rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) (05/15/86)
This article, and the Chernobel incident along with the 3 mile Island incident has prompted me to as this question. In article <226@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) writes: >The graphite reactors run hotter than do the water bath variety >here. In this incident the following scenario is more or less >likely. > The graphite can reach temperatures of 4000 degrees > OK, this article mentions the graphite reactor, which wasn't too safe. It also mentions the BWR reactors (like 3 mile Island :-). There are also the Sodium (or "breeder") Reactors which run even hotter than graphite? What about the Fort St Vrain "argon/freon" reactor in Colorado? Is this design any safer? Is the Ft. St. Vrain reactor info included in descriptions of reactors? Are there any other such reactors? What other options are available to make a really safe reactor? Would smaller reactors be better than large ones? I'm curious as to whether the "Boiling water is best" approach taken by the navy in their "boat powerplants" is really apropriate in the context of large plants, often located near populated areas. I often wonder if safety is really a primary consideration when these plants are designed (It was for Ft. St. Vrain). If smaller piles, or "self feeding half/breeders" are better than BWR, are there ways to more efficiently convert fission energy into other forms of energy? Are there any materials or elements which become "unradioactive" when they are removed from the core cirulation (Argon?). If a truly safe design were possible, would it be less costly in terms of legal hassles to use this, rather than a cheaper but more contriversial BWR design? Obviously, I don't know much (anything) about nuclear physics, but it would be nice to know if this form of energy could be used more safely in other ways. I was living in Colorado when the Three Mile Island plant went nuts, and the issue was raised. Public Service Company spokesmen pointed out that they had rejected a number of "popular" designs because they didn't believe they were "safe enough". Was this just PR, or is the argon/freon design really safe?
ken@njitcccc.UUCP (Kenneth Ng) (05/16/86)
In article <421@ccird1.UUCP>, rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) writes: > It also mentions the BWR reactors (like 3 mile Island :-). Three Mile Island is a PWR, pressurized water reactor. The design is NOT a BWR, boiling water reactor. The difference is that in a PWR the stem is generated in a heat exchanger. In a BWR the steam is generated straight in the reactor. -- Kenneth Ng: uucp(unreliable) ihnp4!allegra!bellcore!njitcccc!ken bitnet(prefered) ken@njitcccc.bitnet New Jersey Institute of Technology Computerized Conferencing and Communications Center Newark, New Jersey 07102 Vulcan jealousy: "I fail to see the logic in prefering Stan over me" Number 5: "I need input"
john@gcc-milo.ARPA (John Allred) (05/20/86)
In article <421@ccird1.UUCP> rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) writes: > >I'm curious as to whether the "Boiling water is best" approach >taken by the navy in their "boat powerplants" is really apropriate >in the context of large plants, often located near populated areas. > Sorry, but the navy is sold on *Pressurized Water Reactors*, and not boiling water reactors. "Minor" problems would occur with BWRs in submarines when, for instance, the boat went 30 degrees nose down, which might uncover the core. -- John Allred General Computer Company uucp: seismo!harvard!gcc-milo!john
bl@hplabsb.UUCP (Bruce T. Lowerre) (05/20/86)
> OK, this article mentions the graphite reactor, which wasn't too safe. > It also mentions the BWR reactors (like 3 mile Island :-). > There are also the Sodium (or "breeder") Reactors which run even hotter > than graphite? > > What about the Fort St Vrain "argon/freon" reactor in Colorado? Is > this design any safer? Is the Ft. St. Vrain reactor info included > in descriptions of reactors? Are there any other such reactors? > > What other options are available to make a really safe reactor? > > Would smaller reactors be better than large ones? > > I'm curious as to whether the "Boiling water is best" approach > taken by the navy in their "boat powerplants" is really apropriate > in the context of large plants, often located near populated areas. What is your definiton of safe? The worst case scenario for the water moderated reactor (i.e., Three Mile Island) is to uncover the core and let the heat get out of hand. Well, the core at TMI was uncovered, the heat got out of hand, and guess what? The core did NOT melt, it disintegreated and the damage was held within the containment building. The water moderated reactor needs the water to "moderate" the neutrons (absorb the energy to thermal level) for the fission process to occur. If the water is removed then the reaction stops. The problem with uncovering the core is the heat generated by the decay of the fission by-products.