Reactor Dome blown away.

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

icarus
Posts: 819
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:48 am

Post by icarus »

And how long do you want to spin that? How much more expensive do you want to make nuclear power? Because more and more complex systems cost money.
and therein lies the rub ... the big fission dinosaurs can't compete in the market when ALL the risks and rewards are weighed up is what you are saying?

It's been propped up by big govt. centralised power structure schemes for 50 years, maybe time to come up with a fission scheme that can compete or move on beyond fission?

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

maybe time to come up with a fission scheme that can compete or move on beyond fission?
And where are those miracles, please?
So far I have not seen anything. There is NOTHING that can do that available right now. There are attempts and research is being done, but NOTHING working does exist yet.
Trust me, I would more than happily replace all fission plants, most of all though all coal powered plants with something else. But there is nothing.
Heck, why do you think I am on this board in the first place?

Giorgio
Posts: 3061
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

Sometimes the discussions in this board becomes really funny....

bcglorf
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:58 pm

Yeah

Post by bcglorf »

Japs can't be trusted with this tech., when push come to shove they dropped the ball massively.

So Japan is hit with the worst earthquake in their recorded history, and their techs response at their nuclear plant massively drops the ball, and they still haven't had any casualties from the plants operations...

Yeah, there is no escaping the logical conclusion that nuclear is disastrously and inherently dangerous and unsafe the world over.

You are right about the PR side being the big disaster, though that's mostly attributable to bad reporting, sensationalism and panicked ignorance of the masses.

cc
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 4:26 am

Post by cc »

KitemanSA wrote:And SBWRs are better yet and ESBWRs are even more so and they are ALL "STUPID technology".
Any technology that causes the need to store MASSIVE amounts of "waste" that is the combination of short lived fusion products and long lived actinides is JPS (just plain stupid). All solid core reactors do that unless reprocessed, but reprocessing such fuel isolates material for WMD. Using U235/U239 solid fuel is JPS. Go liquid Thorium, dude. (E.G., molten salt (U233/T232) reactor) with continuous on-line processing to remove the fission products).
Agreed. I fully support nuclear energy, but we don't need more reactors that burn up only a small percentage of the fuel, of which is already only a small percentage of the U mined, of which all ends up being treated as nuclear "waste" for 100,000 years. On top of the mining waste, all of the fuel separation and manufacturing equipment can also be considered waste. It is just criminally inefficient and produces enormous quantities of long lived waste--Just Plain Stupid is an apt description.

Perhaps the most disappointing part of this nuclear disaster, is that it was a perfect opportunity to highlight the progress of current nuclear technology, with passive safety systems, which also solve the waste problem (use it as fuel)--if only we would adopt it!. Even if we cease operation of reactors today, the waste problem won't go away, so the only sensible course of action is to consume it in modern reactors. Incidentally, this would obviate the need for further mining for a century, which in itself is a tremendously environmentally damaging process.

If the media wanted to scare people, they could have done so in a perfectly legitimate and productive way: just call attention to the ancient and JPS reactor designs still in use. Reactors should never, ever be actively "safe"; we need newer designs, not irrational nuclear hysteria. The focus could have been turned from nuclear itself to ill-conceived 1950s era reactors. As with most things, it isn't inherently unsafe, it is a matter of how we use it.

The molten salt reactor looks particularly good, as do things like the travelling wave reactor. The small sealed fast reactors like the Toshiba 4S and Hyperion modules also look good. (Excepting the ones based on LWRs.) I believe that Japan will be fine, as they will continue to look toward the future, and this disaster may even speed the adoption of such technology.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

FYI:
WNN wrote:About 60% of the total used nuclear fuel from all six reactors is kept in a shared facility, while each of the units also has its own storage pool near the top of the reactor building. At unit 4, the reactor itself contains no fuel, this having been removed to the unit's own store over 100 days ago for maintenance work to take place.
* WNN = World Nuclear News

They also report 400mSv/hr at the inland side of Unit 3 and 100 mSv/hr at Unit 4. At the boundary of the PLANT, the report is now ~1 mSv/hr.
Not great, but not yet Chernobyl (200Sv/day that first day, at least to the the firefighters; IIRC.)

icarus
Posts: 819
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:48 am

Post by icarus »

Makes you wonder which genius at GE thought building a string of nuclear reactors with exposed active cooling systems along a tsunami prone coastline was a sound idea for their future business model ....

... like selling fireworks to a 4 year old boy.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

As I said elsewhere... stupid tech.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

Come now, guys!

They built the plant to withstand a 7.9 magnitude earthquake.

The fact that there had been 5 earthquakes in excess of magnitude 8 in the preceding 80 years is a mere technicality!! :roll:

icarus
Posts: 819
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:48 am

Post by icarus »

Amazingly, the reactors survived the quake intact. They had a fighting chance.

It will eventually come out that it was the tardy mismanagement of the aftermath that has led to the dire situation it is now .... a cracked, leaking fuel rod pool with 130 tons of heating up uranium exposed to the atmosphere surrounded by an extremely hot radioactive area that is all but impossible to work in ...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 2753.story

Unlike the reactor itself, the spent fuel pool does not have its own containment vessel, and any radioactive particles and gases can more easily spew into the environment if the uranium fuel begins to burn. In addition, the pool, which contains 130 tons of uranium fuel, is housed in a building that Japanese authorities say appears to have been damaged by fire or explosions.

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Post by seedload »

KitemanSA wrote:FYI:
WNN wrote:About 60% of the total used nuclear fuel from all six reactors is kept in a shared facility, while each of the units also has its own storage pool near the top of the reactor building. At unit 4, the reactor itself contains no fuel, this having been removed to the unit's own store over 100 days ago for maintenance work to take place.
* WNN = World Nuclear News

They also report 400mSv/hr at the inland side of Unit 3 and 100 mSv/hr at Unit 4. At the boundary of the PLANT, the report is now ~1 mSv/hr.
Not great, but not yet Chernobyl (200Sv/day that first day, at least to the the firefighters; IIRC.)
40 RAD and hour and they are just now raising this to TMI levels. Sheesh.

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

40r/hr will cause you some problems, but at least you won't drop dead on the spot. Much later, in slow and painful manner, and probably much sooner than uncooked gen pop stats would have predicted, but certainly not on the spot. For that, you are looking for 1000r pulse gamma, or 100r pulse neutron.

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

That depends on how long you are exposed to it.
From what I understand, none of the workers are going near that location where the radiation is so high. This seems to be only a very localized spot a the plant. The radiation is much lower near the entrance, or at other measurement points.
Also, according to NBF, the dosages are now lower, more in the range of 2.5 to 5 rem/hour. That would be 25 to 50 millisievert/hour, if I am not mistaken.

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

5r/hr is still pretty high.
US Annual ionizing limts for a rad worker are 5 rem.
They are going to be burning dudes out left and right.

These guys are shifting themselves on the bell curve big time, and I salute them for it.

Post Reply