Facebook
Google
GitHub
Linkedin
The small Russian made reactors came to mind, but not in a good way... It would be great to have small reactors if the regulatory hurdles could be overcome. In 1969, Tennessee Tech had a small (more like medium) heavy water reactor in the 1st floor atrium of their engineering building that was used to produce low grade isotopes for their engineering and physics cirriculum. When I asked one of our new hire engineers ~2000 from TN Tech if it was still there, he had never heard of it. Would have been hard to miss as it was the centerpiece of the engineering building so it must have been eliminated from their engineering curriculum.
Nuclear Power
- Thread starter drjohsmith
- Start date
- Status
When 3 Mile Island happened I was working as a civilian component of the US DoD (Department of Defense) aboard CVN 69 the USS Eisenhower. I was never more than 500 feet from two nuclear reactors. Never gave it a thought. The newer Gerald Ford class carriers use larger A1B reactors. Today the last of the conventional powered aircraft carriers and submarines are gone. Every US Aircraft Carrier and every US Submarine are nuclear powered. We have never had a reactor problem on a US ship running underway on nuclear power. The last 25 years of my career were Navy Nuclear Propulsion Systems. When I retired about 10 years ago we were developing reactor systems designed with a 40 year life expectancy which is double what the early systems were. As a civilian I completed two major deployments aboard Eisenhower and never gave a thought to the reactor systems. My last 25 years I was part of manufacturing and testing the control rod drive mechanisms, the only moving part in the core of a reactor. The USS Nautilus, put to sea in 1955 as our first nuclear powered submarine and to this day never a problem with a naval reactor system. So figure how many aircraft carriers and submarines we currently have and all running under nuclear power.
On the commercial nuclear power front. Here in the US our nuclear power plants are not just old but using 1970s technology they are ancient. Can we make better? Yes, easy enough. The problem is cost. About 15 years ago we looked heavily into commercial reactor systems. The program was dubbed B&W mPower and was a good concept. Eventually everything was boxed up and placed in storage because of involved cost. The same reason no new nuclear power plants are being built. You can generate all the power you want but it comes with a price tag.
Ron
Here in Ohio we have three commercial nuclear power plants. Most are conveniently located on Lake Erie. The Perry nuclear plant is interesting in that it was originally designed and built for two reactor systems. Apparent by its two large stacks with only a single stack being used. The second system never went into operation, Cost again a big factor. The Perry plant aside several years ago the other plant Davis Bessie developed a problem when routine inspections revealed a reactor head was gwtting very thin as a result of corrosion The reactor was shut down waiting on parts however no disaster happened. Fukushima Japan was another story. Actually things went well.
What happened at Fukushima?
Systems at the nuclear plant detected the earthquake and automatically shut down the nuclear reactors. Emergency diesel generators turned on to keep coolant pumping around the cores, which remain incredibly hot even after reactions stop.
But soon after a wave over 14 metres (46ft) high hit Fukushima. The water overwhelmed the defensive sea wall, flooding the plant and knocking out the emergency generators. Game over because nobody ever dreamed a 30 foot tall wall of mud and seawater would ever come that far inland. That took out their cooling. Yes, all that power generation should have been moved up the mountain. First signs of a quake the reactors scrammed right on que. The problem came when they losttheiremergency backup generators.
Ron
What happened at Fukushima?
Systems at the nuclear plant detected the earthquake and automatically shut down the nuclear reactors. Emergency diesel generators turned on to keep coolant pumping around the cores, which remain incredibly hot even after reactions stop.
But soon after a wave over 14 metres (46ft) high hit Fukushima. The water overwhelmed the defensive sea wall, flooding the plant and knocking out the emergency generators. Game over because nobody ever dreamed a 30 foot tall wall of mud and seawater would ever come that far inland. That took out their cooling. Yes, all that power generation should have been moved up the mountain. First signs of a quake the reactors scrammed right on que. The problem came when they losttheiremergency backup generators.
Ron
That is part of the big problem. Following a SCRAM the reactor cooling needs to continue. No power and no pumps spells a world of grief around a reactor core. Even with a SCRAM all of the control rods need to drop and nothing can hang up. The Soviets can tell us all about what a bent control rod can cause. Everything needs to work and work flawlessly.
Ron
They were due to move the generators from the basement,
but it cost to much , so was postponed,
then nature had its say, and a "100 year" tsunami happened.
this is what worries me about nuclear,money counters.
If you desing a wall for the once in 100 years event,
then why would you rely on that , and not build defense in depth.
yes the automatic systems worked as they should,
but were hampered by the idiots who thought that a single line of defense was correct,
would we build a space ship like that ?
or even a ship at sea without water proof compartments , or build a commercial plane that could not glide !
True.
But they have developed reactors the can be passively cooled without pumps if a scram occurs.
And you can certainly add redundant controls rods to prevent one from hanging up being a problem during a scram.
I agree and we have come a long way since the 70s technology. As I mentioned earlier one stopping point is cost. Everyone wants inexpensive which is not going to happen in either shipboard or land based reactors. That's why we abandoned M-Power project, it wasn't cost feasible. Maybe it will be like Lazarus but I doubt it.
R%$on
"Thus, levelized cost of energy misrepresents the cost of solar and wind as too low, puts nuclear energy’s costs as too high, and misses key parts of the picture."
Bingo. That's exactly what happened here in Illinois. The operator of the nukes here threatened to shut them down in the face of cheap (subsidized) wind and solar. The state did NOT call their bluff and finagled things to keep them operating, saving thousands of jobs at the last minute. Our politicians aren't the brightest but even they could see that a massive increase in fossil fuel plants to replace the nukes doesn't look good if you're trying to reduce carbon emissions. Duh.
Bingo. That's exactly what happened here in Illinois. The operator of the nukes here threatened to shut them down in the face of cheap (subsidized) wind and solar. The state did NOT call their bluff and finagled things to keep them operating, saving thousands of jobs at the last minute. Our politicians aren't the brightest but even they could see that a massive increase in fossil fuel plants to replace the nukes doesn't look good if you're trying to reduce carbon emissions. Duh.
David Duke wasn't available.
Who is David duke please ..
A Nazi.
Never heard of him. Thanks
You're welcome.
Please let me know if there's anything else I can do to assist you with developing a proper ad hominem argument.
If you're interested in the various new designs and where they stand in the development process, here's a brief review.
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/new-nuc-plant-des-bg.html
and one of the brighter spots
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nrc-approves-first-us-small-modular-reactor-design
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/new-nuc-plant-des-bg.html
and one of the brighter spots
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nrc-approves-first-us-small-modular-reactor-design
Thank you .
Personal I do hope nuclear can be sorted out , in some form , be it fusion or fision.
I'd go so far as to say at moment it is not in a safe place, but no engineering reason why it can't be.
What everyone seems to be forgetting is in the end nuclear power is really steam power. With the reactor making the heat instead of coal or other fossil fuel. Fossil fuel boilers wear out and need replacing, so do nuclear power plants. it used to be that replacement was figured into the cost of the electricity sold, now instead of figuring for replacement the whole amount of selling goes into someones pocket.
Compared to what? How would you produce the same amount of electricity with less risk?
- Status
