‘Design Basis’
Design Basis and Actual Redundancy
The severity of the consequences following a nuclear reactor failure is extreme, as indicated by Chernobyl Unit-4, TMI, FDU-1, FDU-2, FDU-3, *FDU-4*, SL-1, USS Thresher (SSN-593), USS Scorpion (SSN-589), USSR K-431, USSR K-141 Kursk … and in a planned USA nuclear reactor experimental explosion, whose name presently eludes my recollection. It has been blogged on this BRAWM website.
The extensive and growing number of nuclear power failures, including the recent Oi-3 outage, gives rise to some basic design basis and redundancy questions. The 16’ tsunami ‘design-basis’ did not appear sufficient in the face of a precedented and actual 50’wave of 311. Some time ago, I took a quick glance at the commercial NPP ‘Design Basis’ failure requirements. The general notion, if memory serves, is that breaking a 4” pipe is a ‘Design Basis’ failure. First, that seems like a kinda limited (officially-sanctioned) ‘Design Basis’, given the rather extensive number of nuclear reactor catastrophic failures and the cataclysmic-hemispheric level consequences of NPP failures.
Mechanical Design Redundancy appears to be somewhat lacking. Let’s discuss some very basic, ACTUAL mechanical strength and redundancy design REQUIREMENTS. This would be as opposed to the fraudulent, fantasy, happyhorseshit designs presently allowed in NPP construction. This is merely off-the-cuff, informal discussion; rather than a detailed failure mode analysis.
1) Are there two (2) completely separate mechanisms to SCRAM a commercial NPP?
2) Do commercial nuclear power plants have serviceable check-valves to prevent loss of coolant following a pipe rupture?
3) Will commercial nuclear reactor vessels & containment vessels withstand a detonation (supersonic explosion)?
4) Do commercial NPP have a redundant, filtered vent system?
5) Do commercial NPP have a premixed boron slurry, or rapid-mix capability on site?
6) Is there a ‘fuel-catch-mechanism’ for a NPP meltdown?
7) The list continues … but why belabor the obvious …
Actually, the answers to such basic questions do not appear to be particularly reassuring.
IMHO
Bill Duff
If you can answer them...
If the questions are so trivial; why can't you answer them?
Either answer the question as to whether you've actually done the experiment of taking a reactor from shutdown to full power; and tell us when and which reactor.
If you have done the experiment, tell us the details; if not STFU.
Laughter
THE ANSWER to the vapid, ADHD Rude Dog rapid-fire-interrogation is repeated:
Half-Past-3, 4:09, uptoyerass and 2feradime.
TTFN
No shortage
There is no shortage of evidence that you are a pisspore liar.
You are still laughably jumping subject to subject.
Tough work that lying. No end to it.
TTFN
RBS
David Hahn, the Radioactive Boy Scout
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn
Although his homemade reactor never achieved critical mass, it ended up emitting dangerous levels of radioactivity,
If it didn't achieve critical mass; then it is no "reactor"; let alone a breeder.
Exponential Increase in Radioactivity
I have a copy of the RBS on the shelf, and read it years ago.
The RBS, somewhat like the Rude Dog, routinely misrepresented himself, as a physics teacher (in the local high school for the RBS). Thus the letter correspondence would request SAMPLES and expertise, in the name of children's education. Various private companies, physicists and government agencies would ship (gratis) all kinds of radioactive material, in small quantities.
The RBS would read up on neutron sources and the beg, borrow, cadge and scavenge materials that had some utility as a neutron source or neutron reflector. Similarly for Beta, Gamma and Alpha.
How much material and of what purity that the RBS gathered up, and put to use, has been kinda hush-hush for years.
The RBS DID create an Exponential growth of Radioactivity that engulfed a neighborhood, as a TEENAGER.
The RBS recently got into legal trouble again, for attempting to repeat the process. The PARALLELS between the activites of the RBS and the Rude Dog are multiple, for whatever reason.
Neither is particularly bright, but they are quite determined.
One again....
Once again our local anti-nuke demonstrates that he / she doesn't have the foggiest idea of what it means to have a critical system, like a reactor; and what is required in tems of materials.
For Heaven's sake; this forum is associated with the Nuclear Engineering Dept. of University of California - Berkeley. Knowing about reactors and critical systems is their "bread and butter".
You can't sell a bunch of folderol about a reactor made of alpha, beta, and gamma emitters to the forum's sponsor and its staff and students.
They all know what part of your story is pure unadulterated poppycock.
See if you can learn some more and figure it out too.
I'd say "Nice try, loser"; but there wasn't anything nice in this feeble attempt.
Everybody here
Presumably, the majority of the BLOGGERS here have a DEEP background in physics, mathematics and engineering. The general interest readers may have the rare question, but mostly they just soak it in. Our presence is reassuring to them. The 'squint stuff' is knowable and certain. That is good enough, for the most part.
The Rude Dog, is one of the few frauds. The Rude Dog tries, so hard to fake it, but EVERYBODY knows. WE ALL KNOW what competent engineers, think, say and do under a given set of circumstances. It is as natural as breathing, for us.
Rude Dog is like a fat-kid with a gimp-leg pretending to be an Olympian. No amount of 'faking-it' will ever make the story convincing. Nothing rings true. The arrogance is fraudulent and hollow.
Keep it up, Rude Dog. Even the general readers can spot you in a paragraph now. Soon they will be able to identify you in a sentence, maybe a word.
TTFN
I remember well..
I remember well the "Radioactive Boy Scout".
First, he did NOT construct a reactor, let alone a breeder.
The only thing "RBS" did was assemble a bunch of radioactive materials from smoke detectors.
Evidently, you don't understand that in order to make a reactor, one has to have "fissile" material; and that is NOT synonomous with radioactive.
Fissile material is not available to anyone without an NRC license, which the radioactive boy scout didn't have.
He made a radioactive mess; but he did not make a reactor let alone a breeder.
That would be idiotic
Really?
Do you actually contend that U-233 is not a fissile material?
That would be a rather retarded contention. Instead of leaving a simple, accurate, off-hand statement to remain obscure and unchallenged. NOW anybody following this blog, KNOWS how to easily obtain SUPERHOT fissile material, from the camping supply store, or grandpaws fishing shed.
This baby-simple stuff, has been in the literature, for DECADES and there would NOT have been any reason to elaborate. YOU are quite the security risk, on the basis of taking a molehill and CREATING a mountain.
Very stupid indeed. Quite ill-advised. We shall let you 'run with it' ... GO! Keep it up!
IMHO
The RBS didn't make U-233
The RBS didn't make or have access to U-233.
The RBS collected radioactive Americium from smoke detectors.
You have to learn to distinguish what the RBS attempted to do, and what he actually accomplished:
http://talesfromthenuclearage.wordpress.com/2009/12/22/the-radioactive-b...
He tried to irradiate this with his Neutron Gun, which would change it to fissionable U233, but his gun wasn’t strong enough to make detectable U233.
Since the RBS didn't make a detectable quantity of fissile material; he didn't have a self-sustaining reactor.
Oops
Oops, Diemos, stated:
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/forum/218/%E2%80%98design-basis%E2%80%99.201...
"He then chemically extracted thorium-232 from gas mantles and put his neutron source up against the thorium-232. The neutrons were occasionally captured on thorium-232 converting it to thorium-233 which then went through its decay chain to become uranium-233."
Why Don't We blog some more on the RBS, Thorium and U-233? I am ALL for it. There is PLENTY of literature on the subject of Weapon Grade U-233, a HIGHLY fissile material.
Scream some more! We are enjoying the spectacle.
The RBS did/did not make U-233. U-233 is/is not a fissile material. U-233 can/cannot be used in nuclear weapons. Thorium reactors are/are not safe.
Keep it up!
Your average AmBe source puts
Your average AmBe source puts out 6e6 neutrons per second.
If every one were captured by a Th-232 atom you would make 6e6 U-233 atoms per second.
One gram of U-233 is equal to 6.02e23 / 233 atoms or 2.58e21 atoms.
At a rate of 6e6 per second it would take 2.58e21 / 6e6 = 420e12 seconds or 13 million years to produce one gram of U233 with the RBS's setup.
Probably not a big proliferation concern.
Diemos
The problem here...
The problem here is that people who are pretending to have some type of scientific acumen think that a million atoms is a large quantity. To them, anything with a million is big. After all, a millionaire is someone that is really rich.
However, in the world of nuclear physics; a million atoms is an insignificant, tiny little bit. One needs scientific notation to specify the number of atoms in a significant sample of material. We haven't named the magnitude of the number of atoms you need. Even "trillion", or "quadrillion" is a drop in the bucket.
The non-technical pretenders are impressed with these "large" numbers, when they shouldn't be.
The concepts still go over the head of the resident IDIOT
There is no problem here for those of us that understand the concepts.
The RBS probably made a few atoms of U-233 with his neutron source driving an assembly of Thorium-232.
But whether the RBS got some U-233 is not the issue.
As the resident IDIOT's own quoted definition for chain reaction states; the RBS needed to get at least the number of neutrons that he sourced into the system in order to have what qualifies as a chain reaction.
For every 100 neutrons the RBS put into the system; he needed to get 100 or more neutrons out. The RBS failed to get the requisite number of neutrons; so he didn't have a chain reaction.
Pity the poor dolt that quotes a definition that he / she doesn't even understand.
Is U-233 a fissile material?
Here is one place to start.
http://www.nnl.co.uk/media/27860/nnl__1314092891_thorium_cycle_position_...
The Thorium Fuel Cycle
An independent assessment by the UK National Nuclear Laboratory
August 2010
“Naturally occurring thorium consists entirely of Th-232, which is a fertile nuclide i.e. it does not undergo fission itself, but on capturing a neutron it is transformed to fissile U-233.”
“NNL believes that U-233 should be regarded as posing a comparable level of proliferation risk to High Enriched Uranium (HEU) and comparable with the U-Pu fuel cycle at best; this view is consistent with the IAEA, who under the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials, categorise U-233 on the same basis as plutonium. Attempts to lower the fissile content of uranium by adding U-238 are considered to offer only weak protection, as the U-233 could be separated in a centrifuge cascade in the same way that U-235 is separated from U-238 in the standard uranium fuel cycle.”
Homespun Breeder Reactor
Coleman Lanterns have more than one use, for boyscouts
http://health.phys.iit.edu/extended_archive/0407/msg00027.html
To build his "reactor", David collected camping lantern mantles by the hundreds, worked out the chemistry to separate the Th-232 and learned from text books that neutron absorption makes Th-233 which beta decays to U-233 and that U-233 could be used in place of Pu in his model breeder reactor. Silverstein says that David realized that getting 30 or so pounds of U-233 wasn't possible, but that the ability to be able to transmute an element into another was very powerful for David, that the process "... approached a sacred act." (page 135)
David made a neutron source for the Th-232 conversion by collecting Am-241 from lots of smoke detectors and mixing it with aluminum filings, putting it in a lead block with a hole in the side as an aiming mechanism. He realized, using GM measurements, that AmAl wasn't a good neutron source so he got Ra from old clocks (even found a vial of Ra paint inside one of the clocks) and Be from a friend at Macomb Community College (page 157). David separated the Ra from the paint and formed a RaBe neutron source. When his Th-232 only became slightly more radioactive with the RaBe gun, the DOE (page 158) told Professor David that Th needed slow neutrons and that tritium is the best moderator. David got H-3 from many hunting gun sights he managed to obtain either by buying them or "borrowing" them from suppliers. David even got a skin burn (page 158-9) from having missed cleaning up some of the H-3 material and then getting it on his skin. David coated his Be with the H-3 material. gathered his Th-232 and let them sit for a few weeks; the GM counter began to show increased counts which thrilled David greatly.
Poorly researched contentions
Bill Duff claims the following
The severity of the consequences following a nuclear reactor failure is extreme, as indicated by Chernobyl Unit-4, TMI, FDU-1, FDU-2, FDU-3, *FDU-4*, SL-1, USS Thresher (SSN-593), USS Scorpion (SSN-589),
The loss of the two US Navy submarines were NOT reactor failures.
The loss of the USS Thresher was a fault in the ballast tank "blow" system; the sub couldn't eject ballast water from the ballast tanks, and hence it sank below its crush depth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Thresher_%28SSN-593%29
The inability to blow the ballast tanks was later attributed to excessive moisture in the sub's high-pressure air flasks, which froze and plugged the flasks' flowpaths while passing through the valves. This was later simulated in dock-side tests on Thresher's sister sub, Tinosa. During a test to simulate blowing ballast at or near test depth, ice formed on strainers installed in valves; the flow of air lasted only a few seconds. Air driers were later retrofitted to the high pressure air compressors, beginning with Tinosa, to permit the emergency blow system to operate properly.
The reason for the loss of the USS Scorpion is unknown, but based on observations of the wreckage, it has been suggested the loss was due to a malfunction of one of the sub's own torpedoes, trash disposal unit, or even an attack:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Scorpion_%28SSN-589%29
Neither of those events were due to reactor failures.
Coincidence and Causation
Coincidence is not Causation
The Scorpion and Thresher resulted in nuclear containment failure.
The fuel is scattered across the bottom of Davy Jones Locker.
There have been DECADES of research, review, cover-up, investigations, disinformation and studies, regarding the Scorpion & Thresher. The reactors are breached, even if by USSR torpedo salvo.
WRONG AGAIN!!!
Bill states:
The Scorpion and Thresher resulted in nuclear containment failure.
The fuel is scattered across the bottom of Davy Jones Locker.
Not according to ocean scientist Bob Ballard. When Ballard was searching for the Titanic, that was a cover for his true targets; Thresher and Scorpion. The Navy financed Ballard's dive to find out the condition of the reactors:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Thresher_%28SSN-593%29
Once the two wrecks had been visited, and the radioactive threat from both was established as small, Ballard was able to search for Titanic. Due to dwindling funds, he had just 12 days to do so, but he used the same debris-field search techniques he had used for the two subs, which worked, and Titanic was found.
Some people has no intellectual honesty at all; they spew whatever fabrications they desire to further their agenda, irrespective of the truth.
Rude Dog
Rude Dog,
If memory serves, National Geographic carried a photo series on the Thresher wreckage strewn across the ocean floor, YEARS ago.
One DANGER of an INTACT reactor core is the possibility of a spontaneous restart. This is a present concern with more than one USSR nuclear submarines. The safety ADVANTAGE of scattered wreckage is that it presumably prevents reignition and fission excursions.
It is just a nasty hot-spot out their in a deep hole in the ocean. And as stated in the opening remark, is just one of MANY, MANY (unhappy) nuclearreactor incidents.
Of course the ACTUAL topic, of this thread, is the lack of REDUNDANCY in NPP design, construction and operation. For which reason, the commercial NPP in the USA, Japan, GB, Russia, China & France should be shuttered. Not that I am holding my breath.
Go scrueyourself, Rude Dog, you subject-hopping (red herring waving) loser