How to make a nuclear reactor that can't have a meltdown

[Avatard]

...Or, "How Trip might sleep better":

http://dvice.com/archives/2011/03/how-to-make-a-n.php

[derf]

The lates generation of nuke reactors don't require any outside power to maintain the core temperature, the only reason this is an issue is because these 20 year old design reactors were hit with a natural disaster far beyond what anyone though could have been possible. Other than this incident, there was TMI, and Chernobyl. Chernobyl doesnt count because it was a bad russian design that was broken by human error and stupid tests ,and their shit was crap to begin with. TMI was an accident, but how many people actually got hurt? 0. There have been a bunch of other minor incidents, mostly dealing with leaky pipes and electrical issues.Also, how many people have actually died from problems with reactors? I bet the number is far less than those that have died mining coal for coal plants or from busting dams.

Anyway, cool link

[Avatard]

I think passive is the only way to go. Any active system WILL fail, simply because it can.

[derf]

I think passive is the only way to go. Any active system WILL fail, simply because it can.


Cant have a passive system, we need an active system to create jobs (I'm just looking for a reason to argue)

[Corey]

It's PBR. How good could it be?

[Avatard]

Personally, I think that solar and geothermal are the way to go. We just need to get solar more efficient (I understand wildly more efficient panels are already "in the channel").

PBR is clearly not terribly efficient, but I think PBR is, nonetheless, perhaps a good alternative to offer countries that insist on having nuclear power, whom we don't want having any nuke weapons, as extracting weapons grade materials from the pellets is not practical.

[Trip]

Any system is open to failure. The one in germany they tried clearly had issues with us maintaining it.

That's the issue, humans still have to maintain and design it.

[Particle Man]

The lates generation of nuke reactors don't require any outside power to maintain the core temperature, the only reason this is an issue is because these 20 year old design reactors were hit with a natural disaster far beyond what anyone though could have been possible. Other than this incident, there was TMI, and Chernobyl. Chernobyl doesnt count because it was a bad russian design that was broken by human error and stupid tests ,and their shit was crap to begin with. TMI was an accident, but how many people actually got hurt? 0. There have been a bunch of other minor incidents, mostly dealing with leaky pipes and electrical issues.Also, how many people have actually died from problems with reactors? I bet the number is far less than those that have died mining coal for coal plants or from busting dams.

Anyway, cool link
More like 40 year old design...

[anthonyk]

It's PBR. How good could it be?

:lol:

[VatorMan]

Personally, I think that solar and geothermal are the way to go. We just need to get solar more efficient (I understand wildly more efficient panels are already "in the channel").

PBR is clearly not terribly efficient, but I think PBR is, nonetheless, perhaps a good alternative to offer countries that insist on having nuclear power, whom we don't want having any nuke weapons, as extracting weapons grade materials from the pellets is not practical.

In a temperate climate-I agree. Try doing GeoTherm or Solar in Alaska.

[anthonyk]

What does air temperature have to do with either solar or geotherm?

[Avatard]

The further from the poles you are, the less advantageous solar is as an option.

Geotherm comes outta the ground. Works anywhere.

[derf]

What does air temperature have to do with either solar or geotherm?

not temperature, temperate climate

http://www.meteorologyclimate.com/Temperate-climate.htm


But yeh it shouldnt have too much to do with geothermal. Pretty much everywhere on the planet, you drill down a mile or so and the temperature is well above the ambient air temperature of teh surface above it.

But contrary to popular believe geothermal power sources and wells are not the end all save all they are made out to be and they do have a limited lifespan for heat production. After enough time (a few decades) the ground around the geothermal well will cool enough to make it a non productive site. The well will eventually heat up, but it takes time.

[ericr]

The problem with passive systems is, well, they're passive. You don't have power on demand, you have power when it's sunny enough, or windy enough etc. They are great for supplementing coal or nuclear but nothing is going to be able to take the place of oil, coal or atomic power for a long time. Electric cars don't help a thing either, you're using oil, coal or nuclear power to charge them, might as well burn it in the tank.

[CasterTroy]

Electric cars don't help a thing either, you're using oil, coal or nuclear power to charge them, might as well burn it in the tank.

This is what I find funny when I'm looked down upon by Ed Begley Jr types

[Avatard]

Most of the electric in the US comes from coal, the least environmentally friendly fuel.

Not to mention the toxic disposal of all of those batteries...

[CasterTroy]

Not to mention the toxic disposal of all of those batteries...

Trying to explain that to a Prius owner condeming you for driving a sub-25mph vehicle is like talking to a wall though :idk:

[OneSickPsycho]

Trying to explain that to a Prius owner condeming you for driving a sub-25mph vehicle is like talking to a wall though :idk:

Do what I do... Tell them they better stock up on carbon credits for assholes like me who hate the environment... "the only reason I didn't get a vehicle that was less fuel efficient is because I cannot afford one..."

[goof2]

Most of the electric in the US comes from coal, the least environmentally friendly fuel.

Not to mention the toxic disposal of all of those batteries...

Most hybrid and electric vehicles use lithium-ion batteries which are not considered hazardous waste. At the very least they are a heck of a lot better for the environment than lead/acid batteries. The mining and manufacturing processes aren't real great though.

Obviously what is happening at the nuclear plant in Japan will affect the American public's views about nuclear energy. I doubt those massive hydrogen explosions will resonate in a similar manner when the discussion turns to fuel cells though.

[Trip]

The process to develop a lot of the circuitry and heavy metals to do anything electrical is not friendly to the environment. We will always fuck with mother nature as long as we need electrical power.