trigger a graphite fire would not be possible. Thus the use of graphite in a Molten Salt Reactor core would be inherently safe." A MSR is either hot OR has oxygen not both. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#41
|
|
Great Dragon ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 5,091 Joined: 3-October 09 From: Kohle, Stahl und Bier Member No.: 17,709 ![]() |
@Sengir http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com.au/2011/0...phite-burn.html http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com.au/2011/0...actor-burn.html http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com.au/2011/0...actor-burn.html So an advocacy group for thorium reactors is convinced that thorium reactors are safe because the coolant system keeps them cooled. Well, good thing nuclear accidents never involve a loss of cooling *facepalm* QUOTE We have already noted that the possibility of graphite fires in a reactor core can be eliminated by core design. In the case of Molten Salt Reactors, the possibility of a core fire is eliminated by the two modes of MSR operation. A MSR is only active if liquid salt is present in the core of the reactor. But if liquid salt is present then air cannot be. In the case of the presence of molten salt in the core, the presence of salt would prevent air from reaching the graphite. If the salt is drained, either deliberately, by accident or by operation of the freeze valve safety system, then the heat producing fission products will be drained from the core as well. The absence of fission products in the core would mean that a high enough temperature required to trigger a graphite fire would not be possible. Thus the use of graphite in a Molten Salt Reactor core would be inherently safe." I suggest you simply try this one out: Put a piece of charcoal into a hot liquid, let if boil for half an hour or so, then pour away the liquid and take the charcoal into your hand. Without gloves, since removing the hot medium will immediately make the charcoal drop to room temperature... |
|
|
![]()
Post
#42
|
|
Running Target ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 1,003 Joined: 3-May 11 From: Brisbane Australia Member No.: 29,391 ![]() |
I suggest you watch the videos of nuclear grade graphite (ie pure carbon) at 1500C which is red hot and NOT burning. Also since the articles weren't about cooling systems my guess is you don't bother to read just spout your own brand of bias.
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#43
|
|
Great Dragon ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 5,091 Joined: 3-October 09 From: Kohle, Stahl und Bier Member No.: 17,709 ![]() |
Also since the articles weren't about cooling systems The graphite stack is protected by a helium cover gas contained within the shield structure. Combustion cannot occur unless the shield structure is sufficiently damaged to leak inert gas faster than available makeup supply. Should that occur, the rate of oxidation would be very slow because graphite temperatures would remain below the threshod for rapid oxidation because of heat removal from the stack by the ECCS [Emergency Core Cooling System] or the GSCS [Graphite and Shield Cooling System], The GSCS alone is capable of removing both decay heat and any heat load from graphite oxidation, stabilizing temperatures in a range which ensures control.] But seeing how you apparently do not even read half a screen of something before you take it as evidence for whatever at least gives some indication how you got the idea that some preacher on blogspot must be an unrecognized genius. But don't worry, this particular brand of crank has managed to fool quite a few people...probably has something to do with their unyielding certainty even in the face of disasters like the AVR Jülich (which of course was only sabotaged by the Greens, the concept of a reactor with insufficient control rods that would spontaneously go critical if the coolant lines leaked was totally sound). |
|
|
![]()
Post
#44
|
|
Running Target ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 1,003 Joined: 3-May 11 From: Brisbane Australia Member No.: 29,391 ![]() |
The article is about the safety of using graphite (as a moderator) in the reaction chamber but since there is a paragraph about the overall cooling system obviously that is the main topic. Also when an article quotes something from the DoE you may wish to include the entire quote so as not to provide biased posts.
"The graphite stack is protected by a helium cover gas contained within the shield structure. Combustion cannot occur unless the shield structure is sufficiently damaged to leak inert gas faster than available makeup supply. Should that occur, the rate of oxidation would be very slow because graphite temperatures would remain below the threshod for rapid oxidation because of heat removal from the stack by the ECCS [Emergency Core Cooling System] or the GSCS [Graphite and Shield Cooling System], The GSCS alone is capable of removing both decay heat and any heat load from graphite oxidation, stabilizing temperatures in a range which ensures control. In the Chernobyl accident sequence, the plant was effectively destroyed and conditions for exothermic chemical reactions involving a number of core materials were present before graphite fire made any contribution. It is likely that the major contribution from graphite was to serve as a refractory container for decay heat buildup, zirconium oxidation along with carbothermic reduction of the UO2, and complex gas producing redox reactions. For any N Reactor accident where the GSCS and biological shield are intact, there is no way to achieve ignition of the graphite. It has been demonstrated experimentally that oxidation nuclear grade graphite takes very high temperatures to initiate, and the contribution to total heat load is only a small fraction of the decay heat. Detailed reaction rate models have been developed to analyze graphite oxidation. These models tend to show that graphite oxidation in N Reactor would be limited both by available oxygen and the requirement that a high-temperature source (>1100°C) be available to drive a significant reaction. The analyses have effectively shown that graphite will not con-tribute significant accident heat loads. The Chernobyl release must be viewed as resulting from both very high temperatures in the core rubble, extensive mechanical disruption and dispersal of core material and the large draft "chimney effect" that followed the total disruption of that particular reactor configuration. There is no accident sequence that could produce an equivalent disruption of N Reactor; there would be some confinement even in the lowest probability event sequences. Because of the horizontal arrangement of pressure tubes, Chernobyl fission product release rates and magnitude are not pertinent to N Reactor accident scenarios with mechanistic initiators." But don't worry many people pay attention to doom-sayer cranks. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#45
|
|
Neophyte Runner ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 2,236 Joined: 27-July 10 Member No.: 18,860 ![]() |
It has been said, that graphit fire (even if it would occure) won't be much of a problem. First of all the fission material would be at a different lokation. (In the case of cooling loss it is dropped down in storage containers)
Due to the fact, that he fission materials are mixed with the salt, (which is also the cooling fluid) dispearsing the salt over a bigger area will also reduce reaction speed of the fission process. So an accident like chernobyl is really not possible. The major issue with this ractor desgin are the corrosion of parts of the cooling system and problems with keeping the salt melted and reprocessing it (cleaning it up, getting unwanted fission products (Neutron poisons)out of it etc. pp)... |
|
|
![]()
Post
#46
|
|
Running Target ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 1,003 Joined: 3-May 11 From: Brisbane Australia Member No.: 29,391 ![]() |
From what I gather one of the major benefits of fluoride over other molten salts is that it is less corrosive.
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#47
|
|
Great Dragon ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 5,091 Joined: 3-October 09 From: Kohle, Stahl und Bier Member No.: 17,709 ![]() |
The article is about the safety of using graphite (as a moderator) in the reaction chamber but since there is a paragraph about the overall cooling system obviously that is the main topic. I never said it was, merely that saying "graphite is safe because it's kept cooled" is like saying that planes are inherently safe because aerodynamics keep an undamaged plane aloft in most circumstances. Oh, and the fuel/coolant is an eutectic of both uranium fluoride and salt...using pure salt would make the nuclear reaction somewhat difficult... |
|
|
![]()
Post
#48
|
|
Running Target ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 1,003 Joined: 3-May 11 From: Brisbane Australia Member No.: 29,391 ![]() |
Due to the fact, that he fission materials are mixed with the salt, (which is also the cooling fluid) dispearsing the salt over a bigger area will also reduce reaction speed of the fission process. Oh, and the fuel/coolant is an eutectic of both uranium fluoride and salt...using pure salt would make the nuclear reaction somewhat difficult... ??? |
|
|
![]()
Post
#49
|
|
Great Dragon ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 5,091 Joined: 3-October 09 From: Kohle, Stahl und Bier Member No.: 17,709 ![]() |
That was referring to your "fluoride over other molten salts". Any pure compound would have a too high melting point, thus an eutectic is used.
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#50
|
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 243 Joined: 15-July 12 From: Everywhere that's in the middle of nowhere. Member No.: 53,043 ![]() |
So from what I've read do far, it's safe to say, nuclear reactor is safe.
Chernobyl accident was human error and bad planning. (97% of all accidents is human error) A MSR would be just as safe if not safer then the "standard" reactors today. The only concern with a MSR is corrosion and not melt down. Where's the problem and why don't we buld a few? |
|
|
![]()
Post
#51
|
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 745 Joined: 13-April 07 From: Houston, Texas Member No.: 11,448 ![]() |
So from what I've read do far, it's safe to say, nuclear reactor is safe. Chernobyl accident was human error and bad planning. (97% of all accidents is human error) A MSR would be just as safe if not safer then the "standard" reactors today. The only concern with a MSR is corrosion and not melt down. Where's the problem and why don't we buld a few? bias on part of the general public. Nuclear reactors are the same as nuclear bombs as far as John Q Publc is concerned. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#52
|
|
Immortal Elf ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 10,289 Joined: 2-October 08 Member No.: 16,392 ![]() |
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#53
|
|
Neophyte Runner ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 2,328 Joined: 2-April 07 From: The Center of the Universe Member No.: 11,360 ![]() |
bias on part of the general public. Nuclear reactors are the same as nuclear bombs as far as John Q Publc is concerned. All they are is giant steam engines, which is why you have to have a ready source of water for them. The dangerous bits are the fuel rods and the water that directly touches the fuel rods. That is more of a toxicity/waste disposal issue than a nuclear reaction issue. Causing a nuclear reaction is hard, and a precise thing--otherwise every country in the world would have the bomb. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#54
|
|
Neophyte Runner ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 2,328 Joined: 2-April 07 From: The Center of the Universe Member No.: 11,360 ![]() |
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#55
|
|
Immortal Elf ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 10,289 Joined: 2-October 08 Member No.: 16,392 ![]() |
Causing a nuclear reaction is hard, and a precise thing--otherwise every country in the world would have the bomb. Actually...it's not. High school diploma and the knowledge that it's possible. The hard part is having access to fissionable material. Once you have enough of it in one place, it'll undergo a nuclear reaction all by itself. The trick is finding an amount that's harmlessly-stable, until outside forces act on it (say, by compressing it with a triggered explosion). |
|
|
![]()
Post
#56
|
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 497 Joined: 16-April 08 From: Alexandria, VA Member No.: 15,900 ![]() |
All they are is giant steam engines, which is why you have to have a ready source of water for them. The dangerous bits are the fuel rods and the water that directly touches the fuel rods. That is more of a toxicity/waste disposal issue than a nuclear reaction issue. Causing a nuclear reaction is hard, and a precise thing--otherwise every country in the world would have the bomb. Yup, waste is the real issue. We can't even comprehend properly how long it takes for that stuff to be safe. I mean, we can easily find the numbers, but it isn't something the human brain can truly comprehend. Civilization hasn't even existed for as long as much of that waste will be dangerous. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#57
|
|
Great Dragon ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 5,091 Joined: 3-October 09 From: Kohle, Stahl und Bier Member No.: 17,709 ![]() |
The only concern with a MSR is corrosion and not melt down. A meltdown is a symptom and not a cause...and I've never understood the general public's obsession with the aggregate state of the fuel "Yeah, the whole complex blew up and and all the fuel is on its way to the Jet Stream now...but it didn't melt, no problem". As far as the corrosion (or material failure in general) being the only concern goes...you mentioned another major problem (humans) yourself, then there is the aforementioned problem when oxygen gets into the containment, water is another biggie, blackouts lead to the standard risks of decay heat... It's no better than conventional light water designs, just replaces a few design-specific problems with its own. Why invest a crapload of money for zero improvement? |
|
|
![]()
Post
#58
|
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 524 Joined: 12-April 06 Member No.: 8,455 ![]() |
How exactly did the test MSRs that ran for several decades handle this issue?
Also, I'm a tad surprised that nobody has mentioned polywell or focus fusion. If either of those works out, they'll change the world. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#59
|
|
Neophyte Runner ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 2,236 Joined: 27-July 10 Member No.: 18,860 ![]() |
bias on part of the general public. Nuclear reactors are the same as nuclear bombs as far as John Q Publc is concerned. First of all: They would make a lot of the existant way of buissness useless. In words: The production of a "fuel". And then there are some technical problems. Like how to keep your salt clean. (You have to deal with the accumulation of neutron poisons and so on) So the technoloy is not ready for the big market yet. But you have to consider, that the money invested in the MSR is nothing compared to the research in the "regular" nuclear reactors.... So, it might be ready with additional research. The question beeing would be if we want to stay with nuclear or reinvest. Becuase the waste problem still does exist. Might be the better choice to take the old models, make them a bit safer and go for fusion or whatever comes along in the next 50 years. It should be considered, that such a reactor will have to run for 20 to 30 years in order to "turn a profit". So it might not be such a good idea to do research to build an MSR in 10 years, to go online in additional 2 years. Now this thing needs to run for at least another 30 years.... And to predict the futur for 40 years is kind of hard... I would guess the best approach would be to do international coordinated research in different avenues. Most stuff might just come up empty. But even might,solar energy for example, still be used in Satallites or drones or for building far off the grid. So making them independant is cheaper than building the grid. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#60
|
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 497 Joined: 16-April 08 From: Alexandria, VA Member No.: 15,900 ![]() |
Heh, by the way, I just tripped over this article about butterfly mutations following Fukushima.
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#61
|
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 243 Joined: 15-July 12 From: Everywhere that's in the middle of nowhere. Member No.: 53,043 ![]() |
A couple of things about MSR's
They are actually harder to keep at critical then current reactors. You need them at that point for stable power generation. Power output is lower when they are at critical. It was tested as feasable but full scale success has not happened. The melt down disaster at Chernobyl was because of two idiots (btw they both died there). Head idiot in charge had just finished school and had no experiance. The civilian injuries were due to govt idiots not evac in time even though they had forewarning. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#62
|
|
Running Target ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 1,003 Joined: 3-May 11 From: Brisbane Australia Member No.: 29,391 ![]() |
Yup, waste is the real issue. We can't even comprehend properly how long it takes for that stuff to be safe. I mean, we can easily find the numbers, but it isn't something the human brain can truly comprehend. Civilization hasn't even existed for as long as much of that waste will be dangerous. Understand nuclear waste in 40 minutes or your money back. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#63
|
|
Neophyte Runner ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 2,236 Joined: 27-July 10 Member No.: 18,860 ![]() |
I guess, everybody knows about transmutation. The point is there is still a lot of "waste" outside of plutonium. And of course the time it needs to get the product out of it. I mean that guy is going 30.000 Years... Well, yeah..... And well, the plutonium is still dangerous as hell.... The point is, even thinking in the a couple of hundred years is like thinking the guys in the middle ages would have left us a bunch of wood to burn for our heating needs... The point of regaining that stuff out of radioactive waste is the fact, that the waste is radioaktive. He makes it sound like there is a lot in there. But for example xenon with about 6-7kg per m³ means 6-7kg per about 10.000-20.000kg.
And you need to clean it up. Which can be quite expensive, since well you need to do it in isolated environments... (The first question nearly tanks him, meaning Xenon is the only element you might get out of it without difficulties...) The question quite put it into perspective... It kind of reminds me about the hype of renewable energy. Yeah, that energy is for free and forever. Still, the costs are in collecting it.... |
|
|
![]()
Post
#64
|
|
Running Target ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 1,003 Joined: 3-May 11 From: Brisbane Australia Member No.: 29,391 ![]() |
It's more that if you can separate out certain elements in the waste and use them for other things then you only need to sequester it for a short period of time.
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#65
|
|
Great Dragon ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 5,091 Joined: 3-October 09 From: Kohle, Stahl und Bier Member No.: 17,709 ![]() |
*sigh*
Nuclear breeding does not make nuclear waste magically disappear. The intention of the concept is to create new fuel from non-fissile elements, but that does not impact the fission products and transuraniums generated in the original fuel. Reprocessing removes the usable transuraniums and returns them to the fuel cycle, but that only postpones disposal -- you are not disposing plutonium, but sending it through the reactor once more and then dispose the same amount (minus mass defect) of plutonium fission products. So if you consider nuclear waste as the killer argument against nuclear energy, neither breeding nor reprocessing should change anything...then again, people holding that position always seem a bit inconsequential, as long as they do not demand a total phase-out of all chemical industry at the same time. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#66
|
|
The ShadowComedian ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 14,538 Joined: 3-October 07 From: Hamburg, AGS Member No.: 13,525 ![]() |
If we had safe space travels, nuclear waste would not be quite such a problem . .
just shoot the stuff into the stun and be done with it . . |
|
|
![]()
Post
#67
|
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 745 Joined: 13-April 07 From: Houston, Texas Member No.: 11,448 ![]() |
If we had safe space travels, nuclear waste would not be quite such a problem . . just shoot the stuff into the stun and be done with it . . Yeah. I'd rather take those radioactive rocks that we took from the ground and put them right back in their natural habitat: back under the ground. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#68
|
|
Running Target ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 1,003 Joined: 3-May 11 From: Brisbane Australia Member No.: 29,391 ![]() |
*sigh* Nuclear breeding does not make nuclear waste magically disappear. The intention of the concept is to create new fuel from non-fissile elements, but that does not impact the fission products and transuraniums generated in the original fuel. Reprocessing removes the usable transuraniums and returns them to the fuel cycle, but that only postpones disposal -- you are not disposing plutonium, but sending it through the reactor once more and then dispose the same amount (minus mass defect) of plutonium fission products. So if you consider nuclear waste as the killer argument against nuclear energy, neither breeding nor reprocessing should change anything...then again, people holding that position always seem a bit inconsequential, as long as they do not demand a total phase-out of all chemical industry at the same time. The video makes the point that 3 elements are responsible for the long term radioactivity of waste - Cesium (which decays into Barium) Plutonium and Strontium (which decays into Yttrium). Each of which is usable in some way - plutonium is obviously usable to generate power, Cesium can be used to irradiate food to kill bacteria such as E.Coli and Strontium can be used in Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators and Radioisotope Heater Units. By removing and reusing these three elements you only need to store the waste for ~100 years (don't get me wrong you wouldn't build a house out of it but you can stick it in a hole and not worry about it). |
|
|
![]()
Post
#69
|
|
Neophyte Runner ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 2,236 Joined: 27-July 10 Member No.: 18,860 ![]() |
@Shortstraw
You still would end upt with the Cesium and the plutonium.... This means you need ways to use it.... And those uses need to be expensive enough so it is worth taking it out of the mix. Not saying it ain't an idea... The point is, it can at best be helping with the problem and it won't solve it. I guess thats why Shadowrun uses Fusion energy.... Every SiFi needs a nearly "clean" reactor... |
|
|
![]()
Post
#70
|
|
Great Dragon ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 5,091 Joined: 3-October 09 From: Kohle, Stahl und Bier Member No.: 17,709 ![]() |
The video makes the point that 3 elements are responsible for the long term radioactivity of waste - Cesium (which decays into Barium) Plutonium and Strontium (which decays into Yttrium). Each of which is usable in some way Relabeling the major hazards from "waste" to "usable" neither reduces the dangers nor amounts of material. If nuclear waste is a problem that is not adequately addressed by long-term (well, forever) storage, then handling it outside of salt formations obviously is far worse. If our means of disposal are adequate, well, case closed. Also, food sterilization works just as well with X-rays or accelerated neutrons, both of which are vastly superior in terms of handlind, safety, and security. And radioisotope generators are a fringe application if there ever was one. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#71
|
|
Old Man of the North ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 10,273 Joined: 14-August 03 From: Just north of the Centre of the Universe Member No.: 5,463 ![]() |
And radioisotope generators are a fringe application if there ever was one. Except to the people who live because of them. (Caveat: please do not mistake me for an apologist for the nuclear industry.) I am given to understand, though, that there exists laser technology to generate isotopes. This came up here in Canada a while ago when our Chalk River nuclear facility, responsible for generating roughly half of the world's medical nuclear isotopes, went offline. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#72
|
|
Neophyte Runner ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 2,236 Joined: 27-July 10 Member No.: 18,860 ![]() |
Just as a side note: Just because something does safe lifes, it is not a mainstream application.
If you have a cure for a very rare but deadly illness, you will safe lifes with it. But it is probably wise to produce thousand of tons of this cure.. For medical application the amount needed per application is very low. The problem is, that it has to be very pure. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#73
|
|
Great Dragon ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 5,091 Joined: 3-October 09 From: Kohle, Stahl und Bier Member No.: 17,709 ![]() |
Except to the people who live because of them. (Caveat: please do not mistake me for an apologist for the nuclear industry.) I am given to understand, though, that there exists laser technology to generate isotopes. This came up here in Canada a while ago when our Chalk River nuclear facility, responsible for generating roughly half of the world's medical nuclear isotopes, went offline. Being very rarely used (and no longer at all in pacemakers, modern Li-Ion batteries last as long as the pacemaker) does not make radioisotope generators useless. However it means they are not a viable destination for the volume of nuclear waste we produce. Some ballpark numbers: An average commercial reactor produces 30 t of spent fuel a year, 1% of which are Pu. Curiosity's RTG contains around 5 kg Pu oxide... |
|
|
![]()
Post
#74
|
|
The ShadowComedian ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 14,538 Joined: 3-October 07 From: Hamburg, AGS Member No.: 13,525 ![]() |
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#75
|
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 745 Joined: 13-April 07 From: Houston, Texas Member No.: 11,448 ![]() |
new idea: what happens, when it gets chucked into an active volcanoe? You get a slightly more radioactive volcano unless its a lot of waste. Volcanic eruptions already spread dangerous material about as part of normal activity, but the level of radioactivity of a volcano or its eruption is going to depend on the amount of naturally occurring radioactive material deposits along the magma veins feeding it. I think there are a couple of em out there that you cant even get close to. **EDIT** someone has done most of the work already for this line of thinking: http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010...waste-volcanoes |
|
|
![]()
Post
#76
|
|
The ShadowComedian ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 14,538 Joined: 3-October 07 From: Hamburg, AGS Member No.: 13,525 ![]() |
Other Idea:
Under Water Tunneling into the edge of Subduction zones, then blast the tunnels closed again. It will take long, but it will get burried into the mantle of the earch unther the crust again right? |
|
|
![]()
Post
#77
|
|
Immortal Elf ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 10,289 Joined: 2-October 08 Member No.: 16,392 ![]() |
new idea: what happens, when it gets chucked into an active volcanoe? Related: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a94_1340566754 |
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 26th July 2025 - 06:55 PM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.