Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Nuclear Fission Plants

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Nuclear Fission Plants

    With growing energy demands across the globe, hydrogen a potentially promising yet uneconomical fuel source, and projections for decreased oil productions, should nuclear power plants be brought back into vogue?

    There have been a couple of incidents, Chernobyl along with a scare at Three Mile Island. Overall, it seems nuclear fission may be one of the most viable sources of energy.

    What is your opinion on nuclear energy... let's get the debate going.
    37
    Yes
    97.30%
    36
    No
    2.70%
    1
    "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

  • #2
    Hi Guys,

    I am voting "yes"; not rabidly, but "yes".

    I do not see any real practical way around another generation of fission plants for all intents and purposes.

    There are some issues to be addressed but they are not unconquerable.

    The benefits of control of the nuclear fuel cycle make reappraisal of nuclear power carefully integrated with a host of old and new related industries does make an attractive proposition.

    William
    Pharoh was pimp but now he is dead. What are you going to do today?

    Comment


    • #3
      i say yes, it,s most efficient and "green" way to make power, incidents like chernobyl, 3 mile island, happened due to neglegence, not engenireng flaw,
      "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" B. Franklin

      Comment


      • #4
        How much are you willing to pay? Not talking about for a disaster but ensuring that one doesn't get a disaster. Ie, one of the reasons why N.S. Savannah wasn't economically viable, there were other reasons, was because of the high cost of its crew.

        Who has had the best nuclear power program? My guess would be the US Navy. Assuming that it was, are you willing to put the money into the program, both in the machinery and the people running it? Is the consumer willing to pay that price?

        Granted, a shore reactor is not like a shipboard reactor. If I recall my 80's nuclear engineering correctly, it was like 90% purity for a shipboard and under 20% for a shore based. Which, among other things, says that if one builds the system like the USN, one is going to be a nice target for anyone who wants that fuel.

        Equipment, training, security, enforcement to ensure that the operators do not divert from the regs, and probably even more. Money is always an object. How much are you willing to pay?
        --------------------------------------------------
        ("I agree with you fighting your predicatament entirely. But you see, there is a budget crisis in the Centaurian Empire right now. Costs of administration, litigation, research, and such. How much justice can you afford?"--Ambassador Londo to the parents in child safety case, (w,stte), Babylon V "The Believers")

        Comment


        • #5
          I'm against nuclear power plants because Green Peace said they are unsafe...
          "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

          Comment


          • #6
            I support rapid nuclear power builds up, but safety issues need to be emphasized.

            Nuclear power is especially important for the countries like China who does not have enough oil and nature gas resources. Although heavy on the initial investment, over the long term, nuclear power is competitive economically to the coal power generation that is the major electricity power source in China today. Nuclear power is also more environment friendly if safety measures are properly taken.


            Stronger Future for Nuclear Power
            Stronger Future for Nuclear Power - Physics Today February 2006

            China to buy Australian uranium
            BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | China to buy Australian uranium
            Last edited by Zeng; 23 Feb 07,, 01:23.
            I am here for exchanging opinions.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by omon View Post
              i say yes, it,s most efficient and "green" way to make power, incidents like chernobyl, 3 mile island, happened due to neglegence, not engenireng flaw,
              Not true- there were several engineering failures in both cases.

              In 3 Mile Island, a secondary failure caused the cooling pumps to shut down, and a relief valve stuck open. There was no way for the operator to know the valve had stuck, which is an engineering flaw. The result was an overflow of radioactive coolant, which caused the reactor core to overheat. There was no instrument to show the operators that the reactor coolant was low, another engineering flaw. The pressurizer readouts showed a high water level, so the operators assumed the reactor coolant level was okay. It was not. When the alarms started going off, the operators responded by reducing the coolant flow, which made the situation worse. Some of the fuel rod casings shattered, causing the fuel pellets to come into close contact and cause a partial meltdown.

              The 3MI accident was thus a combination of equipment failure, design flaws, and human error.

              In the case of Chernobyl, the reactor design itself is unstable at low power. This type of reactor can suffer uncontrollable power increases. The cause of this instability is the large positive void coefficient, and the fact that steam is a poor neutron absorber. So as the temperature rises, the reaction speeds up instead of slowing down, since there are more neutrons available. Most reactor designs work just the opposite- as the temperature goes up, the reaction becomes less efficient.

              The design of the control rods was a bad one- they were graphite tipped, with a hollow section (water filled) for about the first meter. This causes the fission reaction to speed up as the control rods are inserted, since they displace coolant as they go in, and graphite is a moderator. So for the first few seconds, the fission reaction greatly increases until the neutron-absorbing portion of the control rod is in place. This is an engineering flaw. Other reactors of the type have design features to prevent the instability, but Chernobyl didn't.

              The coolant channels ran vertically in the core, which causes a temperature gradient. This is compounded when steam forms in the upper portions, and adds to the instability. A very poor cooling design for this type of reactor.

              Chernobyl did not have a proper containment dome, so when the explosions happened, the radioactivity was allowed to escape directly to the outside air.

              These are all engineering flaws.

              The test preparation was begun during the day, and power was gradually reduced, then preparations were halted due to the Kiev Grid requesting additional power. The power level was held dangerously low during this time. When the preparations were restarted, the power levels were allowed to drop too quickly. The operators reported a failure of an automatic power regulator as the cause of the rapid power decrease.

              At this point, the reactor should have been shut down. Instead, they chose to continue, and they shortcutted the procedure by raising the power to a level below what was safe. When they restarted the pumps, they introduced the water at too high a rate, which required them to remove the manual control rods. So when the actual test began, the reactor was in a dangerously unstable state, which was not reflected on the control boards.

              There also were safety violations during the test- a minimum of 30 control rods are specified to maintain control, yet only 6-8 were used. The reactor's emergency cooling system was disabled, another procedural violation. There was a serious lack of communication between the personnel running the test and the plant operators, so when things started getting out of hand, no one knew what was going on.

              Just like 3MI, the Chernobyl disaster was caused by a combination of poor design, mechanical failure, and human error.

              Today's designs don't suffer from any of these problems. The fuel rods themselves are designed in such a way that as the temperature rises, thermal expansion causes the physical spacing of the fuel to increase, which automatically slows down the fission reaction. Once it passes a certain point, the reactor will just shut down due to not enough neutrons- no human intervention is needed.

              I vote for more nuclear power, but only if they follow this engineering rule: ANY mechanical failure or human error that could cause an uncontrollable state must result in the reactor shutting down with no manual intervention.
              Last edited by highsea; 23 Feb 07,, 07:01.
              "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by highsea View Post
                Not true- there were several engineering failures in both cases.

                In 3 Mile Island, a secondary failure caused the cooling pumps to shut down, and a relief valve stuck open.
                The way I remember it, some techie spilled his soda on a console.

                The Pepsi Syndrome.

                -dale

                Comment


                • #9
                  Lol. That was hilarious.

                  "Can you turn down that alarm? It's driving me nuts!"
                  "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by dalem View Post
                    The way I remember it, some techie spilled his soda on a console.

                    The Pepsi Syndrome.

                    -dale

                    We laugh at such things but then again ........ do recall that what is believed to have caused the Thresher's reactor to shut down was a seawater pipe failure that sprayed a switchboard and caused the reactor to scram ......... or what was a leading factor of the crash of Eastern's 1011 into the Everglades in 1972 was a burned out landing bulb that had them doubt the state of their landing gear.

                    Now, neither of those cases were situations of where someone used a cheap part when they should have used an more expensive part. But it does demonstrate that one can have a major disaster where an inexpensive, relatively speaking, part is a major player.

                    This gets back to my question of how much is one willing to pay? So one has the proper equipment throughout so something can't be taken out by a minor mishap. That when it is learned that previous way of doing something is unsafe and needs to be replaced, the equipment is replaced as soon as possible without exception, without grandfathering. That when someone does something because it is easier or cheaper, the enforcement responds by nailing them to the cross. Not probation, not fines, but long and serious jail time.

                    How much are you willing to pay to ensure ZERO probability of disaster?
                    -----------------------------------------------
                    ("The light says the retro has fired but sure doesn't feel like it, we are still up here in orbit."--Astronaut, Ironman mission, (wtte), "Marooned")

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
                      There have been a couple of incidents, Chernobyl along with a scare at Three Mile Island.
                      Not forgetting Tokaimura (third most serious nuclear accident in history - two deaths caused by chronic stupidity), the Windscale Pile 1 fire (which despite the whole core of the reactor being on fire was probably less serious than Tokaimura - no known deaths, caused by poorly understood reactor physics) and the explosion of the US Army SL-1 reactor in 1960 (3 deaths). There are no doubt many others that are less widely known.
                      Rule 1: Never trust a Frenchman
                      Rule 2: Treat all members of the press as French

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I don't approach nuclear energy like it is the worst evil that ever came down to Earth. I believe that one could build a good nuclear system.

                        But what does bug me is having seen how the world works over the years, of managers who rush things without working out the details, without understanding, just so they can look good; of the laziness of people to take the easiest route so it works or so it works to what they believe is the minimal requirement; of how when it comes to money and profit, people cheat or don't care or don't know about the entire expense of a project. They'll use a 4 dollar part when a 40 dollar one is required; if one inspector won't sign off on the project, they'll search until they find one who will; they'll sign off on something without knowing all the answers. And so forth.

                        Call in cynical, but look at various other disasters where people took the easy route. The Hyatt Walkway in Kansas City (improper design and assumption it was okay without asking); Ford Pinto (profit before safety); DC-10 rear's cargo door (knew it was faulty but didn't order the change until after a major air crash); Shuttle Columbia (there isn't anything we can do, don't tell them and hope for the best).

                        These were systems that were designed by experts and yet. Shuttle Columbia is particularly troubling because one might say well maybe the government should run all the plants .......... but the government is about people, too, with people here and there taking the easy way out. Incidently, one of the things about Chernobyl was that the people running the plant didn't know everything they needed because state security believed they shouldn't know.

                        Now, of course, this lack of personnel quality control occurs in other industries, so what's wrong with having it in the nuclear industry? Well, it shouldn't occur in other industries to begin with. And there are a lot of things with a very long disaster life if something should go wrong. I would just rather remove them from the list of concerns than adding another another one.

                        I believe that it is theoretically possible to build a safe nuclear power system; I just don't trust people to do it, operate it properally. (a contradictory statement, I know)
                        -------------------------------------------------------------
                        (Synder, the shop mechanic, has been told to secure the nuclear missile sled because an undersea creature is forcing the evacuation of the DeepStar Six. He logs in, identifies the cause of securing as a hostile force, follows the directions, and detonates the entire missile sled. Moral of the story: Don't give idiots nuclear access!--(stte), "DeepStar Six")

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          From an engineering standpoint, today's nuclear power plants can be made virtually foolproof. But that doesn't eliminate the possibility of substandard materials or workmanship (or even sabotage or terrorism) causing harm.

                          I worked with a guy for many years who was a former nuclear welder for Bechtel. The man was a complete artist and a perfectionist. Just the kind of person you want building a nuclear plant. I've never met anyone before or after that was half as skilled at that trade as this guy was.

                          The QC and process control in the nuclear industry was as good as it gets- better than aerospace by a significant margin (even the shuttle). But there's always the chance of a stupid manager or crooked supplier somewhere in the loop. There has to be oversight at every level, but you can never eliminate the human factor.
                          "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by highsea View Post
                            .........The QC and process control in the nuclear industry was as good as it gets- better than aerospace by a significant margin (even the shuttle). But there's always the chance of a stupid manager or crooked supplier somewhere in the loop. There has to be oversight at every level, but you can never eliminate the human factor.
                            Essentially, I will be close to happy if it is run as a military Rickover organization. Not a private industry, not a government corporation, but the military runs it and one finds someone like Rickover to run it. Further, this engineer is treated like Rickover, there for life, no one is writing his fitrep to take him out, and he's not marking time for a high paying job in civilian life.

                            That's the level of quality I demand to go nuclear. If we can't afford to go to that level of quality, then we can't afford to go nuclear.

                            Isn't it time for us to learn from our mistakes and start doing things right?
                            ------------------------------------------
                            (Londo is shown the picture of a Centauri kill at lizard spot hands. "Ahh, this one. He was trouble. I always said he would come to a horrible end. Well, here he is and there is no one at home to mourn for him now. I would require that the killer be arrested and expelled from the station, that his goods be confiscated and auctioned off, and the proceeds be given to the Centauri war fund. That is all the justice I require."-- Londo to a surprised and relieved Station Commander and Chief of Security who expected him to make a big stink about it, (w,stte), "Babylon V")

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              The engineering is pretty well down pat, just the issue of the waste really.
                              No sea too rough, no muf* too tough.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X