China and Nuclear Power.. Failsafe / Never Melt Down!

[Fluff]

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/china_pr.html

It takes a while to read but it is quite exciting.

Comments?

[LvR]

Very exciting indeed - way more elegant that the current PWR units we have at Koeberg here.

This was in the works here around 1989 already when I used to still work for ESKOM.

[Technoid]

Very interesting inded

[Jammrock]

The US has had meltdown proof nuclear reactors for well over a decade, but production of such plants was shot down by liberals and Pres. Clinton. The US design also reused the nuclear fuel until there were no ultra-long half life materials left (could reproces the nuclear fuel within the plant). The plant design was so efficient that it ended up releasing significantly less toxic and radiactive waste than coal burning plants.

Such is life in the US...

Jammrock

[High_Jumbllama]

I could be showing my ignorance here, but could one take used fuel from less advanced plants and "dispose" of it by using it as fuel at these plants?

[LvR]

While I guess its technically possible, the fuel material composition is so complex and plant specific, that it would simply not make sense financially to design a plant upfront (or alternatively to modify it later) to be able to cater and cope with such a wide range of variables.

[Brian Ellis]

There is some fact and some fiction in the report. As one example of the fiction, take

Instead of the white-hot fuel rods that fire the heart of a conventional reactor

As the fuel rods are magnesium-alloy cased, they would melt long before white heat.

I think the author is confusing two technologies, the Japanese experimental high-temp reactor (which DOES run at white heat and produces hydrogen), which, IMHO, is potentially very dangerous and the low temp pebble reactor.

However, I'm always scared of graphite-moderated reactors, as graphite burns very easily, but that is my personal fear. If there is sufficient oxygen and you have ignition, then the reaction could become uncontrollable. And you can't extinguish burning graphite very easily, certainly never with water, as it will react with the carbon to form carbon monoxide and hydrogen, both flammable gases. This is exactly part of what happened at Chernobyl. A pebble reactor may not cause melt-down but it is not devoid of risk.

At the current state of technology, I'm more in favour of the EuroPR reactor, offered by a consortium of Areva, Fromatome and Siemens. It is a standard, low-cost, system available as a 1.5 GWe (1.6 GWt reactor), designed for ultrasafety with an estimated MTBCF of >100,000 years and with 96% recyclable fuel (the well-tried MOX system, already used in many European and Japanese reactors). The first one is on order from Finland and the French ordered the second one a few months ago. There are three or four others in negotiation. It is estimated that the turnkey lead time from ordering to commissioning will be as low as 5 years, because of its modular design.

Incidentally, the plutonium shipment from the USA to France, which is causing the ecopolitical activists to wee in their pants at this moment, will be treated to enter the MOX cycle. MOX stands for mixed oxides and the fuel are mixed pellets of uranium and plutonium oxides, judiciously mixed to simulate medium-enriched uranium in its neutron-generating capacity, so that either fuel is interchangeable. When the uranium rods are exhausted, they contain a mixture of depleted uranium and plutonium, and these are bombarded, separated, oxidised, pelleted. The 4% waste is an excess of uranium oxide. The US plutonium can therefore be added to the process to allow a stock of this uranium oxide to be used. This, therefore, reduces the waste from MOX plants to zero, but is only good for as long as that weapons-grade plutonium keeps coming over! Swords into ploughshares!

[Fluff]

People need to be educated properly about the risks and the benefits.

(Same thing applies to fear of mobile phone masts! More masts = better coverage , lower transmission power from phones needed, and lower power signals from masts.)



To be honest I don't know much about nuclear fuel or why it is impregnated into graphite, for this plant. I suppose there are lots of different plant designs, and some are safer / more efficient than others. I hope that the governments make intelligent decisions. We are going to need something to keep everything ticking when the fossil fuels dry up / or become non cost effective.

By product of making Hydrogen fuel for cars, sound quite good and eco friendly. But i'd hate to think what would happen if a tank burst.

Boron gas sounds expensive!

[Kooldino]

Originally posted by Jammrock
The US has had meltdown proof nuclear reactors for well over a decade, but production of such plants was shot down by liberals and Pres. Clinton. The US design also reused the nuclear fuel until there were no ultra-long half life materials left (could reproces the nuclear fuel within the plant). The plant design was so efficient that it ended up releasing significantly less toxic and radiactive waste than coal burning plants.

Such is life in the US...

Jammrock

why did Clinton shoot it down?

[Jammrock]

Originally posted by Kooldino
why did Clinton shoot it down?

Because he was a liberal who needed the environmental nutjob vote.

Jammrock

[Dr Mordrid]

That about sums it up, and Kerry would be running up the same alley.

Dr. Mordrid

[Brian Ellis]

I'm not too sure about that. He realises the problems of climate change and he doesn't really have much choice. There is a lot of international pressure on the USA to cut GHG emissions, probably much more than you are aware of in the USA. The present Administration is not paying much attention, but Kerry is more sensitive to what other nations think and wishes to make peace. Nuclear energy is about the only way the USA (and most other nations, to avoid the risk of being accused of USA-bashing) can make significant cuts in GHG emissions in the medium term.

President Putin's cabinet has asked (ordered?) the Douma (sp?), just last week, to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and this is expected to happen in about 2 months. The moment the ratification papers are signed, the Kyoto Protocol will enter into force as an International Treaty, as the critical value of 55% of the world's GHG emissions will be in ratifiers. As the USA is a non-ratifier but is a signatory of the Protocol, this is going to place the country in a delicate position. If Kerry is elected, then he may well ask Congress to ratify it and this means that GHG emissions will have to be reduced. Unfortunately, Kyoto is too little, too late. It needs much more drastic measures to really help, but the Protocol has the mechanism to be amended.

Another factor that must be considered is that we are approaching Peak Oil. What we have seen this year in terms of oil prices, supply and demand is only a small foretaste of what is to come. As more and more oilfields dwindle to dryness, so demand will outstrip supply and prices will shoot up. I am being realistic, not pessimistic, if I tell you that the gallon, at the pump, will reach $10 within a decade and possibly even $40 in 20 years. This is why low consumption cars are beginning to sell like hot cakes (the Toyota Prius has a 6 month waiting list and is commanding a premium of 30-50% over list price, at the moment). And don't bet on the hydrogen fuel cell car, unless you support nuclear energy, because to electrolyse sufficient hydrogen to convert any nation from fossil fuels for transport will require tripling present generating capacity AND the grid-carrying capacity. Such an infrastructure will render hydrogen non-competitive, even to the raised fossil fuel prices.

[Fluff]

Boron... a solution?

http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html

Not sure if this site is bull or not.

Generally though the message is clear, get all your air world travelling done soon see the places you want to see before things get too expensive!

[GT98]

Originally posted by Brian Ellis

Another factor that must be considered is that we are approaching Peak Oil. What we have seen this year in terms of oil prices, supply and demand is only a small foretaste of what is to come. As more and more oilfields dwindle to dryness, so demand will outstrip supply and prices will shoot up. I am being realistic, not pessimistic, if I tell you that the gallon, at the pump, will reach $10 within a decade and possibly even $40 in 20 years. This is why low consumption cars are beginning to sell like hot cakes (the Toyota Prius has a 6 month waiting list and is commanding a premium of 30-50% over list price, at the moment).

Well I'm sure that Oil companies will come up with way to get the oil out of the Canadian sand fields or whatever they are called to keep prices with reason. If prices went up to 10 dollars a gallon, the whole global economony would grind to a halt.

The Prius is over rated when it comes to gas mileage. In the States it is rated at EPA City 60 MPG
EPA Hwy 51 MPG
But the Real world experance people are getting is somewhere much lower then that, around 38 MPG, which is kinda shitty since back in 80's you could get a Honda Civic that could get 45 MPG on a straight gasline engine

[Fluff]

I don't think the global economy would grind to a halt . It will be fine it will just take a while to adapt.

I think things in the west will regress continually from now on unless something miraculous happens. Economies cannot grow for ever unfortunately.

The oil companies obviously will try to postpone the inevitable for as long as they can.

The VW Lupo 3L does 78mpg from a 1.2L 3 Cyl DIESEL engine. Around town it was averaging no less than 68mpg. Which I think is quite impressive. It isnt exactly a power house or big though and needs an auxiliary electric heater to boost passenger heating in the cabin in cold weather, due to the engine size / efficiency.

http://www.vwvortex.com/artman/publish/printer_319.shtml