OT - mini-nuclear power plants

[Ray]

Any impressions of this technology? Does it really get around the traditional downsides of nukes? Are there other downsides NOT traditionally associated with nukes? I'm fascinated with the new stuff coming down the pike, but old prejudices die kind of hard.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/09/miniature-nuclear-reactors-los-alamos

-Ray

[don'TreadOnMe]

_very_ interesting, but man, the risk/reward is intimidating.

[android]

The backpack models are supposed to be pretty good if you're in the ghost busting business. :)

[oldfatslow]

don't cross the streams.

[rwsaunders]

Here's your mini reactor, complete with it's own security system.

[benb]

We had one in college.. probably the same one.

I saw it once, most people didn't even know it existed so they weren't scared. It's not the same shape but it's barely bigger then a refrigerator.

Interesting concept. I guess when they are quite small they don't generate enough heat to be a problem & don't even necessarily need to be constantly monitored...

At a huge nuclear power plant 99% of the giant thing you see is just cooling.. even at those huge plants the actual reactor is a little shed.

[bigbill]

Any impressions of this technology? Does it really get around the traditional downsides of nukes? Are there other downsides NOT traditionally associated with nukes? I'm fascinated with the new stuff coming down the pike, but old prejudices die kind of hard.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/09/miniature-nuclear-reactors-los-alamos

-Ray

As a person who operates nuklar reactors for a living, I am intrigued by this new design. If you look at the old technology used for commercial power plants, they had to be large and costly. One of the major costs and difficulties was that the US never chose a common design so each plant was essentially a one-off. If something broke, a replacement had to be made. Anyone in the engineering and manufacturing business can tell you that this is an expensive proposition. The technology in nuclear fuel has advanced tremendously. It's all about physics and how much fuel you can get into a small size fuel assembly. The new class of submarines that the US is building now are leaving the shipyard with all the fuel they will ever need. This is a major departure from the old technology that would require a refueling ($$$,$$$,$$$) at some point of hull life.

Nuclear power does not equal nuclear weapons. The physics just doesn't support it.

[csm]

I'd be all for this in someone else's back yard.

[Lifelover]

...... The new class of submarines that the US is building now are leaving the shipyard with all the fuel they will ever need....

So much for my Job :crap: :crap: .

As long as there are enough current boats to refuel/defuel for the next 15 years, I might be OK.

The linked article doesn't provide nearly enough information to make any kind of judgement.

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . they DO eventually need to be refueled. That leaves us with the same old problem. What to do with the used fuel? It has been literally decades and the US hasn't figured out what to do with it's nuclear waste. People are so afraid of anything "nuclear" that nobody wants the repository anywhere near them. They also don't want the waste moving cross country to get to the repository. Meanwhile, it just keeps piling up. Until the currently deadlocked politics of it all gets settled, no matter what advances take place in the actually reactors, the waste problem remains.

Meanwhile, people complain that solar is too expensive and nobody wants to spoil their pretty view by having to look at a windmill. I was having dinner with a friend last night who is a facilities manager at a large local company. He had just finished attended a seminar, supposedly a fair overview of various energy efficiency options for construction. The seminar was presented by the local electric utility and the speaker trashed photovoltaic up one side and down the other, even taking into account that upstate NY is not the sunniest place in the world. He cited an ROI of 30 years for photovoltaic. My friend had done his own research and arrived at a figure of as little as 12 years depending on your total energy usage. But the speaker was totally propagandizing the crowd of mostly local contractors.

Why? Because the utility is required to buy your extra electricity into their grid if you have solar. It cuts down on their profits. So they do everything they can to put it down at supposedly fair seminars like this.

It's just as depressing as the election campaign was. I think I'll go for a ride now . . .

BBD

[saab2000]

People are so afraid of anything "nuclear" that nobody wants the repository anywhere near them.

That's because most folks don't understand the science behind it.

[gdw]

The key word is repository - storage site. The plants don't scare me but the transport and storage of the waste is the drawback.

I had the Hanford Site (we know they dumped or buried it around here somewhere : :confused: ) as a client a number of years ago and was also involved with some of Batelle's research into its impact on the health of the workers, their families, and the surrounding communities. I dreaded visits to the facility and wouldn't live in the tri-cities for 10 million bucks. Google Hanford, Batelle, and childhood leukemia if you have some free time and want to learn about the possible drawbacks of living near a repository.

[Tobias]

Why? Because the utility is required to buy your extra electricity into their grid if you have solar. It cuts down on their profits. So they do everything they can to put it down at supposedly fair seminars like this.

It's just as depressing as the election campaign was. I think I'll go for a ride now . . .

BBDBeing required to buy extra solar is not profitable for them -- and then they have to turn around and charge the rest of us a higher rate for that "service" so they can subsidize the few that have solar.

If anyone should be upset about it not being "fair" is should be most of us. :confused:

[Tobias]

Any impressions of this technology?My first thought is that it's an April Fool's Joke.

Security? :rolleyes: Even if impossible to make a nuke bomb out of one, what would keep terrorist from bombing one to have a radioactive leak -- or something similar we just haven't thought of yet? The biggest problem I see is that if we ever discover a real problem there would be so many that it would be impossible to protect them all until they could be replaced or removed.

We'd have to have a lot more information to know if this is even a serious proposal or a joke; not to mention whether its really viable. In any case the biggest problem remains -- what to do with spent fuel. If not for that, we could be building nukes right and left.

[Viper]

Chernobyl:

http://todayspictures.slate.com/inmotion/essay_chernobyl/

I don't see mini, happymeal-sized nuke reactors taking place. I'd like to see America generate a greater percentage of it's power from nuclear, as much as 80%. There is a great deal of risk with nuclear power, don't forget to read the fine print.

[Dekonick]

That's because most folks don't understand the science behind it.

Exactly.

It isn't frightening - it really isn't.

You should worry more about anhydrous ammonia used to cool your local whatever commercial structure... or the gasoline pumped under your very feet... or the oil in the transformers on your local power lines, or ...

:crap: :crap: :crap: :crap:

People are stupid sometimes.... :argue:

Most don't know that the University of Maryland, college park has a nuclear reactor on campus...

:crap:

[Dekonick]

Improper management of anything hazardous has drawbacks. Nuclear is safe - you just have to make sure it is properly managed.

[Tobias]

Improper management of anything hazardous has drawbacks. Nuclear is safe - you just have to make sure it is properly managed.Exactly. And how are we going to ensure that when they are all over the place? One per 10,000 homes? That's a bunch of those little suckers.

[Viper]

Exactly.

It isn't frightening - it really isn't.

You should worry more about anhydrous ammonia used to cool your local whatever commercial structure... or the gasoline pumped under your very feet... or the oil in the transformers on your local power lines, or ...

:crap: :crap: :crap: :crap:

People are stupid sometimes.... :argue:

Most don't know that the University of Maryland, college park has a nuclear reactor on campus...

:crap:

A tiny, select group of people knew about a nuclear reactor at Brookhaven National Labratory on Long Island. Now? Long Island's groundwater on the east end is filled with tritium:

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:ocIPK0O4lckJ:www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/PR_display.asp%3FprID%3D07-X7+brookhaven+national+lab+groundwater+tritium&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

:no:

[sg8357]

US nuke plants are pressurized water plants, a system designed for
submarines transported to dry land. See the problem ?

Part of the reason there hasn't been another 3 Mile Island is the plants
have been taken over from the original operators, the plants now
have standardized controls.

There are several nuclear power plant designs that are not pressurized
water, they fail soft, the cooling system is there to keep the plant
from "drowning", when the cooling system fails the plant shuts down.

We don't have a nuclear waste problem, we just have a bunch of fuel
no one has figured out how to use yet.

Scott G.

[myette10]

http://www.toywonders.com/productcart/pc/catalog/2712.jpg
this thing here ran on nuclear fission towards the end. Note the cuisinart aft of the passenger area above the carburetor.

[bigbill]

US nuke plants are pressurized water plants, a system designed for
submarines transported to dry land. See the problem ?

No. The pressurized water reactor design keeps the radioactive coolant separate from the non-radioactive steam by using a heat exchanger. The steam spins turbines in a non contaminated steam cycle. Boiling water reactors make radioactive steam so the steam plant is contaminated. Pressurized water reactors needs coolant (water) for fission to occur. If the piping ruptures and all the coolant leaks out, fission stops and stays stopped by the automatic insertion of control rods. The danger in any design is heat generated from decay. This is why all land based reactors and aircraft carriers have emergency water injection systems to remove decay heat.

[rnhood]

But, the tritium was not caused by a nuclear reactor.

A tiny, select group of people knew about a nuclear reactor at Brookhaven National Labratory on Long Island. Now? Long Island's groundwater on the east end is filled with tritium:

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:ocIPK0O4lckJ:www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/PR_display.asp%3FprID%3D07-X7+brookhaven+national+lab+groundwater+tritium&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

:no:

[Dekonick]

Pen and Teller (I believe) went to an environmental activist gathering with a petition to ban di-hydrogen oxide. People were all over it - signing up to ban the offending chemical. When asked what was so dangerous, they replied things like it causes you to urinate, in high doses it can cause pulmonary edema, etc...

The substance? WATER.

Fear and ignorance - SHEEP!

[Lifelover]

Exactly.

It isn't frightening - it really isn't.

You should worry more about anhydrous ammonia used to cool your local whatever commercial structure... or the gasoline pumped under your very feet... or the oil in the transformers on your local power lines, or ...

:crap: :crap: :crap: :crap:

People are stupid sometimes.... :argue:

Most don't know that the University of Maryland, college park has a nuclear reactor on campus...

:crap:

+1
I consider the average Serotta Forum member to be pretty smart and yet this thread is filled with misconceptions of Nuclear Power that make me want to pull my hair out!

[wrestlr]

+1
I consider the average Serotta Forum member to be pretty smart and yet this thread is filled with misconceptions of Nuclear Power that make me want to pull my hair out!


Same here. Most do not have any clue. My professor right now is the person who was essentially responsible for the safety systems creation and monitoring for nuclear plants worldwide about 20 years ago. Even wrote all of the computer programs still used today to monitor systems. Genius.

When three mile island reactor leak happened and he first heard about he said he was so happy since everything he an his team designed worked flawlessly and it would gain public intuition as to the safety he thought. Also the fact that a Chernobyl CAN NOT happen in the US due to the core systems we use. Well... the media got hold of three mile and fear was instilled in the public opinion.
-Mike

[Louis]

Also the fact that a Chernobyl CAN NOT happen in the US due to the core systems we use.

Perhaps the exact same type of meltdown can't happen here, but that doesn't mean that it is impossible for accidents to happen.

In the grand scheme of things we live with all sorts of low-level risks that result in harm to society (car accidents, house fires, cigarettes, etc.). Unfortunately, not all decision making is done purely based on a rational basis. Nuclear power is clearly one of those things where emotions play an important role.

[saab2000]

Perhaps the exact same type of meltdown can't happen here, but that doesn't mean that it is impossible for accidents to happen.

In the grand scheme of things we live with all sorts of low-level risks that result in harm to society (car accidents, house fires, cigarettes, etc.). Unfortunately, not all decision making is done purely based on a rational basis. Nuclear power is clearly one of those things where emotions play an important role.

Due primarily to ignorance and lack of education. Nuclear technology is really actually surprisingly simple and the basics can be understood by someone with basically high school level physics and chemistry. I am not kidding either. It's not that hard to know the basics.

People fear what they don't understand.

This ain't rocket science folks. Just nuclear physics. :D

[bigbill]

Due primarily to ignorance and lack of education. Nuclear technology is really actually surprisingly simple and the basics can be understood by someone with basically high school level physics and chemistry. I am not kidding either. It's not that hard to know the basics.

People fear what they don't understand.

This ain't rocket science folks. Just nuclear physics. :D


The Navy lets 19 year olds operate their reactors.

[Viper]

But, the tritium was not caused by a nuclear reactor.

I'm hip, please explain:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/17/national/17nuke.html

"In New York, at the Indian Point 2 reactor in Buchanan, workers digging a foundation adjacent to the plant's spent fuel pool found wet dirt, an indication that the pool was leaking. New monitoring wells are tracing the tritium's progress toward the Hudson River."

"Near Braceville, Ill., the Braidwood Generating Station, owned by the Exelon Corporation, has leaked tritium into underground water that has shown up in the well of a family nearby. The company, which has bought out one property owner and is negotiating with others, has offered to help pay for a municipal water system for houses near the plant that have private wells."

"This month, workers at the Palo Verde plant in New Mexico found tritium in an underground pipe vault."

"Tritium, a form of hydrogen with two additional neutrons in its nucleus, is especially vexing. The atom is unstable and returns to stability by emitting a radioactive particle. Because the hydrogen is incorporated into a water molecule, it is almost impossible to filter out. The biological effect of the radiation is limited because, just like ordinary water, water that incorporates tritium does not stay in the body long. But it is detectable in tiny quantities, and always makes its source look bad. The Energy Department closed a research reactor in New York at its Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island, largely because of a tritium leak. And it can catch up to a plant after death; demolition crews at the Connecticut Yankee reactor in Haddam Neck, Conn., are disposing of extra dirt that has been contaminated with tritium and other materials, as they tear the plant down."

Hey, I don't have a Phd in molecular or nuclear science, but I ride Campy and I don't breathe through my mouth, so you know I'm a little smart. (I hope this can be Lifelover's new sig). But please define to me how tritium is not, not connected to these nuclear *cough* research reactors?

Cause I want nuke power, I do, I'm just saying that if someone builds a plant in my backyard (they did, Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant fwiw) and if tritium is found in my drinking water, I am going to shove my size 45 Sidis so far up as many people's arses at the plant, that I'm going to need new cleats within moments.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/17/national/17nuke.html = :confused:

"Tritium, radioactive hydrogen that forms from the spent fuel pool within the High Flux Beam Reactor. The plume of groundwater contaminated with tritium is confined to the central portion of BNL..."

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:3QcWTTvIFFUJ:www.weitzlux.com/environmentallawsuit/newyork/brookhavennationallab_146433.html+brookhaven+natio nal+laboratory+nuclear+reactor+tritium&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=13&gl=us

"The NRC records also indicated that over these years the St. Lucie reactors had released over 6800 Curies of liquid tritium--radioactive hydrogen--into local waters. Community groups in western Massachusetts have implicated liquid tritium releases from the now defunct Yankee Rowe nuclear reactor as the cause of abnormally high rates of five kinds of cancer and Down's Syndrome. And in Suffolk County on New York's eastern Long Island, residents have filed a $2 billion lawsuit against the operators of a research reactor at Brookhaven National Laboratory, contending that its leaks of tritium and other radioactive substances into the groundwater have contaminated their community water supply."
http://64.233.169.104/search?

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2005/6/28/5244/56667

[Lifelover]

But please define to me how tritium is not, not connected to these nuclear *cough* research reactors?


Because it occurs naturally and can be found almost anywhere.

Upon leaving an area where someone might be exposed to rad contamination, they must "Frisk out". This ensures that they have not been contaminated and are transferring any out. The frisk can be done with a hand held counter like you might see on TV or you can stand in a full body frisker that is quicker and much more sensitive. If you happened to come in out of the rain and have wet pant cuffs, you are likely to set the alarm off in the full body unit. Not because of what you are bring out of the rad area, but because of the naturally occurring radioactive particles in rain waters.

I didn't read any articles that you linked and don't know any details of those reactor plants. However, I'm pretty damn confident that there were not any undetected leaks from the contaminated side of the Reactor.

Once you have been involved with the Nuclear Power industry (Naval or Civilian) you realize it is the level of required controls and accountability that keep Nuc power from being profitable.

[bigbill]

We closed a base in Italy last year. We surveyed the entire using sensitive instruments and took samples of dirt, concrete, paint, asphalt, water, marine life, sediment, and air. All of these results were given to the Italians who took their own samples as well. The only isotope we found was Potassium 40 which is naturally occuring in just about everything made of rock or grown in dirt. There are certain isotopes that can only come from nuclear reactors and can be detected in environmental samples. None of the linked articles mentioned any of those isotopes. Tritium can come from many different sources including weapons and naturally occurring.

[Viper]

So if I go on a high-fiber, low carb, high-tritium diet it's all good? There is a $2B lawsuit in Suffolk County, NY regarding the tritium at Brookhaven National Laboratory. Having someone suggest that tritium occurs naturally isn't going to make the problems go away.

I think this. If you believe in 'A', you should be wise enough to disprove and argue effectively against 'A' with 'B'. If you can do that, you might find 'A' isn't so valid and pretty and you might wind up believing in 'C', an idea you couldn't have if you were stuck on 'A'. In other words, anyone who is pro-nuke, but does not accurately and honestly offer the scary and very real side effects we read above, just about tritium, that person has consumed so much Kool Aid tm, they cannot be believed. I am pro-nuke, but view it without the Kool Aid tm.

I get hot and thirsty riding a skateboard:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBeUGqeYsQg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_2m-4e4tyA

:beer:

[Birddog]

"This month, workers at the Palo Verde plant in New Mexico found tritium in an underground pipe vault."

There is no Palo Verde plant in New Mexico. There is one in Arizona.

Birddog

[Viper]

There is no Palo Verde plant in New Mexico. There is one in Arizona.

Birddog

True...it's located in Tonopah, Arizona, about 45 miles west of Phoenix.

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:6rLLUg6pNv4J:a4nr.org/library/safety/03.04.2006-arizonarepublic+palo+verde+nuclear+tritium&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

And, "Arizona Public Service Co. discovered radioactive water near a maze of underground pipes at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station this week and plans more tests to ensure that the tainted water hasn't leaked into the area's water supply.

Work crews discovered the tritium-laced water in an underground pipe vault near Palo Verde's Unit 3. Tests confirmed that the water contains more than three times the acceptable amount of tritium.

State officials say there is no immediate evidence that the tritium, a byproduct of nuclear power generation and a relatively weak source of radiation, poses any public health concerns.

Although a leaking pipe may be the source of the tritium, Seaman said APS could not rule out other sources. According to the plant's operating permit, tritium can be released into the air.

Tritium can be ingested or absorbed in human tissue. Small amounts of tritium pass through the body quickly, usually through urine.

Exposure to tritium can increase the risk of cancer and birth defects.

Several nuclear power plants around the country have reported tritium leaks.

In Illinois, Exelon pledged to help build a new public water system for a small township after tritium was discovered in groundwater and at least one private well.

Tritium, a byproduct of nuclear power generation, is a relatively weak source of radiation. But long-term exposure can increase the risks of cancer, miscarriages and birth defects. It can be ingested or absorbed in human tissue.

Palo Verde vents tritium into the air as a normal byproduct of nuclear power generation. Other nuclear power plants typically dispose of the chemical in streams or lakes where it quickly dissipates, Seaman said.

Seaman said APS officials believe rainfall captured the tritium released from the plant and washed it into the soil there."

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:3Ofvznr8ygUJ:a4nr.org/library/safety/03.23.2006-arizonarepublic+palo+verde+nuclear+tritium&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

So anyone telling me that tritium is okay, fine, not a biggie and that it occurs naturally, welp they remind me of of this guy below, cause officials will tell you tritium occurs naturally as it comes from the rain...but the real source and fact is tritium is a byproduct, a slightly radioactive byproduct of nuclear power plants, is released into the air, then falls down to the ground "naturally." :rolleyes:.

Mayor Vaughn, I'd love his spin on tritium, but what I really want are his blazers:

[Karin Kirk]

Due primarily to ignorance and lack of education. Nuclear technology is really actually surprisingly simple and the basics can be understood by someone with basically high school level physics and chemistry. I am not kidding either. It's not that hard to know the basics.

People fear what they don't understand.

This ain't rocket science folks. Just nuclear physics. :D

I agree in principle but there are plenty of people who aren't ignorant and who do understand how nuclear reactors work and who are still cautious about the idea. I don't think it's a fair characterization to dismiss opposition to nuclear power as simply due to a lack of understanding.

[RPS]

In other words, anyone who is pro-nuke, but does not accurately and honestly offer the scary and very real side effects .......snipped..........I'm pro-nuclear and agree that we must be open to the real dangers or risk diminished credibility.

[mschol17]

A coal power plant emits more radiation than a nuclear plant.

France safely produces ~80% of its power with nuclear plants.

For the most part, people are scared because they don't know. The storage site in Yucca Mountain is rated safe for something like 10,000 years. Currently, the majority of nuclear waste is stored on site in containers that are safe for over 100 years. I don't think the waste issue is as big of a deal as people make it out to be. The uranium was in the ground before it was mined, so put it back in the ground once it's spent.

[saab2000]

I agree in principle but there are plenty of people who aren't ignorant and who do understand how nuclear reactors work and who are still cautious about the idea. I don't think it's a fair characterization to dismiss opposition to nuclear power as simply due to a lack of understanding.


Not entirely. But in a country like France, which produces a large percentage of it's power through nuclear technology, there has been less opposition.

I am basically a proponent of nuclear power, but it should also go without saying that it must be done safely or not at all.

But we all (or at least I do) swoon over things like energy independence and modern, safe, reliable (and electric) trains like they have in France. These concepts don't grow on trees or just come blowing in the wind.

I would love to see a massive increase in solar energy production and wind energy production, among others, but I also believe there is a place for nuclear power in our future. Much fear of it is based on distortions of the truth or urban myths.

As I said, it must be done safely or it must not be done. My understanding is that it can be done safely.

[Karin Kirk]

A coal power plant emits more radiation than a nuclear plant.

France safely produces ~80% of its power with nuclear plants.

For the most part, people are scared because they don't know. The storage site in Yucca Mountain is rated safe for something like 10,000 years. Currently, the majority of nuclear waste is stored on site in containers that are safe for over 100 years. I don't think the waste issue is as big of a deal as people make it out to be. The uranium was in the ground before it was mined, so put it back in the ground once it's spent.

That's mostly true, but a bit over simplified. We don't have the ability to actually "rate" anything for 10,000 years because we've never tried it. The target life span for the Yucca Mountain repository is 10,000 years and the DOE is saying that they think it will work for that. But I wouldn't call that a rating and honestly I think it's hard to assure much of anything over a time scale that long. Yucca Mountain is in a tectonically active location.

One interesting example of the complications when dealing with that time scale is language. To date no language has lasted anywhere near 10,000 years. So how do you communicate what Yucca Mountain is and what to do with it? I'm not saying this is a deal-breaker, but it's an interesting point that arises from a 10,000 year time scale.

The spent fuel rods that will go into Yucca Mountain do not resemble naturally-occurring uranium. It's much more enriched and concentrated, and will be radioactive way beyond any natural deposit. So it's a bit over-simplified to say that it came out of the ground and hence it goes right back in, no problem.

[RPS]

Same here. Most do not have any clue. My professor right now is the person who was essentially responsible for the safety systems creation and monitoring for nuclear plants worldwide about 20 years ago. Even wrote all of the computer programs still used today to monitor systems. Genius.

When three mile island reactor leak happened and he first heard about he said he was so happy since everything he an his team designed worked flawlessly and it would gain public intuition as to the safety he thought. Also the fact that a Chernobyl CAN NOT happen in the US due to the core systems we use. Well... the media got hold of three mile and fear was instilled in the public opinion.
-MikeI visited a nuclear plant right before commissioning as part of a nuclear class a few years before the three mile event and can tell you that computers didn’t control anywhere as much as they do today. Besides, as I understand them, the events there were due to numerous mechanical failures and not primarily due to controls. That’s not to say that improved controls could have not made it easier to manage the situation.

Although I support building new (large) plants I have safety concerns in two areas. The first is an internal attack from someone who has access to controls. If anyone finds a way to overwrite or override controls the game is over. I’m certain we have security for that, but as long as humans are involved someone must have access to revise programming, and hence safety protocols.

The second concern is in the even of a conventional war. I know it’s hard for us to imagine the US being attacked by a foreign country using conventional weapons, but a large bomb into the side of a containment building could result in damage the plants are not able to deal with.

Granted the probability of an accident is highly unlikely, but if it did occur, the results could be devastating. That’s what gets people’s attention. It's not just lack of knowledge.

[Karin Kirk]

As I said, it must be done safely or it must not be done. My understanding is that it can be done safely.

Agreed. (And yes I love those trains in Europe!)
I guess there are two ways to look at the safety. There's the short-term operational safety, such as running the plant and producing power without discharge of radiation. On that, I agree because there's a track record for it.

But we haven't really tackled the long-term safety yet. Even France only last year began to store its waste. So we really don't know how that's going to play out. Unless we put the waste in a really dumb location it probably won't cause problems right away, but over 10,000 years, who can really say anything about safety?

Maybe that's just someone else's problem, but to me it's a concern.

[goonster]

Besides, as I understand them, the events there were due to numerous mechanical failures and not primarily due to controls. That’s not to say that improved controls could have not made it easier to manage the situation.

Not trying to disagree gratuitously here, but I see the TMI incident as being primarily a control system problem. Sure, there were key mechanical failures (secondary loop pump failure, primary pressurization valve stuck open), but a plant has to be able to respond to such problems.

As a controls engineer I've thought about TMI a lot. To me, the biggest problems were all diretly related to the controls:

1. Displays lead operators to believe that the pressurization valves are closed, when they are actually stuck open. (The controls here were actually working as designed, but the operators confused the device command with the actual device state.)

2. Operators think there is water in the core, when there isn't. (Again, the system was functioning as designed. There was no instrument to measure core water level directly, so the operators inferred that process value from the level in a separate pressure vessel.)

3. Backup cooling systems do not work because several block valves were left closed (in 'manual' mode, presumably) after a testing procedure several days earlier. (Again, the system worked as designed, but those valves should have been opened by interlocks or should have issued critical alarms)

All three points could be corrected by relatively simple design changes and/or improved operator training and experience. From what I've read, the biggest "lesson learned" taken from TMI with respect to nuke plant operation affects operator training. Operators are no longer taught to analyze process conditions and determine the root cause of the problem. They are drilled to strictly follow approved procedures, and make no judgment calls.

In my opinion, from a control systems technology standpoint, the three issues described above are almost as likely to occur today as they were in 1979. If plant safety and performance has improved since then, which I believe it has, it is because of regulatory oversight and engineering experience. Let's not forget though, that a lot of that engineering experience has been lost. Naval and research experience notwithstanding, nuclear power engineering teams are facing a serious learning curve.

[benb]

I think the idea with these tiny reactors is a large class of accidents can't even happen simply because of the lack of size/scale.

Everything gets simpler, and there just isn't enough mass of fissionable material to create a large disaster.

Tritium is not something to be scared of...

It has a half-life of only 12 years, it is produced in the atmosphere naturally by cosmic rays striking the earth.

According to environmental sources the US has only produced 225kg of Tritium through nuclear reactions since 1955... and that has decayed down to 75kg currently. (It decays into Helium)

It is just way too easy to scare people about nuclear power... all you have to do is wave a Geiger counter around an uncontaminated room and you can easily convince naive people that the whole country is already highly radioactive.

Oh yah.. a lot of the vintage snobby-watches people drool over on this forum contain tritium to make the hands glow.

[Viper]

Oh yah.. a lot of the vintage snobby-watches people drool over on this forum contain tritium to make the hands glow.

I am okay if the tritium is on the faces of Omega watches. Then it's fine w/me. :beer:

[93legendti]

No tritium here:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1225910085646&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter

[Dekonick]

:crap: :crap: I give up. We are destined to mine coal, pump oil, and otherwise release CO2 until we bake ourselves rather than use a much safer energy production method.

I am going out and buying EXXON stock... :crap: :crap:

Hopefully it will pay dividents high enough so I can afford a new Terraplane! :banana:


ARGH!!! :crap:

[Lifelover]

:crap: :crap: I give up. We are destined to mine coal, pump oil, and otherwise release CO2 until we bake ourselves rather than use a much safer energy production method.

I am going out and buying EXXON stock... :crap: :crap:

Hopefully it will pay dividents high enough so I can afford a new Terraplane! :banana:


ARGH!!! :crap:

You pretty much have summed up our situation. Currently energy is relatively cheap and there is no real motivation for us to go to something else like Nuclear. Smaller countries like France that do not have our natural resource are forced to either pay much higher prices or look for alternatives.

As much as tree huggers like to wax poetically about Wind, Solar or any other "green/renewable" source, the cold, hard facts are that they currently can not come close to meeting our demands.

Thus, if you don't have access to abundant natural resources, you learn to accept the risk (mostly perceived) of Nuclear.

[jimp1234]

Radiation, yes indeed! You hear the most outrageous lies about it. Half-baked
goggle-boxed do-gooders telling everybody it’s bad for you. Pernicious nonsense! Everybody could stand a hundred chest X-rays a year. They ought to have 'em too.

J. FRANK PARNELL (the guy who owned the Chevy Malibu in "Repo Man")

:beer:

[Ozz]

Radiation, yes indeed! You hear the most outrageous lies about it. Half-baked
goggle-boxed do-gooders telling everybody it’s bad for you. Pernicious nonsense! Everybody could stand a hundred chest X-rays a year. They ought to have 'em too.

J. FRANK PARNELL (the guy who owned the Chevy Malibu in "Repo Man")

:beer:
props to jimp1234 for referencing "Repo Man" and staying on topic.

:beer: :beer: :beer:

[Viper]

Radiation, yes indeed! You hear the most outrageous lies about it. Half-baked
goggle-boxed do-gooders telling everybody it’s bad for you. Pernicious nonsense! Everybody could stand a hundred chest X-rays a year. They ought to have 'em too.

J. FRANK PARNELL (the guy who owned the Chevy Malibu in "Repo Man")

:beer:

Nice! :beer:

It happens sometimes. People just explode. Natural causes

[gdw]

"You ever feel as if your mind had started to erode?"

[Lifelover]

"You ever feel as if your mind had started to erode?"


Mine has always been a slippery slope.

[csm]

tritium is used on my handgun sites too. makes for quick target acquisition in the dark w/o that pesky red dot alerting anyone.

[gdw]

Do they even issue compasses anymore now that hand held GPS devices are so advanced and inexpensive?

[Pete Serotta]

feel free to open another thread...