Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Safe nuclear does exist


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1    Persia

Persia

    A Persian Monarchist

  • Member
  • 8,769 posts
  • Joined:20 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ♥ FREE PERSIA♥

Posted 07 September 2011 - 05:15 PM

A few weeks before the tsunami struck Fukushima’s uranium reactors and shattered public faith in nuclear power, China revealed that it was launching a rival technology to build a safer, cleaner, and ultimately cheaper network of reactors based on thorium.

http://www.telegraph...th-thorium.html

Posted Image

#2    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 12,092 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 07 September 2011 - 05:34 PM

View PostPersia, on 07 September 2011 - 05:15 PM, said:

A few weeks before the tsunami struck Fukushima’s uranium reactors and shattered public faith in nuclear power, China revealed that it was launching a rival technology to build a safer, cleaner, and ultimately cheaper network of reactors based on thorium.

http://www.telegraph...th-thorium.html
Great article.
Also look up Pebble Bed reactors.

China is leading the way on so many fields of research. Where did we go wrong.

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#3    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,027 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 07 September 2011 - 06:02 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 07 September 2011 - 05:34 PM, said:

Great article.
Also look up Pebble Bed reactors.

China is leading the way on so many fields of research. Where did we go wrong.

Br Cornelius
One question:  where do they put the waste?
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#4    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 12,092 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 07 September 2011 - 09:21 PM

View PostDoug1o29, on 07 September 2011 - 06:02 PM, said:

One question:  where do they put the waste?
Doug
A legitimate question which is the Achilles heal of all nuclear and why on principle I am against it. However if we accept the legitimacy of some nuclear as been part of the solution to climate change, then there are good and bad options available.

In the case of the article discussed the waste issue is massively reduced over conventional. The main advantage as I see it with the discussed technology and Pebble Bed reactors is that they are both intrinsically resistant to accidents.

As the article points out - the only reason Uranium was widely adopted as the preferred fuel was because the Governments who backed it were primarily interested in Plutonium generation.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 07 September 2011 - 09:23 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#5    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,027 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 07 September 2011 - 11:45 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 07 September 2011 - 09:21 PM, said:

A legitimate question which is the Achilles heal of all nuclear and why on principle I am against it. However if we accept the legitimacy of some nuclear as been part of the solution to climate change, then there are good and bad options available.

In the case of the article discussed the waste issue is massively reduced over conventional. The main advantage as I see it with the discussed technology and Pebble Bed reactors is that they are both intrinsically resistant to accidents.

As the article points out - the only reason Uranium was widely adopted as the preferred fuel was because the Governments who backed it were primarily interested in Plutonium generation.

Br Cornelius
I keep remembering that every single reactor that has had an accident, so far, was thought to be safe by its designers.  The problem:  even if we can build a safe reactor, we have to have fallible people build it.  The Japanese built a safe reactor at Fukushima - it failed only because its power supply was cut off, resulting in loss of cooling water and a meltdown.  The plant was safe, but its support system wasn't.

So where is the Achilles' heel in this system?


I can't remember which plant it was, now, but in one case the reactor operator communicated with the reactor supervisor by phone.  To increase the power, as directed, he had to put the phone down and stand up to reach the switch.  So he didn't hear the supervisor yelling, "No. No. I mean kill the power."  Meltdown!  Safe plant.  Unsafe people.
Doug

Edited by Doug1o29, 07 September 2011 - 11:50 PM.

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#6    ninjadude

ninjadude

    Seeker of truths

  • Member
  • 11,116 posts
  • Joined:11 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

  • "dirt collects at the interfaces"

Posted 07 September 2011 - 11:56 PM

These aren't reactors in that sense. They are sealed vessels buried in the ground. When it's life is over, you dig it up and put down a new one. These are so fool proof, I want one in my town. Theoretically, they could even get small enough for a single home. I want one in my backyard. No more power failures.

"Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now!""
- Friedrich Nietzsche

#7    WoIverine

WoIverine

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,739 posts
  • Joined:16 Sep 2008
  • Gender:Male

  • With great power, comes great irresponsibility.

Posted 08 September 2011 - 12:02 AM

Somehow I think my power bill would stay the same, maybe even go up for a while to cover a portion of the device. Sigh.


#8    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 12,092 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 08 September 2011 - 08:23 AM

View PostDoug1o29, on 07 September 2011 - 11:45 PM, said:

I keep remembering that every single reactor that has had an accident, so far, was thought to be safe by its designers.  The problem:  even if we can build a safe reactor, we have to have fallible people build it.  The Japanese built a safe reactor at Fukushima - it failed only because its power supply was cut off, resulting in loss of cooling water and a meltdown.  The plant was safe, but its support system wasn't.

So where is the Achilles' heel in this system?


I can't remember which plant it was, now, but in one case the reactor operator communicated with the reactor supervisor by phone.  To increase the power, as directed, he had to put the phone down and stand up to reach the switch.  So he didn't hear the supervisor yelling, "No. No. I mean kill the power."  Meltdown!  Safe plant.  Unsafe people.
Doug
The intrinsic safety comes in the form of this reactor not been self sustaining. Take away the excitation beam and everything stops. Hence power failure always stops fission. Neat really. Also if it overheats it releases the heat transfer fluid.

Same with the pebble bed - it uses argon for heat transfer which is intrinsically safer than water and avoids the issues of hydrogen enbrittlement. Also argon doesn't readily become radioactive and if it does it decays rapidly. Almost all the low to medium waste is eliminated.


Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users