Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Nov 22, 2017 5:48 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 139 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Nov 07, 2013 3:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: May 15, 2011 12:06 am
Posts: 225
Cyril R wrote:
Oh yes Axil, after a gazillion of these scare stories, we're all lucky to be alive huh?

Is your learning curve a flat line or what?


Please note that Axil is simply posting these articles with no comment. I don't know what his objective is, but there is actually some value in posting these articles. They show the level of ignorance and misinformation we are up against. Although not many readers on this site are likely to be fooled, you can be sure that large segments of the general public swallow this stuff hook, line, and sinker. It can be frustrating and depressing, but we need to do something about it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 07, 2013 4:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5058
Axil wrote:
I truly do not understand the way you good old boys think. You have no dog in this Fukushima hunt.

This light water reactor technology is a half century old and flawed. By defending it, you undercut your case for thorium technology as superior.

I can understand if you made your paycheck in running one of these old dinosaurs, but defending their flaws is a no win proposition.

Be more meticulous in your thinking and come up with a story that boosts thorium over this old light water junk.


This is one example of a quote from Axil. He's made numerous other ones in similar fashion, if you haven't noticed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 07, 2013 5:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: May 15, 2011 12:06 am
Posts: 225
Cyril R wrote:
Axil wrote:
I truly do not understand the way you good old boys think. You have no dog in this Fukushima hunt.

This light water reactor technology is a half century old and flawed. By defending it, you undercut your case for thorium technology as superior.

I can understand if you made your paycheck in running one of these old dinosaurs, but defending their flaws is a no win proposition.

Be more meticulous in your thinking and come up with a story that boosts thorium over this old light water junk.


This is one example of a quote from Axil. He's made numerous other ones in similar fashion, if you haven't noticed.


Yeah, I vaguely recall some of that. It's an interesting dilemma we have here. If we only tout the advantages of MSR/LFTR over PLWR, we risk leaving the impression that PLWR was a disaster. We also need to tout the advantages of PLWR over fossil fuels and wind/solar. Otherwise the general reaction will be, "how can we trust you to get nuclear right this time when you botched it up so badly in the past?"

What we really need is a time machine so we can send someone back to strangle Rickover! :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 07, 2013 8:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 28, 2008 10:44 pm
Posts: 3072
Russ wrote:

Yeah, I vaguely recall some of that. It's an interesting dilemma we have here. If we only tout the advantages of MSR/LFTR over PLWR, we risk leaving the impression that PLWR was a disaster. We also need to tout the advantages of PLWR over fossil fuels and wind/solar. Otherwise the general reaction will be, "how can we trust you to get nuclear right this time when you botched it up so badly in the past?"

What we really need is a time machine so we can send someone back to strangle Rickover! :lol:

Not so much Rickover as his successor.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 07, 2013 8:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: May 15, 2011 12:06 am
Posts: 225
Who was his successor? I thought it was Rickover who was most responsible for nixing MSR.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 07, 2013 10:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1497
Rickover wanted a compact reactor plant that was available yesterday.

PWR fulfilled his desire, and once the development is done on light water technology that will always be the "path of least resistance" to further development of nuclear tech.

Which is how one or two technologies came to dominate the scene.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 08, 2013 5:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5058
Water is a logical coolant choice. It's what coal plants use for cooling. Steam turbines run on it. Hence the logical interest in a BWR. PWR was there first because people at first did not think boiling water would be stable, and in any case, this requires complex computer code calculations which were not available at the dawn of the nuclear age.

Water is a really good coolant. It has similar heat capacity as molten fluoride salt, but is much less viscous. It's also very cheap and non-toxic. Molten salt reactors with steam turbines basically also use water as a heat transport medium.

It's volatility and propensity to generate combustible hydrogen are unfortunate, though, I must say, not nearly as unfortunate as the Fukushima designers' failure to adequately design the plant with these two factors in mind. And TEPCO's responsibility failure of not correcting the inadequate design basis. And the regulators similar failure. Triple failure. I don't think such an effort would have resulted in a safe LFTR, either. They would have just used electrical cooling systems rather than passive ones, and even an LFTR would then overheat and make a big mess (though not so much mess outside the plant boundary).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 08, 2013 10:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 28, 2008 10:44 pm
Posts: 3072
That distinction is critical. If there is no plausible way for the mess to get outside the plant boundary then an accident is much much less critical :!:
We do have a pathway in the early time after an accident that I can't see how to avoid. Namely the off-gas represents radioactivity that can travel. Fortunately, we have very little inventory of that in the fuel salt so it really has to do with the stuff stored outside the core. Once we get past the first 90 hours the 135Xe is gone and so the majority of the problem is over.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 08, 2013 11:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5058
There's another pathway. If the decay heat removal system fails, the salt can get hot enough to boil. Boiling cesium fluoride and zirconium fluoride would just condense again as soon as they get out of the reactor vessel, somewhere in the plant, on pretty much any internal surface area, considering the high condensation temperatures, making a big mess but very little will travel beyond the fence.

However, there will be some iodine in the fuel salt, and when the fuel salt boils (which means vessel failure has already occured) then the iodine will be somewhat mobile. Fortunately iodine can be trapped very easily by carbon traps, and also by HEPA filters, which could be designed to be fully passive (meaning the only leak path out of the reactor building/containment is a filter system).

Still a pretty bad mess that costs a pretty penny to clean up, not to mention more fearmongering from the opponents.

Fortunately it is possible to design decay heat removal systems to be fully passive and with failsafe behaviour in terms of leaks, breaks etc. I'm not allowed to talk too much about it though. Big lips sink ships.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 09, 2013 11:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Aug 21, 2008 12:57 pm
Posts: 1059
http://news.yahoo.com/wrecked-japanese- ... nance.html

Wrecked Japanese nuclear plant to double pay after criticism

Quote:
A Reuters investigation last month found that workers' pay was being skimmed, some had been hired under false pretences, and some contractors had links to organized crime gangs.


Should nuclear power be trusted to these people?

_________________
The old Zenith slogan: The quality goes in before the name goes on.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 10, 2013 12:24 am 
Offline

Joined: May 15, 2011 12:06 am
Posts: 225
Axil wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/wrecked-japanese-nuclear-plant-double-pay-criticism-093754721--finance.html

Wrecked Japanese nuclear plant to double pay after criticism

Quote:
A Reuters investigation last month found that workers' pay was being skimmed, some had been hired under false pretences, and some contractors had links to organized crime gangs.


Should nuclear power be trusted to these people?


Let's just be thankful it's only a nuclear plant and not something really dangerous like a refinery or something that can actually kill people.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 10, 2013 12:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1337
Location: NoOPWA
Russ wrote:
Let's just be thankful it's only a nuclear plant and not something really dangerous like a refinery or something that can actually kill people.
LIKE!

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 24, 2013 1:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Aug 21, 2008 12:57 pm
Posts: 1059
http://phys.org/news/2013-11-cutting-ed ... shima.html


Cutting-edge coal plants planned in Fukushima: report

Quote:
The project is aimed at helping TEPCO reduce its reliance on costly natural gas and create jobs in the area, the Nikkei said.

The firms expect the plants to generate one million kilowatts, the equivalent of one nuclear reactor, as the utility works to decommission the Fukushima Daiichi, which went into meltdown after being struck by a giant tsunami in March 2011.



Another result of more fearmongering from Fukushima.

_________________
The old Zenith slogan: The quality goes in before the name goes on.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 13, 2015 2:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5058
http://www.nucnet.org/all-the-news/2015 ... -fukushima

Quote:
According to the NRA, the effective radiation dose at the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear station site boundary is now in line with the natural background radiation levels in Japan of around two to five millisievert a year (mSv/yr), with the NRA aiming to maintain these levels, or lower them, throughout the decommissioning process.

The aim is to manage the effective offsite dose during the decommissioning process by keeping it to an average of 0.2 microsievert per hour (µSv/hr) or less in 2015. This will be done by continuous radiation monitoring and by treating contaminated water. The target for 2016 onwards is an average of 0.1 µSv/hr or less, the document says.

Within 24 hours of the March 2011 accident, radiation dose-rate levels at the site boundary showed more than 1,000 times the normal value of 0.07 µSv/hr or less.

There was a measured peak value of 1,015 µSv/hr at the most exposed point during the first venting of Unit 1 on 13 March. In the days after the accident, the average dose rate reached a range of five to 50 µSv/hr.

For comparison, in most countries, the natural background radiation dose-rate level is in the range of 0.2 to 0.6 µSv/hr (including the natural radon background radiation in buildings), or about two to five mSv/yr.


The 2016 target of 0.1 microsievert/hour is about 1000x below the level known to be long term harmful. Typical levels in Denver are around 1 microsievert/hour. Ten times as much.

So they have reduced to well below background levels but they still want to reduce the dose further, to less than 1/10th the radiation dose from natural soures in Denver.

What are they planning to do, build a giant lead shield dome all over the site to reduce cosmic rays? Giant vacuum cleaners and filters to suck out naturally occuring radon?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 13, 2015 10:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Jan 16, 2012 7:15 am
Posts: 90
This article needs wider dissemination...

http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/issues/nuclear/five-surprising-public-health-facts-about-fukushima


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 139 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group