Replies

• mitdr774 Member Posts: 1,493 Senior Member

  February 2019 #2

  Interesting indeed.

  0 · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
• tennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,444 Senior Member

  February 2019 #3

  Jimmy Carter killed the Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor Project (LMFBR) along with killing the spent fuel reprocessing plans for a plant on the Clinch River in TN. And he had help from the greenie weenies that 'discovered' a mushroom and a fish (snail darter) that was supposedly endangered. Both the shroom and the snail darter were mysteriously 'discovered' in lots of places after the project was killed. The creek (Sewee Creek) that runs through my place is loaded with that particular snail darter.

  LMFBR reactors do have some corrosion problems regarding equipment. The temperature of the salts makes them much more corrosive once in a molten state. There are much more safe and stable designs out there. The H2 gas cooled pellet fuel reactor is one, and it is super safe. In a loss of coolant accident (LOCA) the reactor shuts down as fission stops immediately and cooling the reactor is much more simple. They are in the Generation III class of reactors that are ready to go, but nobody can afford to build them in the U.S. People still think Chernobyl, an ancient design that failed due to a stupid test that didn't follow the test procedure, and Three Mile Island accident, a control room operator generated failure.
  

  And LMFBR's are a go-to source for both reprocessing spent fuel and for making bomb grade Pu-241.
  

  That article is chock full of errors in reporting; too many to list as to the fission process and fissile designation of Uranium isotopes. The reactors can be made small in size, though, and would provide a lot of power. Provided that highly trained personnel were there to run them. Finding those people will be a bigger problem than actually building and running the plants.
  

  
  

    “I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
  ― Douglas Adams
  

  0 · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
• zorba Senior Member Posts: 23,846 Senior Member

  February 2019 #4

  Hey Mike - what is your take on the Fukushima disaster?
  

  -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"
  
  "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  

  0 · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
• tennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,444 Senior Member

  February 2019 #5

  zorba said:

  Hey Mike - what is your take on the Fukushima disaster?
  

  The Japanese are not known for a 'safety first' mindset regarding nuclear power. My take on the disaster?
  

  1. The plant was sited too close to the ocean as it was in an area susceptible to the tsunamis that hit Japan frequently. Having the plant on higher ground would have been required here.

  
  

  2. The emergency diesel generators that supplied emergency power to the reactors and safety systems were also too close to the ocean and got inundated and were inoperable.

  
  

  3. The tsunami didn't sneak up on them. Immediately tripping the reactors would have mitigated much of the damage they experienced. One minute after reactor trip, residual heat is equivalent to 10% reactor power; 1 hour after a reactor trip residual heat is 1% of reactor power. IF they had tripped the reactors immediately, and been on high enough ground to make tsunami damage minimal, the reactors would have been easily brought down to 0% power and cooled with power provided by the diesel generators that would have been operable had they been sited properly and easily protected.

  
  

  That plant was just an accident waiting for a place to happen.

  
  

  Regarding safety, the Japanese record on nuclear power plant safety in design and operation is one of the worst in the world. They were frequently used in training materials as they provided plenty of incidents from which to study and learn.
  

    “I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
  ― Douglas Adams
  

  1 · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook