Axil, agree totally. I have a relative who was studying walkaway-safe,
thorium fueled, gas-cooled pebble bed reactors (just another of many
alternatives along the lines you suggest) way back in the Carter
administration. And in all this time we haven't done anything about it.
Jeff
On Fri, Nov
Around two-thirds is right. Many online sources quote 32% and I recall
33% from a class I took eons ago.
Two other things:
1. Controlling the reactivity of an operating reactor is extremely complex.
See for example Section 3, Core Cell Improved Design, here:
Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote:
I have a relative who was studying walkaway-safe, thorium fueled,
gas-cooled pebble bed reactors (just another of many alternatives along the
lines you suggest) way back in the Carter administration. And in all this
time we haven't done anything about
In reply to Jeff Berkowitz's message of Sat, 24 Nov 2012 13:20:24 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
Around two-thirds is right. Many online sources quote 32% and I recall
33% from a class I took eons ago.
Two other things:
1. Controlling the reactivity of an operating reactor is extremely complex.
See for
Professor: Really disturbed by recent solar flares We could have lots
of Fukushima-type events if one causes power blackout (VIDEO)
http://enenews.com/professor-really-disturbed-solar-flares-week-could-lots-fukushima-type-events-around-one-power-blackout-all-hell-could-break-lose-video
On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 12:10:07 -0500 (EST)
pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:
Preventing Armageddon Would Cost Only $100 Million
But Congress Is Too Thick to Approve the Fix
Guys,
I think we are at a HUGE risk with Fission reactors in 2013 with CMEs and
the two large Comets inbound (a third comet just broke up) which will fly
close to the sun and could trigger large ejections and flares. A huge
solar flare could fry the grid, backup batteries and knock out
Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote:
I thought that reactors were designed so that inserting rods of
some material would kill the reaction. I imagine they would have
battery power for long enough to insert the rods; heck, maybe
they even have a manual way to crank the motor to do it.
-9070
707 497-3551 fax
From: ChemE Stewart [cheme...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 9:42 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Michio Kaku: One solar flare could bring many Fukushimas
Guys,
I think we are at a HUGE risk with Fission reactors
Chernobyl, blamed on operators (which may be true) also had a seismic
anomaly beforehand. They were unable to lower the rods to safety. Think
of the effect of gradual beta decay directly over an operating reactor,
warping the control rods/covers preventing proper SCRAM.
Let's not forget, too, reactor failure could just be the coup de grace.
Loss of the grid would probably lead to immediate loss of civil control.
BTW, here is a recent assessment on nuclear plant safety -
The NRC and Nuclear Power Plant Safety in 2011 - LIVING ON BORROWED TIME
Yup
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 1:23 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:
sessment on nuclear plant safety -
The NRC and Nuclear Power Plant Safety in 2011 - LIVING ON BORROWED TIME
Message-
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, Nov 23, 2012 12:46 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Michio Kaku: One solar flare could bring many Fukushimas
Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote:
I thought that reactors were designed so that inserting rods
-
From: Mark Goldes mgol...@chavaenergy.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, Nov 23, 2012 12:54 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Michio Kaku: One solar flare could bring many Fukushimas
This is one of two Ticking Time Bombs which pose near-term threats to life in
at
least the Northern hemisphere
www.aesopinstitute.org
707 861-9070
707 497-3551 fax
From: David Roberson [dlrober...@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 11:56 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Michio Kaku: One solar flare could bring many Fukushimas
Mark, if the stored radioactive
In reply to David Roberson's message of Fri, 23 Nov 2012 14:53:25 -0500 (EST):
Hi,
[snip]
Vrol, the insertion of the rods does in fact kill the chain reaction as you
suspect. The problem is that energy continues to be released by the highly
radioactive elements that reside within the active
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 5:17 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
...all of this makes me wonder if it might be safer NOT to scram the reactor.
That way it can continue to provide power itself to power it's own auxiliary
equipment.
You have to dump the generated power somewhere. Maybe some big
I'll admit I don't get this. The reactor stays hot because of residual
radioactivity. And if it isn't cooled, it gets *hotter* than normal operation
under power. So there should be enough power there to the turbines to keep it
-- and maybe the fuel storage ponds -- cool.
Sent from my iPhone
mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
...all of this makes me wonder if it might be safer NOT to scram the
reactor.
That way it can continue to provide power itself to power it's own
auxiliary
equipment.
It would blow up in no time. The aux equipment takes a couple of megawatts
I think; the reactor
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
I'll admit I don't get this. The reactor stays hot because of residual
radioactivity. And if it isn't cooled, it gets *hotter* than normal
operation under power. So there should be enough power there to the
turbines to keep it -- and maybe the
I suspect the reason plant designs don't attempt to harness the decay heat
is that in one key accident scenario (massive LOCA) you aren't going to be
able to generate any steam pressure from core heat. Being able to address
this scenario is essential to getting licensed. So a secondary power
“So a secondary power system that doesn't rely on the plant at all
(batteries, diesel generators, etc.) is mandatory.”
This sort of system is active; active is bad, but a completely passive
reactor shutdown process is entirely possible. The nuclear industry in the
west will not build such a
Although I did it as a kid in Maine, I just hope we are all not burning
firewood in a year to stay warm.
On Friday, November 23, 2012, Axil Axil wrote:
“So a secondary power system that doesn't rely on the plant at all
(batteries, diesel generators, etc.) is mandatory.”
This sort of system
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Fri, 23 Nov 2012 18:04:18 -0500:
Hi,
Fission reactors have control rods that allow the power output to be varied. I
found one reference to a factor of 1E7 for the dynamic range, though I doubt
this is common.
.
Someone more familiar with reduced output operation of a reactor might know the
answers to our questions.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, Nov 23, 2012 5:17 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Michio Kaku: One solar flare could
In reply to David Roberson's message of Fri, 23 Nov 2012 23:07:53 -0500 (EST):
Hi,
[snip]
That is the same question I asked myself when the problem first came up. I
concluded that a scram most likely was necessary since the output of the
reactor is normally many times the requirement to supply
26 matches
Mail list logo
