Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Jun 23, 2018 2:40 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Jun 09, 2016 10:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 22, 2015 8:40 pm
Posts: 357
Location: Florida
"NASA" - THORIUM REMIX 2016 Published on May 20, 2016.

Gordan McDowell is brilliant!

This is the BEST yet! Kickass! There is new, very precious footage in this one. I found every minute of this 2 hrs worth the time spent; 33,765 views upon posting this topic; 44,410 views as of this edit and so far is growing. I hope viewership continues and persuades the electorate in the advantages of dissolved fuel molten salt reactors and especially running on thorium.

_________________
"Those who say it can’t be done are usually interrupted by others doing it."

—James Arthur Baldwin, American novelist, essayist, playwright, poet, and social critic


Last edited by Tim Meyer on Jun 19, 2016 11:28 am, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jun 18, 2016 6:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Nov 14, 2013 7:47 pm
Posts: 568
Location: Iowa, USA
Having seen the video I have a couple comments on it.

First is that while I believe Mr. McDowell made an excellent case for nuclear power in exploring space I also believe that he could have made a clearer connection between thorium as an energy source and its use to produce RTG material. Perhaps I missed a few things in the video but I don't recall a clear line drawn from thorium to Pu-238 RTGs.

I'd also like to comment on how the film was closed. Mr. McDowell asked Mr. Sorensen on a "call to action". Mr. Sorensen replied that those aged 15 to 19 should consider studying nuclear, chemical, mechanical, or electrical engineering, and people aged 20 to 26 should consider going back to school to study those subjects. I believe this is good advice but I would like to add some of my own comments.

Another video I watched recently was of Mike Rowe (from the popular Dirty Jobs TV show) talking about how people should not follow their passions in finding a career but instead should take their passions with them to whatever career they find. As I saw these two videos in close proximity to each other I find it natural to combine these messages.

Presumably one would follow Mr. Sorensen's advice out of a passion for nuclear power. As Mr. Rowe will point out passion is insufficient in finding work, there must be a business case for a passion to become a career. Mr. Rowe gave an example of people getting in line to follow their passion of becoming a musician, but to be successful in the music business one must be able to produce music. I can give a number of examples of famous musicians that will openly admit their mediocre talent at playing a musical instrument but they are still successful because they have talent in singing, writing lyrics, running a business, and the passion to apply it.

My advice is a mix of the message that Mr. Sorensen and Mr. Rowe gave. I say follow your passion but have a backup plan. If you have a passion to play in a rock-n-roll band then go to college and study music, but also study something else in case that does not pan out. Study music but also study accounting, or engineering, or whatever else you may find appealing, a talent for, as well as a high probability of finding a job. Even if you land your dream job as a legendary drummer then knowing accounting will come in handy as you will now also be a business executive. If you instead wind up as an accountant then you can still play your drums on the weekend at a local club.

Studying engineering is an excellent idea. Just know that this might not take you into the nuclear power industry. If you find you lack the talent for engineering then study marketing, accounting, business management, and so on knowing that the nuclear power industry needs these people too. Mr. Sorensen has even pointed this out, perhaps not in the video under discussion but he is on record stating the nuclear power industry is desperate for people with a passion for nuclear power and with skills necessary to make a successful business.

What I see as a recent phenomenon is the colleges and universities taking an effort in helping students find work. This has largely been in an employment office for seniors and recent graduates to find work with a degree of their choice. What schools seem to be adding to that is encouraging students to consider their career goals long before graduation. Schools will often offer courses on interviewing skills, resume writing, and career choice. I suggest that students take one or more of these courses and be open to a change of major if the knowledge gained in such a course exposes a low probability of finding employment with your current major.

Schools make it easy to add a minor to the degree granting major, take advantage of this. As before you might really want to be a drummer in a rock-n-roll band but you see that being a nuclear engineer would be a good career choice and you have a talent for engineering. In that case major in nuclear engineering and have a music minor.

I realize I may have gone a bit off topic from the original theme of the thread here but creating a passion for engineering was a major theme of the video. We need people passionate about space exploration again, before they find themselves unable to follow this passion. To get to space we need a nuclear power industry, much larger than we have now, and that takes people with a passion in nuclear power. People that lack the talents to be astronauts and engineers can still contribute. Even drummers in a rock-n-roll band can contribute with lyrics speaking of the wonders of space travel.

_________________
Disclaimer: I am an engineer but not a nuclear engineer, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer, or industrial engineer. My education included electrical, computer, and software engineering.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jun 18, 2016 7:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3632
Location: Alabama
Kurt, you make very good points. I was asked this question about four years ago. I would answer it differently today.

At Flibe Energy, I've seen how a lot of non-engineers have been crucial to taking the effort forward and making it possible for engineering to get funded and succeed. So I'm a bit humbled.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jun 19, 2016 10:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 22, 2015 8:40 pm
Posts: 357
Location: Florida
Thank you, Kurt and Kirk, for your posts on Gord's new 2-hr film. Sidenote: Kurt: Are you a drummer? Interesting comparisons using music education versus other occupations. I appreciate and am grateful, Kurt, you found some time to watch and review Gordon's film. I hope others participate here on the public relations efforts for us pro-thorium people.

In the end, Mr. McDowell highlighted NASA spending $10,000 to digitize research reactor documents in 2004. Pardon, and Mr. Kirk Sorensen was the NASA employee assigned to that project? So, http://energyfromthorium.com/pdf/ document repository is paid for out of U.S. general revenues? U.S. taxpayers gave to the whole world ORNL molten salt reactor research results and designs for free?

Related is the ORNL Cooperative Research and Development Agreement with the Shanghai Institute for Applied Physics that has had an interesting development: Re: China started "thorium based molten salt reactor" project
June 11, 2016, Kirk Sorensen wrote:
Son of Former Chinese Leader Jiang Zemin Said to Be Under House Arrest

Quote:
Jiang Mianheng, the elder son of former Chinese Communist Party chief Jiang Zemin, is presently under house arrest, according to a source close to the Party disciplinary inspection branch in Shanghai.

The source told the Chinese language edition of Epoch Times that Jiang is being held under house arrest in a secret location on the outskirts of Shanghai. He is only allowed outside the residence for fresh air, the source said; the source said he had personally seen Jiang at the location, using an “observation device” to confirm a tip-off.

Jiang Mianheng is head of the SINAP LFTR efforts. Or was? The U.S. needs to do this at home.

McDowell says, "When molten salt reactors begin powering our cities and providing fresh water, it will be quickly recognized that the best bang for the buck ever attained by a government agency was the scanning of molten salt research performed by NASA for ten thousand dollars."

Mosaic was developed at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA) at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign beginning in late 1992. NCSA released the browser in 1993. Private companies downloaded for free research results developed at tax-payer expense as a platform to launch several for-profit commercial products, yes? "The early bird gets the worm."

Did Mr. McDowell forget the millions spent on the MSBR program? Why stop now? What's left for 2016? Looks like nothing is happening with U.S. leadership until after January 2017.

Or maybe, Kirk, DOE could yet be immediately directed for this year to create and advertise a bid for the completion of the MSBR out of present authorizations? Gordon shows the group of companies born since the ORNL MS research was published on the internet in 2004. If the U.S. decided to advertise that bid, the selection would be gnarly from what I know of that process (I participated for the Corps on a $1.2 million LIMS buy in the mid 1990s. Chump change.) Flibe Energy has the advantage but who knows? I wonder what gnarly NASA stories you may have on government buys--or not.

The NRC cannot license molten salt designs for the reasons being discussed at: DOE/NRC Workshop on Advanced Non-Light Water Reactors and elsewhere. If the MSBR program is completed, then the databases will be there for additions to 42 U.S.C. and 10 CFR for design certifications, permits, and licenses. What other way is there?

NEI, the utilities, and others in the private nuclear sector have already testified on licensing uncertainty. The recent second DOE-NRC workshop further shows that molten salts designs need more research in a number of areas. Those are first-mover costs that private industry has difficulty bearing and where government has had a known role since book five of Adam Smith from his 1776 An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.

Nuclear reactor developers in dissolved molten salt designs have inherited an extremely unique situation in human economics. I believe an official declaration can be made that is based ONLY on the million-to-one power density advantage of nuclear fission over carbon oxidation. This is a natural reality for human terrestrial energy resources. And Dr. Weinberg was the first to observe that nuclear power is a Faustian bargain. If thorium is best utilized dissolved in a molten salt reactor design because it produces the least amount of long-lived waste, then U.S. leadership should authorize sufficient funds for the completion of the U.S. dissolved fuel molten salt reactor program to codify the licensing requirements.

_________________
"Those who say it can’t be done are usually interrupted by others doing it."

—James Arthur Baldwin, American novelist, essayist, playwright, poet, and social critic


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jun 19, 2016 6:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Nov 14, 2013 7:47 pm
Posts: 568
Location: Iowa, USA
Tim Meyer wrote:
Thank you, Kurt and Kirk, for your posts on Gord's new 2-hr film. Sidenote: Kurt: Are you a drummer? Interesting comparisons using music education versus other occupations.

No, I am not a drummer. I have taken piano lessons and found them difficult as I had a hard time treating a piano keyboard different than a computer keyboard. It frustrated myself and my instructor. I also took upright bass lessons and plan to take more, I found that instrument more appealing, if only slightly more portable.

I used the music example because that is the example that Mike Rowe used and because of my own experience with it. Also, there seems to be a nearly universal understanding of the appeal of becoming a famous musician. I could have also used an example of professional athletics or acting as those are also nearly universal.

_________________
Disclaimer: I am an engineer but not a nuclear engineer, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer, or industrial engineer. My education included electrical, computer, and software engineering.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jun 19, 2016 7:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Nov 14, 2013 7:47 pm
Posts: 568
Location: Iowa, USA
Kirk Sorensen wrote:
Kurt, you make very good points. I was asked this question about four years ago. I would answer it differently today.


I completely understand. I suspect that this was a question given to you without preparation and so your response was not rehearsed. I also suspect that there was some thought to the question even though you have not been asked this exact question before.

I made this realization on the separation between passion and reality when I first graduated from college. Even though I was educated in microelectronic design there really are not many job openings in that field. I did find work in the field eventually but after losing my job twice as the economy dipped I decided I needed to reflect further on my career choices.

I tried the military but my time in the US Army was short due to an injury in training. I'm now using my GI Bill benefits to study software engineering, as I find that there are more jobs there, as well as a few things I enjoy, like music lessons and some courses on energy. While I have found work as a low level computer engineer I do not plan to be such for my entire career.

On a slightly different tangent I recall a couple conversations I had when I did a sort of internship at the University of Iowa as a web developer. My desk was in close proximity to that of WISE (Women In Science and Engineering) and I got to talk to the young ladies that worked in the office. I found out that they were students at the university, and worked there believing that more women should be in STEM fields. When I asked one lady what her major was she replied it was psychology. Now I understand the connection between studying psychology and being what is effectively a career counselor but I did find it odd that she did not practice what she preached. There was another young lady that worked in the office I did not see as often but she also majored in a non-STEM field. I'm not sure what this says about the University of Iowa or WISE as organizations, or more generally what this means about women in STEM, but I did find this odd and noteworthy.

This gets to the notion of inspiring people to take up STEM as a career choice. Having psychology majors staffing the WISE office looks to me like a failure of leading by example. I have no idea on how well served the members of that organization felt by the staff that worked there but it does seem odd that they could not find students that took more than the minimally required math and science courses to staff that office.

Mr. McDowell was using NASA as an example of an organization that can inspire people to invest their time and energy into STEM generally and specifically into space exploration and nuclear energy. Mr. McDowell himself is an example as he has educated himself on nuclear energy and has turned to educate others.

_________________
Disclaimer: I am an engineer but not a nuclear engineer, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer, or industrial engineer. My education included electrical, computer, and software engineering.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jun 20, 2016 10:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 22, 2015 8:40 pm
Posts: 357
Location: Florida
Kurt, on women in STEM with respect to the point in Gordon's film, I'm surprised you didn't mention a very prominent female nuclear engineer in this arena.

_________________
"Those who say it can’t be done are usually interrupted by others doing it."

—James Arthur Baldwin, American novelist, essayist, playwright, poet, and social critic


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jun 21, 2016 1:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Nov 14, 2013 7:47 pm
Posts: 568
Location: Iowa, USA
Tim Meyer wrote:
Kurt, on women in STEM with respect to the point in Gordon's film, I'm surprised you didn't mention a very prominent female nuclear engineer in this arena.


I watched it again tonight just to see who you were talking about and it appears I missed it... again. I will admit that claiming I "watched" it again is a bit of a stretch as I had the video playing in the background as I went about my evening routine. I will also say that this is at least the third time I've watched it and each time I pick up more from what I missed earlier, this is a very densely packed video and it deserves being watched several times to get everything out of it.

Could you point out whom you believe I should have mentioned? There were several intelligent and educated women in the video but I do not recall any of them claiming to be a nuclear engineer.

On the topic of inspiring people to enter into STEM generally and nuclear power specifically I believe I've pretty much covered what I felt needed to be said earlier. Mr. McDowell featured many people that should be given kudos for encouraging people into STEM, and Mr. McDowell should be given kudos as well. We've gone a long way but it seems we've lost some ground recently, and this was highlighted in the video, meaning we have to regain that lost ground and move beyond.

I watched the video again also to see if I missed where Mr. McDowell made the connection between RTG material production and thorium fueled reactors. It's there but in a "blink and you'll miss it" kind of way. I don't know if this was intentional as he was already trying to pack in a lot of information and couldn't cover everything, he didn't have a lot of material to work with and put in what he could find, or some other reason. He did an excellent job pointing out that when it comes to getting power in space that solar is good, RTGs are better, but if we really want to explore beyond Earth orbit then we need to develop space worthy nuclear reactors. Perhaps my complaint is without merit as there are better means to produce Pu-238 than molten salt reactors.

I really like how the video points out that people are naturally skeptical of LFTR as it sounds too good to be true. I believe people should be skeptical of any technology makes such claims, but people should also be open to learning and not simply dismiss new technologies because "math is hard".

Another thing that strikes me about current solid fuel reactor designs is the use of zirconium in a water cooled reactor. This is outside the scope of the video but it astonishes me that we would allow reactors to be built like this. I understand why these materials were used but the astonishing part is how many reactors we've built this way since this just sounds like a really bad idea. We are placing zirconium metal fuel (I don't mean the uranium fuel contained within the zirconium, the zirconium itself is the fuel), in a water oxidizer bath, and then expose it to heat and radiation. This is effectively rocket fuel with a match put to it hoping the match doesn't burn hot enough to ignite the rocket fuel. We've seen rockets using a very similar fuel, aluminum metal powder in frozen water. This is an aluminum-ice rocket, or ALICE. This reaction results in hydrogen gas which, as demonstrated at Fukushima, likes to collect at the ceiling of a structure until something ignites it. This mix of hydrogen gas and atmosphere will most likely separate the roof from the rest of the structure.

The video points out many reasons that LFTR is a much better idea than current nuclear reactors. LFTR operates at high temperatures, at low pressure, and I'll add that the core is not made of rocket fuel.

_________________
Disclaimer: I am an engineer but not a nuclear engineer, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer, or industrial engineer. My education included electrical, computer, and software engineering.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jun 21, 2016 3:44 am 
Offline

Joined: May 05, 2010 1:14 am
Posts: 129
'a very similar fuel, aluminum metal powder '
A bulk metal is not at all similar to a powder. That's like saying ' I can't believe people are still making houses out of fuel ! ' They are, and it kills a lot of people every year, but it's a manageable risk. My fuel house has stood for a century, and with a little care it should see me out. The risk of runaway zirconium reactions in an LWR is also manageable, just like the risk of having metal cans loaded with avgas flying over your cities, or two ton vehicles rushing around their streets - much more so, in fact.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jun 21, 2016 10:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 22, 2015 8:40 pm
Posts: 357
Location: Florida
Kurt and Jon, excellent posts. So much fear of nuclear could be dispelled if a good working FE LFTR prototype would get built. It's performance characteristics will speak volumes. Obvious conjectures but as far as one concerned citizen can tell, Dr. Alvin Weinberg was worthy of his position and his vision deserves a chance to run so performance measurements can be made.
Wikipedia wrote:
After World War II and with the availability of enriched uranium, new concepts of reactor became feasible. In 1946, Dr. Eugene Wigner and Dr. Alvin Weinberg proposed and developed the concept of a reactor using enriched uranium as a fuel, and light water as a moderator and coolant. This concept was proposed for a reactor whose purpose was to test the behavior of materials under neutron flux. This reactor, the Material Testing Reactor (MTR), was built in Idaho at INL and reached criticality on March 31, 1952. For the design of this reactor, experiments were necessary, so a mock-up of the MTR was built at ORNL, to assess the hydraulic performances of the primary circuit and then to test its neutronic characteristics. This MTR mock-up, later called the Low Intensity Test Reactor (LITR), reached criticality on February 4, 1950 and was the world's first light-water reactor.
Given that Dr. Weinberg with Dr. Wigner are the inventors of the energy technology that is the basis for what today is called nuclear power, I think it's a safe bet that his thorium molten salt breeder reactor program is one the U.S. ought to get finished.

Kurt, I'm on my fifth viewing of Gordon's (first name basis is no disrespect, I believe) feature film. I'm glad you granted me my challenge to you. See if you recognize her:
Attachment:
NASA ThRM 2016 - TAP.jpg
NASA ThRM 2016 - TAP.jpg [ 54.13 KiB | Viewed 5867 times ]
She might be pictured elsewhere and this frame goes by fast—it's at the end as you can see.

She's big on zirconium, by the way. She and Kirk have famously gone rounds on the subject, as is publicly available. Her partner is Mark Massie.

_________________
"Those who say it can’t be done are usually interrupted by others doing it."

—James Arthur Baldwin, American novelist, essayist, playwright, poet, and social critic


Last edited by Tim Meyer on Sep 18, 2016 11:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jun 21, 2016 11:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Nov 14, 2013 7:47 pm
Posts: 568
Location: Iowa, USA
jon wrote:
'a very similar fuel, aluminum metal powder '
A bulk metal is not at all similar to a powder. That's like saying ' I can't believe people are still making houses out of fuel ! ' They are, and it kills a lot of people every year, but it's a manageable risk.


Zirconium is used because it does not develop an oxide layer in water like other metals, leaving the fuel and oxidizer in direct contact. Some fuel bundles will have a thin oxide layer on the zirconium to lower a fire risk, but this layer is delicate and must be thin or it impedes the neutron flux. This is a lot like how we place drywall, brick, or stone around the flammable wooden frames of our homes. But since we don't build homes to be transparent to neutrons the fire retardant layer can be as thick as we wish.

Yes, houses burn but putting water on them will put out the fire. Zirconium burns in water, and water is used in solid fuel reactors to control the reaction. If there is an accident that damages the oxide layer on the zirconium, and something damages the ability to cool the reactor, then we have the beginnings of a zirconium fire. What would do such damage? An earthquake might do it. As might having a reactor go prompt critical. I'll assume you can come up with historical examples of both of these scenarios.

If the zirconium gets too hot then it gets soft. If the gasses inside the zirconium tubes get too hot the pressure rises. At some point the tubes burst and you now have removed the protective oxide layer, and bits of finely divided zirconium in boiling hot water. This water has been exposed to radiation that can break the hydrogen-oxygen bonds and so this boiling hot water has bubbles of pure oxygen in it.

Once that zirconium ignites there is a feedback loop, more pipes burst, more hot water, more burning zirconium. If the water is allowed to be consumed then we'd have a molten radioactive mess burning and melting its way through the floor of the containment structure. With no water to soak up neutrons, remove heat, and contain the boiling off radioactive elements, then we have a fission pile sending all kinds of dangerous and radioactive elements into the air. So we poor water on it. This cools the mess but also feeds the zirconium fire. If not cooled quickly enough the zirconium is now molten and will burn with much greater intensity. If the zirconium is boiling, a not inconceivable possibility, then we really do have rocket fuel burning in what was once a nuclear reactor.

Houses made of wood structures with drywall on the interior walls means that the drywall will contain the fire by decomposing into water, carbon dioxide, and other relatively inert substances. None of this is fuel or oxidizer for a wood fire, quite the opposite.

In molten salt reactors there are no materials even close to the incompatibility of water and zirconium. The fuel and coolant are salts, very inert chemically and biologically. In the unlikely, but not inconceivable, event that the core gets hot enough that it begins to boil then at least heat is being removed, and not just making more room for fuel and oxidizer to mix. What is boiling away is not highly reactive metals, but inert salts.

I'm certain that there are people that will claim that anything boiling away in any MSR is highly unlikely, perhaps even impossible, since the design will inherently prevent such. This cannot be said for current solid fuel reactors, if coolant mechanisms are lost then there is always a risk of a zirconium fire.

I realize that stating current nuclear reactors are made of rocket fuel is a bit hyperbolic but also not too far from the truth. The people in the Thorium Remix video give much better reasons to build MSRs than my rocket fuel comment. I believe that this near rocket fuel combination in current solid fuel reactors is just one of a multitude of reasons to build MSRs instead, especially since we've now seen in the real world how a zirconium fire can make a bad situation worse.

_________________
Disclaimer: I am an engineer but not a nuclear engineer, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer, or industrial engineer. My education included electrical, computer, and software engineering.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jun 21, 2016 1:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Nov 14, 2013 7:47 pm
Posts: 568
Location: Iowa, USA
Tim Meyer wrote:
I'm glad you granted me my challenge to you. See if you recognize her:


I do recognize her, I recall her speaking about the Waste Annihilating Molten Salt Reactor with her classmate and business partner from Transatomic Power. I admit I had to search for Dr. Leslie Dewan's name. I just did not recall seeing her in the video since, as you admit, her part in the video is short. I notice that she has no speaking role in the video, I have little doubt her views on thorium differing from that of Mr. Sorensen was a large factor in her playing a cameo in the video.

I will again admit my ignorance on nuclear power before I say that I am not a fan of Transatomic Power. I've seen a couple Transatomic Power WAMSR talks, and some analysis of their proposals from Mr. Sorensen and others. The lack of specifics in their talks leaves me wondering just how far they are in developing their technology. I understand their need to keep some things as trade secrets but they don't say enough to inspire confidence in me, and I suspect that there are many people with an education similar to my own would come away with a similar feeling.

WAMSR is an interesting concept, and the way Transatomic presents it in TED Talks and similar forums is likely to inspire people to want to learn more. I'm just afraid this might backfire to some extent if their design comes up as a bust which, again from my ignorant view, seems quite probable. Success is inspiring, success breeds success. If WAMSR fails then that will give the anti-nuclear people another example to show how nuclear power has failed, and we don't need that.

I mean no disrespect for Dr. Dewan or the people in her company, they are obviously all intelligent, educated, and talented people. I wish them well and hope they are successful. I am merely placing greater faith in the success of Terrestrial Energy and Flibe Energy.

_________________
Disclaimer: I am an engineer but not a nuclear engineer, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer, or industrial engineer. My education included electrical, computer, and software engineering.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jun 21, 2016 3:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1519
Hydrogen buildup from a Zirconium-steam reaction can be prevented by injecting oxygen into the reactor vessel, probably using it to draw hydrogen over a catalytic filter and thus removing it by reconverting it to steam which can be converted back into water using the normal shutdown cooling system.

Or it can be prevented from causing significant accidents by simply venting the built up hydrogen over filters directly to the plant stack - the Fukushima reactors vented the gas unfiltered to the secondary containment, thus allowing it to build up to explosive concentrations.

This is a design flaw of previous LWRs that has largely been dealt with by one method or another.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jun 21, 2016 11:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Nov 14, 2013 7:47 pm
Posts: 568
Location: Iowa, USA
E Ireland wrote:
Hydrogen buildup from a Zirconium-steam reaction can be prevented by injecting oxygen into the reactor vessel, probably using it to draw hydrogen over a catalytic filter and thus removing it by reconverting it to steam which can be converted back into water using the normal shutdown cooling system.


I understand such systems are common, if not necessary, for any water cooled nuclear reactor. The radiation in the water will separate the hydrogen from the oxygen in normal reactor operations. The question I have though is how large, expensive, etc. would these systems have to be to accommodate the level of hydrogen production from a zirconium fire? Take note that a zirconium fire would be the result of a loss of coolant event. Can we be sure these hydrogen recovery systems would remain operational if the cooling pumps were not?

Venting the hydrogen to the atmosphere is certainly an option but this means opening the reactor core to the air. Would this not also release radioactive elements to the air? Assuming that we could create a system that would allow only hydrogen to leave the core would this not also mean releasing tritium?

I will concede that not every current nuclear power plant was designed as poorly as Fukushima when it comes to handling loss of coolant events. Reading about how they had one failure after another was just astonishing. This was also quite frustrating since many of these issues were quite likely known beforehand and/or could have been resolved long ago with minimal costs. Of course hindsight is 20/20 so I know I cannot be too critical. It appears that this power plant had been operating safely for decades right up until a once in a century tsunami hit.

I will also concede that I did overstate the problem to some extent. We've known for a long time that zirconium fires are not only possible but also quite probable in a loss of cooling event. This was shown in the Three Mile Island meltdown in 1979, and possibly in the EBR-1 meltdown in 1951. Zirconium fires in a loss of coolant event should not be a surprise.

Taking steps to prevent currently operating reactors from melting down and igniting their zirconium cladding is admirable. I'd just rather we expend this effort to build MSRs so we can simply retire these aging water cooled reactors.

_________________
Disclaimer: I am an engineer but not a nuclear engineer, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer, or industrial engineer. My education included electrical, computer, and software engineering.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jun 22, 2016 10:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1519
Releasing tritium in the kind of catastrophic zirconium-steam reaction situation we are describing is not exactly a major issue in my opinion.
Either we vent the hydrogen (with some tritium) or we risk a detonation inside the containment that will blow it wide open.
Tritium can't bioaccumulate and since it is released as a gas in this situation it should pillar into the upper atmosphere rather rapidly, away from anyone at least for a while.

Filters can be used to trap Caesium and iodine from the escaping gas, and the remainder being dumped up the stack should help prevent any problematic local concentrates - especially since during the early stages of the accident fuel elements will not actually have been compromised yet - the Zirconium reacts from the surface inwards after all.

However the best defence against this kind of accident is to prevent it from occuring in the first place, which is why modern designs like the AP1000 and ESBWR put so much emphasis on passive cooling of the core in a station blackout situation.
An ESBWR would have suffered no significant damage during the Fukushima Tsunami event, all it takes is a 9-10hp portable pump and a pipe into the sea to save the reactor. And they have 72 hours to achieve even that.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


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