NukeWorker Forum
News and Discussions => Nuke News => Topic started by: Marlin on Sep 03, 2019, 10:25
-
A Very Fast, Very Safe, Very SLIMM Nuclear Reactor
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/08/31/a-very-fast-very-safe-very-sllim-nuclear-reactor/?fbclid=IwAR1Rrp7OyaWZTvsBmA5VvDACFgY1bknL9GRYx2_aLHtoFqgwXB9eT75saoo#4a85467c2c5c
-
A Very Fast, Very Safe, Very SLIMM Nuclear Reactor
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/08/31/a-very-fast-very-safe-very-sllim-nuclear-reactor/?fbclid=IwAR1Rrp7OyaWZTvsBmA5VvDACFgY1bknL9GRYx2_aLHtoFqgwXB9eT75saoo#4a85467c2c5c
I'm Slim Shady, yes I'm the real Shady
All you other Slim Shadys are just imitating
So won't the real Slim Shady please stand up
Please stand up, please stand up?
-
Sounds interesting, but liquid Sodium makes me nervous...
-
Sounds interesting, but liquid Sodium makes me nervous...
The US had one submarine with a liquid sodium reactor and managed to keep it safe. They did go to a PWR eventually but more from standardization even though they did have some safety concerns. Lieutenant James Earl "Jimmy" Carter, the only US President to qualify in submarines, was to be her Engineering Officer, but had resigned his commission upon the death of his father in 1953.
I think the safety trade off of a reactor that operates at atmospheric pressure and passive safety features out weighs the chemical reactivity risk.
"Just my opinion I could be wrong" D.M.
[coffee]
-
"Just my opinion I could be wrong" D.M.
you are,...
both the the West Milton prototype and the Seawolf had enormous difficulties with S/G and superheater leaks, the sodium coolant was prohibitively radioactive for at least 14 hours following reactor shutdown (versus 8 minutes for light water reactors) denying the crew access to the reactor compartment in the event of any at-sea emergency. The Seawolf spent half a year stuck at the dock after the first reactor criticality testing to repair the aforementioned leaks prior to assuming underway missions, the prototype reactor was decommissioned before the Seawolf and retrofitted to D1G. To directly quote Rickover, “There may be advantages for sodium for shore-based atomic power plants but I cannot see it for a ship. It is too dangerous for a ship.”
The Seawolf did operate underway on sodium reactor power for a bit over 70,000 nautical miles, during that entire time not one reactor compartment entry was made by the ship's force.
Too much risk for Rickover,....
-
you are,...
both the the West Milton prototype and the Seawolf had enormous difficulties with S/G and superheater leaks, the sodium coolant was prohibitively radioactive for at least 14 hours following reactor shutdown (versus 8 minutes for light water reactors) denying the crew access to the reactor compartment in the event of any at-sea emergency. The Seawolf spent half a year stuck at the dock after the first reactor criticality testing to repair the aforementioned leaks prior to assuming underway missions, the prototype reactor was decommissioned before the Seawolf and retrofitted to D1G. To directly quote Rickover, “There may be advantages for sodium for shore-based atomic power plants but I cannot see it for a ship. It is too dangerous for a ship.”
The Seawolf did operate underway on sodium reactor power for a bit over 70,000 nautical miles, during that entire time not one reactor compartment entry was made by the ship's force.
Too much risk for Rickover,....
Yes but the risk was in large part due to limited experience for liquid metal reactors and a need to rapidly produce cold war submarines. The power density of a liquid metal reactor added a benefit that is hard to ignore. The Russians alpha class ran a liquid metal sub that exceeded the speed of any of our subs granted it was lead bismuth but it had it's own problems.
Sooooo my opinion, my own [2cents] , is unchanged. I had an opportunity to speak with the director of engineering at ORNL and asked him why there was not more effort on liquid metal reactors, his reply was too little run time and experience but then the liquid metal reactors seem to be NGOs.
-
Yes but the risk was in large part due to limited experience for liquid metal reactors and a need to rapidly produce cold war submarines. The power density of a liquid metal reactor added a benefit that is hard to ignore. The Russians alpha class ran a liquid metal sub that exceeded the speed of any of our subs granted it was lead bismuth but it had it's own problems.
Sooooo my opinion, my own [2cents] , is unchanged. I had an opportunity to speak with the director of engineering at ORNL and asked him why there was not more effort on liquid metal reactors, his reply was too little run time and experience but then the liquid metal reactors seem to be NGOs.
okay, in the hereafter you can argue your position with Rickover himself,...
I'm sure you can outwit and shame him into admitting he was wrong,....
:P ;) :) 8)
-
I'm not going to post any articles here because they are all somewhat similar. The gist is I'm seeing all kinds of articles alluding to nuclear power being the only clean (non fossil) option that can deliver day and night and under most conditions with a high capacity factor. It is slowly creeping into the mainstream.....where I might see one or 2 articles a month now I'm seeing a couple a week. Of course what to do with the fuel is always the negative....On a side not, take a look at what is going on in Germany right now with their wind power....not looking so hot...but Germany still wants to shut down their reactors. Maybe if it becomes more fashionable, they will keep their reactors. I was nuclear when nuclear wasn't cool...de da de da....
-
okay, in the hereafter you can argue your position with Rickover himself,...
I will try and find a medium. I was expressing my opinion, maybe you can ask Rickover in your seance whether the effort to overcome the existing problems with sodium was insurmountable or just not practical for an accelerated construction program.
::)
-
I'm not going to post any articles here because they are all somewhat similar. The gist is I'm seeing all kinds of articles alluding to nuclear power being the only clean (non fossil) option that can deliver day and night and under most conditions with a high capacity factor. It is slowly creeping into the mainstream.....where I might see one or 2 articles a month now I'm seeing a couple a week. Of course what to do with the fuel is always the negative....On a side not, take a look at what is going on in Germany right now with their wind power....not looking so hot...but Germany still wants to shut down their reactors. Maybe if it becomes more fashionable, they will keep their reactors. I was nuclear when nuclear wasn't cool...de da de da....
Yeah, I do tend to pass along anything about nuclear I see in my news feeds and much of it is repetitive. I hate to say I am to lazy to do a triage but I figure readers can do that for themselves as a quick scan or even the title can let you know if you would like to read an article in it's entirety or skip it.
-
I will try and find a medium. I was expressing my opinion, maybe you can ask Rickover in your seance whether the effort to overcome the existing problems with sodium was insurmountable or just not practical for an accelerated construction program.
::)
you so funny,...
reread Rickover's statement as quoted,...
he said what he said,...
(https://i1.wp.com/mindfunda.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/f297_airspeedvelocity.jpg)
-
These are good articles. A one sentence blurb about why it is different or interesting to you would be nice...but thanks for posting.
-
“There may be advantages for sodium for shore-based atomic power plants but I cannot see it for a ship. It is too dangerous for a ship.”
Yet he was the reason that it even existed.