patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,349,903 comments by 15,721 users - Al_Sharpton_for_President, FortWayneHatesRealtors online now
« First « Previous Comments 81 - 87 of 87 Search these comments
The title refers to the fermi reactor 25 miles upwind of detroit that literally came within a heartbeat of blowing up.
Would Detroit have looked much different if it had?
Yea, it would. Plus there's an awful lot of stuff downwind besides detroit. Like buffalo, toronto, rochester,Cleveland (ok cleveland doesn't count)), all of new england.
MisdemeanorRebel
2014 Nov 3, 11:40am
You want to see balls of steel and people committed to Science?
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=dcc_1221342348
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5ab_1178102816
.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a2d_1406895113
I can't find the footage again, but these same men in the first link - with no more protection than taping their trousers to their shoes - will eventually get closer and closer personally to the core. (Of course, they're just sharing a rolled cigarette, not smoking weed as the poster suspects).
This is part of a longer BBC documentary that I can't find. These guys stayed for months on site and as scientists they knew it would kill them eventually. While the soldiers and crews were volun-told, these scientists did volunteer - and they could read the instruments for themselves; no BS Would work on them. Men of Iron.
New Renter
2014 Nov 3, 12:00pm
Navy reactors are tiny. They are operated under a very strict safety regime. They are also very expensive. If commercial reactors were built and operated to Navy standards, which would be ideal, then none would have ever been opened They would have been far to expensive
I wouldn't call a carrier reactor "tiny". They are expensive because they are designed to fit into a very confined space, be stealthy and do so while surviving conditions a stationary civilian reactor would never be subjected to, like evade multiple torpedo attacks. They are an extreme example of reactor design yet they operate flawlessly 24/7/365. My point is reactors CAN be designed, built, and operated with an excellent safety record.
As to the use of sodium as a primary cooling loop what a coincidence! Dear old dad was an engineer on a fast breeder which used such a primary sodium loop. His project was to design a rupture disk system which would allow a breech to vent to a reservoir designed to contain just such an event. I'm not anymore concerned about using metallic sodium to cool a reactor any more than I am using it to cool automotive exhaust valves right next to the head water coolant.
Still you do bring up good points and without hysterical fear mongering.
Thanks for that.
New Renter
2014 Nov 3, 12:05pm
I can't find the footage again, but these same men in the first link - with no more protection than taping their trousers to their shoes - will eventually get closer and closer personally to the core. (Of course, they're just sharing a rolled cigarette, not smoking weed as the poster suspects).
This is part of a longer BBC documentary that I can't find. These guys stayed for months on site and as scientists they knew it would kill them eventually. While the soldiers and crews were volun-told, these scientists did volunteer - and they could read the instruments for themselves; no BS Would work on them. Men of Iron.
Brave men indeed. Much like the 911 responders..
My point is reactors CAN be designed, built, and operated with an excellent safety record.
Yes but can it be done for less than $10 a kw? The point isn't that safe nuclear isn't feasible, it's that safe nuclear isn't even close to being cost effective against natural gas at $4.00 mmbtu even with huge subsidies. Cost isn't an issue in the military.
As to the use of sodium as a primary cooling loop what a coincidence! Dear old dad was an engineer on a fast breeder which used such a primary sodium loop. His project was to design a rupture disk system which would allow a breech to vent to a reservoir designed to contain just such an event. I'm not anymore concerned about using metallic sodium to cool a reactor any more than I am using it to cool automotive exhaust valves right next to the head water coolant.
He didn't have a lot of choices which reactor. Clementine, EBR I, EBR II, and Sefor were small research fast breeder reactors. The Fast Flux Test Facility in hannaford was a full size (400mw) research reactor. The fermi was the only commercial sodium loop reactor ever built. That didn't end well at all. Although the problem was only a loose piece of shielding it blocked coolant flow of the ONLY coolant outlet. Redundancy? I think not. I'd be very interested to know what the plan was in your father's rupture disk system for cooling the red hot core after all the sodium coolant went into a reservoir. The temps would have climbed almost instantly to fuel melting range if the plant was on line.
The people working the control room at fermi truly didn't know if they were going to be blown up or not. It obviously wound't be an atomic bomb, but there would have been a really big explosion if the melted fuel went critical. A really big explosion with a couple hundred tons of (mostly melted) highly enriched uranium (breeders use much more enriched fuel) and plutonium thrown high into the air. That would have been a slightly worrisome problem with detroit 3 hours downwind on an average day. This was 1966. They started decommissioning in 1975 and expect to be fully decommissioned in 2035. That's correct 60 years.
There is a world of difference between a fraction of an ounce of sodium in an exhaust valve and tons of liquid sodium in a reactor. Like the difference between an m80 firecracker and the fat man atomic bomb. I'm sure I could come with the difference in energy if I wanted to.
New Renter
2014 Nov 4, 7:01am
I'd be very interested to know what the plan was in your father's rupture disk system for cooling the red hot core after all the sodium coolant went into a reservoir. The temps would have climbed almost instantly to fuel melting range if the plant was on line.
Here you are:
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0813/ML081360594.pdf
There were TWO sodium cooling loops, the intermediate one was the one that interfaced with water. A breech would have left the primary sodium loop intact. Due to the high thermal conductivity of sodium (about 100x that of water) which makes the entire primary loop pretty good cooling fin. Heat capacity is about half that of water:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/tables/liqprop.html
This does somewhat limit how much heat it can absorb from the reactor without dumping it, however its boiling point is 1621F at 1 atm. The normal operating temp is 1000F so there is a 621F buffer there, compared with pretty much nothing from a water cooled reactor
They started decommissioning in 1975 and expect to be fully decommissioned in 2035. That's correct 60 years.
Obviously decommissioning is not a high priority. What advantage is there to taking it apart faster?
There is a world of difference between a fraction of an ounce of sodium in an exhaust valve and tons of liquid sodium in a reactor. Like the difference between an m80 firecracker and the fat man atomic bomb. I'm sure I could come with the difference in energy if I wanted to.
That all depends on distance doesn't it? An M80 ignited next to your head will kill you instantly while even a Tsar Bomba a few thousand miles away will just rock you to sleep.
There were TWO sodium cooling loops, the intermediate one was the one that interfaced with water. A breech would have left the primary sodium loop intact. Due to the high thermal conductivity of sodium (about 100x that of water) which makes the entire primary loop pretty good cooling fin.
So that's why the paper, whatever it is, talks about challenges to the structural integrity of the reactor and the critical mass of melted fuel. Because the primary loop will be intact and cool the core. I see. So was this theoretical safe breeder reactor ever built? Let me guess, it was so safe that it was 100% insured by private insurance, the AEC didn't have to insure it at all. Not.
That all depends on distance doesn't it? An M80 ignited next to your head will kill you instantly while even a Tsar Bomba a few thousand miles away will just rock you to sleep.
That's just stupid. You really didn't understand the point obviously.
« First « Previous Comments 81 - 87 of 87 Search these comments
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-10-30/putin-western-elites-play-time-over
The Russian blogger chipstone summarized the most salient points from Putin speech as follows:
1. Russia will no longer play games and engage in back-room negotiations over trifles. But Russia is prepared for serious conversations and agreements, if these are conducive to collective security, are based on fairness and take into account the interests of each side.
2. All systems of global collective security now lie in ruins. There are no longer any international security guarantees at all. And the entity that destroyed them has a name: The United States of America.
3. The builders of the New World Order have failed, having built a sand castle. Whether or not a new world order of any sort is to be built is not just Russia's decision, but it is a decision that will not be made without Russia.
4. Russia favors a conservative approach to introducing innovations into the social order, but is not opposed to investigating and discussing such innovations, to see if introducing any of them might be justified.
5. Russia has no intention of going fishing in the murky waters created by America's ever-expanding “empire of chaos,” and has no interest in building a new empire of her own (this is unnecessary; Russia's challenges lie in developing her already vast territory). Neither is Russia willing to act as a savior of the world, as she had in the past.
6. Russia will not attempt to reformat the world in her own image, but neither will she allow anyone to reformat her in their image. Russia will not close herself off from the world, but anyone who tries to close her off from the world will be sure to reap a whirlwind.
7. Russia does not wish for the chaos to spread, does not want war, and has no intention of starting one. However, today Russia sees the outbreak of global war as almost inevitable, is prepared for it, and is continuing to prepare for it. Russia does not war—nor does she fear it.
8. Russia does not intend to take an active role in thwarting those who are still attempting to construct their New World Order - until their efforts start to impinge on Russia's key interests. Russia would prefer to stand by and watch them give themselves as many lumps as their poor heads can take. But those who manage to drag Russia into this process, through disregard for her interests, will be taught the true meaning of pain.
9. In her external, and, even more so, internal politics, Russia's power will rely not on the elites and their back-room dealing, but on the will of the people.