any chance to turn Nuclear reactors around with a safer Reac

[Rick C]

On Monday, July 8, 2019 at 11:46:37 AM UTC-4, Jeroen Belleman wrote:

Rick C wrote:
On Monday, July 8, 2019 at 8:09:36 AM UTC-4, jurb...@gmail.com
wrote:
For those uninformed wiki has an article on it, it mentions the
design as being the most viable possibility for fusion reactors
to date, but the thing has been running, or at least operational
for over twenty years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokamak

I got wind of those a long time ago. Checked it out a bit. They
got tubing for the wires that make the containment field. (Star
Trek anyone ?) They don't care if the wires get hot they care if
they melt. If that happens you pretty much have an H bomb going
off.

I remember when people were afraid on nuclear, Chernobyl, Three
Mile Island all that, and that was fission. It is dangerous but
fusion is much more dangerous if it gets out of control. We are
not talking about radiation poisoning wrecking land and people
have to move, we are talking taking a couple of states right off
the map. (I hope they're California and New York, but get
Lieberman out first)

So if people find out about that they will oppose it no doubt,
or some will. And part of that is their not complete confidence
in technology and I actually cannot disagree. These days,
science has fucked up enough to justify a healthy skepticism to
say the least. I have proof of data that were actually paid for
and it goes on and on. Say I make a speaker and I want you to
say it is the best speaker in the world. Most people would do
that for fifty bucks.

In fission reactors France, the cunts they are... actually
showed the world how to do it. They got a kagillion nuclear
plants and I am pretty sure they have had no accidents. Well
except for that guy who dropped his "Royale" on the floor. A
Royale is a quarter pounder, but they have the metric system.
After the movie Pulp Fiction came out, when we wanted to get a
quarter pound of smoke we would say we want a Royale.

Anyway, as useless as they may be in war they are damn good at
making electricity. Well everybody has their strengths and
weaknesses.

Anyway, I heard about the Tokamak before I was on the internet.
Friend of mine works for Case, which used to be Case Western
Reserve and he got me access to their BBS. A professor name
Robert F. Heeter was involved, though I am pretty sure he was
not local. He put out a glossary that was contributed much to by
students, and I would imagine he edited it for errors since his
name was on it. I still have it saved but I saved it in reserve
alphabetical order, I don't remember why, I wasn't all that PC
savvy then. (not that I am now lol, every time I learn something
it seems they change it)

Another thing they could do is go with thorium. They don't
really want to talk about it because it cannot be bred into bomb
stuff. Also, I don't remember exactly but a thorium reactor has
cooling problems. So these pipsqueak countries, we could let
them have thorium reactors but the whole thing is more
expensive.

Using uranium and all that type of stuff they can reuse it a few
times and then just make ammo out of it. Depleted uranium rounds
are bad to the bone. They warm when deformed which makes them
able to pierce armor. And FAST. Fast enough that they still have
some kinetic energy after going through the armor. If I was a
country and had that shit I would never give it up.

Actually, a combination of wind and solar might do it if we get
more efficient. And other things. Like not driving your big
block V8 truck to work 35 miles away for a job at a bank.
Myself, there are three people living in this house, do I need
two deepfreezers ? Wanna clean up the planet ? First thing is to
quit wasting. But the deepfreeze, it isn't that much. If it is
not opened the compressor hardly ever comes on. But the thing
is, waste ? Having the capacity and buying in bulk we save a ton
of money. I would offer some to the Daygos next door but that
might insult them. None of my chosens are hurting enough to need
food. So now we have like a moratorium on buying food here.

Anyway, enough postulating about energy use and back to fusion.
One of the main problems is injecting fuel. It is no so simple.
I said the Tokamak was running all those years ? Well yeah but
not continuously. It is going to burn out and then you have to
reload it. Then you flip that LASER on to fire it up again. I do
not believe there is a way to keep them running continuously but
maybe they got a new idea. I am no expert, I just know the
principles of operation and all that.

Bottom line is if you can make fusion really work you probably
get a Nobel prize. You don't have to patent it and really you
probably shouldn't. They just pay you.

I can't recall reading any post here that showed such a profound
ignorance on so many levels at once.

I truly feel sorry for this guy.


You could have made a small effort to set a few things straight.
Just stating he's wrong in so many places isn't productive.

Productive in what sense? He isn't going to acknowledge anything you wrote. He will just spew more ignorance. I don't think others here need education about these issues. Most are willing to read and learn.

So, fusion reactors can't explode like hydrogen bombs. They'll
be lucky to attain any significant amount of fusion at all.
Tokamaks have no lasers. They confine a deuterium plasma using
magnetic fields. Lasers are used for Inertial Confinement Fusion.
Neither tokamak nor ICF works well enough for energy production,
up to present.

Of course. If they did, we would be using them. Any idiot can see that. Oh, that's right, Jurb isn't just any idiot.

France has 19 operational pressurized water nuclear reactors,
generating about 70% of the county's electricity. They are
basically the Westinghouse design. I visited the St. Alban
reactor some years ago. That was interesting.

Depleted uranium is what's left over after the U235 has been
extracted from natural uranium in an enrichment plant, mostly
ultra-centrifuges these days. It has never been in a reactor,
so it's not particularly radioactive. It's mostly a waste product.
It's used in ammunition because it's heavy, so it improves the
penetrating power, and it burns, increasing the damage. It's also
a toxic heavy metal.

Technically it's not weight, it's density that is useful in projectiles.

--

Rick C.

-+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[John Robertson]

On 2019/07/08 8:46 a.m., Jeroen Belleman wrote:

Rick C wrote:
On Monday, July 8, 2019 at 8:09:36 AM UTC-4, jurb...@gmail.com
wrote:
For those uninformed wiki has an article on it, it mentions the
design as being the most viable possibility for fusion reactors
to date, but the thing has been running, or at least operational
for over twenty years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokamak

I got wind of those a long time ago. Checked it out a bit. They
got tubing for the wires that make the containment field. (Star
Trek anyone ?) They don't care if the wires get hot they care if
they melt. If that happens you pretty much have an H bomb going
off.

I remember when people were afraid on nuclear, Chernobyl, Three
Mile Island all that, and that was fission. It is dangerous but
fusion is much more dangerous if it gets out of control. We are
not talking about radiation poisoning wrecking land and people
have to move, we are talking taking a couple of states right off
the map. (I hope they're California and New York, but get
Lieberman out first)
..
Another thing they could do is go with thorium. They don't
really want to talk about it because it cannot be bred into bomb
stuff. Also, I don't remember exactly but a thorium reactor has
cooling problems. So these pipsqueak countries, we could let
them have thorium reactors but the whole thing is more
expensive.

Using uranium and all that type of stuff they can reuse it a few
times and then just make ammo out of it. Depleted uranium rounds
are bad to the bone. They warm when deformed which makes them
able to pierce armor. And FAST. Fast enough that they still have
some kinetic energy after going through the armor. If I was a
country and had that shit I would never give it up.
....
Bottom line is if you can make fusion really work you probably
get a Nobel prize. You don't have to patent it and really you
probably shouldn't. They just pay you.

I can't recall reading any post here that showed such a profound
ignorance on so many levels at once.

I truly feel sorry for this guy.


You could have made a small effort to set a few things straight.
Just stating he's wrong in so many places isn't productive.

So, fusion reactors can't explode like hydrogen bombs. They'll
be lucky to attain any significant amount of fusion at all.
Tokamaks have no lasers. They confine a deuterium plasma using
magnetic fields. Lasers are used for Inertial Confinement Fusion.
Neither tokamak nor ICF works well enough for energy production,
up to present.

France has 19 operational pressurized water nuclear reactors,
generating about 70% of the county's electricity. They are
basically the Westinghouse design. I visited the St. Alban
reactor some years ago. That was interesting.

Depleted uranium is what's left over after the U235 has been
extracted from natural uranium in an enrichment plant, mostly
ultra-centrifuges these days. It has never been in a reactor,
so it's not particularly radioactive. It's mostly a waste product.
It's used in ammunition because it's heavy, so it improves the
penetrating power, and it burns, increasing the damage. It's also
a toxic heavy metal.

Jeroen Belleman

The CANDU reactor is designed to work on un-enriched uranium, and it
does not produce weapons grade materials without extensive enriching
after the fuel rod is spent.

It can also run on Thorium...

https://cna.ca/technology/energy/candu-technology/

No melt-downs (so far...). The safety systems can be tested when the
reactor is running full-tilt.

Heavy water is the moderator, so if the reactor overheats and boils off
the HW the reaction then reduces intensity and you are then left trying
to cool the overheated mass, rather than dealing with a melt-down. The
backup safety systems help reduce risk of leakage of radioactive steam, etc.

Nothing is perfect, but the CANDU reactor has a safety record that is
hard to beat. Releases far less radiation than burning coal (radon
released burning coal).

https://interestingengineering.com/nuclear-meltdown-what-would-happen-in-the-worst-case-scenario

Also CANDU reactors operate more efficiently than any other...

John :-#)#

 

[Rick C]

On Monday, July 8, 2019 at 11:12:14 AM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

Tell that to your howling lib friends, like AOC. She says the world
is going to end from global warming in ten years. Regardless of when
exactly a real crisis starts, all the global warming folks that I know
of say we need to act IMMEDIATELY, hence my point that if that's the
case, it's quite amusing that they don't want nukes as part of the solution.

In many ways this is a straw man argument. While I'm sure there are people who are opposed to both nukes and climate change, they aren't the mainstream. So why are you making this a big deal?

Nuclear power poses different kinds of risks and trying to equate the two is a bit silly.


It's not silly at all. Nukes can be part of the solution. So, if global
warming is such an urgent crisis, it's amusing that the tree huggers
reject it as an option. But then they reject most anything, windmills,
solar farms, when you actually try to build one. It's also amusing to see
you dance.

More straw man, to the point of absurdity.

The bottom line is that solar power and wind power can be installed in smaller chunks, along with the batteries and pumped storage to cope with the fact that they don't provide power continuously.

Nuclear power stations would help, but they take a decade or for planning, permissions and construction,

Only because of the tree huggers and all the BS. Maybe Trump should sign
an emergency exec order to cut through all that.

To do what exactly? Order the construction of uneconomical nuclear plants? They aren't being built because they can't produce electricity at a reasonable cost.

and nobody wants to tie up all that capital for taht long before they state seeing cas coming in from customers.

The same folks are pretty much against everything else too.

There are some lunatic tree-huggers in the group, but they are a tiny minority.

They talk wind, but when it comes time to actually
build a wind farm, that's no good too.

Some people are little too fixated n potential problems.

Offshore it will kill fish, kill birds, look ugly.

Offshore windmills create artificial reefs, which are good for fish.

Birds cope with predatory birds who fly much faster than windmill blades rotate, and are lot less predictable. And if you put the windmills far enough off-shore, nobody can see how ugly they. Their "uglyness" hasn't stopped a lot of big windmills getting built on-shore. we drove past quite a few of them last week when drving down from the Netehrlands to Burgundy (through Belgium and Luxemburg).

On land, NIMBY, it's ugly, it will kill birds....
Many of them think electricity just comes out of the receptacle.

5% of the population is nuts. They make silly complaints, which tend to be ignored.

Including you of course.

Ad hominem. Do you ever discuss the facts rationally?

Meanwhile, has anyone figured out what's going on with cold fusion yet?
Last I recall, there seemed to be a lot of growing evidence that something
was going on to generate energy, but they also renamed it from cold fusion
to something else, because it doesn't fit with our understanding of fusion
and they haven't seen what would be expected from actual fusion.

I picked up one such suggestion and posted it here some time ago.

Some of the istopes of palladium could capture a deutron and spit out an alpha particle - which would be cold fission, rather than cold fusion, but still an energy source. It could explain that odd behaviour that started the cold fusion story in the first place.

Alpha particles are not neutrons. They are stopped by a piece of paper. So, no, they are not likely villains in the cold fusion caper.

--

Rick C.

--+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Jeroen Belleman]

Rick C wrote:

On Monday, July 8, 2019 at 8:09:36 AM UTC-4, jurb...@gmail.com
wrote:
For those uninformed wiki has an article on it, it mentions the
design as being the most viable possibility for fusion reactors
to date, but the thing has been running, or at least operational
for over twenty years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokamak

I got wind of those a long time ago. Checked it out a bit. They
got tubing for the wires that make the containment field. (Star
Trek anyone ?) They don't care if the wires get hot they care if
they melt. If that happens you pretty much have an H bomb going
off.

I remember when people were afraid on nuclear, Chernobyl, Three
Mile Island all that, and that was fission. It is dangerous but
fusion is much more dangerous if it gets out of control. We are
not talking about radiation poisoning wrecking land and people
have to move, we are talking taking a couple of states right off
the map. (I hope they're California and New York, but get
Lieberman out first)

So if people find out about that they will oppose it no doubt,
or some will. And part of that is their not complete confidence
in technology and I actually cannot disagree. These days,
science has fucked up enough to justify a healthy skepticism to
say the least. I have proof of data that were actually paid for
and it goes on and on. Say I make a speaker and I want you to
say it is the best speaker in the world. Most people would do
that for fifty bucks.

In fission reactors France, the cunts they are... actually
showed the world how to do it. They got a kagillion nuclear
plants and I am pretty sure they have had no accidents. Well
except for that guy who dropped his "Royale" on the floor. A
Royale is a quarter pounder, but they have the metric system.
After the movie Pulp Fiction came out, when we wanted to get a
quarter pound of smoke we would say we want a Royale.

Anyway, as useless as they may be in war they are damn good at
making electricity. Well everybody has their strengths and
weaknesses.

Anyway, I heard about the Tokamak before I was on the internet.
Friend of mine works for Case, which used to be Case Western
Reserve and he got me access to their BBS. A professor name
Robert F. Heeter was involved, though I am pretty sure he was
not local. He put out a glossary that was contributed much to by
students, and I would imagine he edited it for errors since his
name was on it. I still have it saved but I saved it in reserve
alphabetical order, I don't remember why, I wasn't all that PC
savvy then. (not that I am now lol, every time I learn something
it seems they change it)

Another thing they could do is go with thorium. They don't
really want to talk about it because it cannot be bred into bomb
stuff. Also, I don't remember exactly but a thorium reactor has
cooling problems. So these pipsqueak countries, we could let
them have thorium reactors but the whole thing is more
expensive.

Using uranium and all that type of stuff they can reuse it a few
times and then just make ammo out of it. Depleted uranium rounds
are bad to the bone. They warm when deformed which makes them
able to pierce armor. And FAST. Fast enough that they still have
some kinetic energy after going through the armor. If I was a
country and had that shit I would never give it up.

Actually, a combination of wind and solar might do it if we get
more efficient. And other things. Like not driving your big
block V8 truck to work 35 miles away for a job at a bank.
Myself, there are three people living in this house, do I need
two deepfreezers ? Wanna clean up the planet ? First thing is to
quit wasting. But the deepfreeze, it isn't that much. If it is
not opened the compressor hardly ever comes on. But the thing
is, waste ? Having the capacity and buying in bulk we save a ton
of money. I would offer some to the Daygos next door but that
might insult them. None of my chosens are hurting enough to need
food. So now we have like a moratorium on buying food here.

Anyway, enough postulating about energy use and back to fusion.
One of the main problems is injecting fuel. It is no so simple.
I said the Tokamak was running all those years ? Well yeah but
not continuously. It is going to burn out and then you have to
reload it. Then you flip that LASER on to fire it up again. I do
not believe there is a way to keep them running continuously but
maybe they got a new idea. I am no expert, I just know the
principles of operation and all that.

Bottom line is if you can make fusion really work you probably
get a Nobel prize. You don't have to patent it and really you
probably shouldn't. They just pay you.

I can't recall reading any post here that showed such a profound
ignorance on so many levels at once.

I truly feel sorry for this guy.

You could have made a small effort to set a few things straight.
Just stating he's wrong in so many places isn't productive.

So, fusion reactors can't explode like hydrogen bombs. They'll
be lucky to attain any significant amount of fusion at all.
Tokamaks have no lasers. They confine a deuterium plasma using
magnetic fields. Lasers are used for Inertial Confinement Fusion.
Neither tokamak nor ICF works well enough for energy production,
up to present.

France has 19 operational pressurized water nuclear reactors,
generating about 70% of the county's electricity. They are
basically the Westinghouse design. I visited the St. Alban
reactor some years ago. That was interesting.

Depleted uranium is what's left over after the U235 has been
extracted from natural uranium in an enrichment plant, mostly
ultra-centrifuges these days. It has never been in a reactor,
so it's not particularly radioactive. It's mostly a waste product.
It's used in ammunition because it's heavy, so it improves the
penetrating power, and it burns, increasing the damage. It's also
a toxic heavy metal.

Jeroen Belleman

 

[bitrex]

On 7/8/19 12:39 PM, bitrex wrote:

On 7/8/19 8:12 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 1:30:13 AM UTC+2, John Doe wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote:

John Doe wrote:
amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/safer-nuclear-reacto
rs-
are-on-the-way/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign
=Feed% 3A+ScientificAmerican-News+%28Content%3A+News%29

There is nothing dangerous about nuclear reactors, relative to
other power producers. Responsible for ZERO deaths in the United
States. According to NASA, using nuclear power has saved
thousands of lives. It produces no carbon dioxide. It's total
waste from the beginning would fill a football field to less than
10 yards high. That's why our leaders act not very concerned
about Yucca Mountain and the like.

People who cry about the Fukushima nuclear disaster are just
weird, considering the tsunami itself killed 15,000.

Someday a huge meteor will strike the Earth, sending us
perilously out of orbit, and the freaks will scream "The nuclear
power plants are failing!"

I also find it amusing that most of the tree huggers who say CO2
emissions are going to doom us all soon are also against nuclear
power.  Whatever risk there is from nuclear power, seems it should
still be far better than a global climate catastrophe.  The same
folks are pretty much against everything else too.  They talk
wind, but when it comes time to actually build a wind farm, that's
no good too.  Offshore it will kill fish, kill birds, look ugly.
On land, NIMBY, it's ugly, it will kill birds.... Many of them
think electricity just comes out of the receptacle.

Except for the production cost and waste, solar power is a good thing.

John Doe doesn't seem to have access to up-to-date information.

Solar cells now produce power more cheaply than anything than
hydroelectric plants in favoured locations (pretty much all of which
have been exploited for the last century). Where's the waste?

But for those reasons and others wind is nonsensical.

Wind is equally practical. Both solar and wind power are intermittent,
and you need power storage if you want them to be your main source of
power, but that too is practical.

If global warming is the concern, you do not want to decrease the
wind flow
across the surface of the earth.

Why? More of the heat moves from the equator to the poles in ocean
currents, and windmills aren't going to slow the air-circulation
enough to have a perceptible effect.
And Yes, people should be ignored when they promote electric vehicles
without promoting the most viable electricity production, nuclear
power plants.

John Doe's idea of what is "viable" is about as reliable as the rest
of his output.
Once again, Germany is acting like the Land of the Idiots. They are
dismantling all of their nuclear reactors. Intelligent people being so
badly misled. It will be a great lesson for the rest of the world.
What happens when it falls apart.

They didn't have many nuclear reactors, and those that they had are
being retired early. It was a political choice aimed at keeping the
less intelligent voters happy. The US makes it's own politically
motivated idiotic choices - look at the health care system - and is at
considerably greater risk of falling apart that Germany - and this was
true even before Trump got to be president.


Germany's few remaining reactors are all pushing 40 years old now so
there may be lifespan issues to consider as well. The containment
structures and closed-loop cooling portion of the plumbing degrade with
time and exposure to neutron radiation and become brittle, you can't
just run them forever. The cost to repair or replace degraded portions
is probably enormous.

Granted that is not uncommon average age for the US and France too but
the susceptibility to embrittlement also depends a lot on the design. It
looks to be an issue more common in PWR than BWR.

 

[Rick C]

On Monday, July 8, 2019 at 12:27:35 PM UTC-4, John Robertson wrote:

On 2019/07/08 8:46 a.m., Jeroen Belleman wrote:
Rick C wrote:
On Monday, July 8, 2019 at 8:09:36 AM UTC-4, jurb...@gmail.com
wrote:
For those uninformed wiki has an article on it, it mentions the
design as being the most viable possibility for fusion reactors
to date, but the thing has been running, or at least operational
for over twenty years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokamak

I got wind of those a long time ago. Checked it out a bit. They
got tubing for the wires that make the containment field. (Star
Trek anyone ?) They don't care if the wires get hot they care if
they melt. If that happens you pretty much have an H bomb going
off.

I remember when people were afraid on nuclear, Chernobyl, Three
Mile Island all that, and that was fission. It is dangerous but
fusion is much more dangerous if it gets out of control. We are
not talking about radiation poisoning wrecking land and people
have to move, we are talking taking a couple of states right off
the map. (I hope they're California and New York, but get
Lieberman out first)
..
Another thing they could do is go with thorium. They don't
really want to talk about it because it cannot be bred into bomb
stuff. Also, I don't remember exactly but a thorium reactor has
cooling problems. So these pipsqueak countries, we could let
them have thorium reactors but the whole thing is more
expensive.

Using uranium and all that type of stuff they can reuse it a few
times and then just make ammo out of it. Depleted uranium rounds
are bad to the bone. They warm when deformed which makes them
able to pierce armor. And FAST. Fast enough that they still have
some kinetic energy after going through the armor. If I was a
country and had that shit I would never give it up.
...
Bottom line is if you can make fusion really work you probably
get a Nobel prize. You don't have to patent it and really you
probably shouldn't. They just pay you.

I can't recall reading any post here that showed such a profound
ignorance on so many levels at once.

I truly feel sorry for this guy.


You could have made a small effort to set a few things straight.
Just stating he's wrong in so many places isn't productive.

So, fusion reactors can't explode like hydrogen bombs. They'll
be lucky to attain any significant amount of fusion at all.
Tokamaks have no lasers. They confine a deuterium plasma using
magnetic fields. Lasers are used for Inertial Confinement Fusion.
Neither tokamak nor ICF works well enough for energy production,
up to present.

France has 19 operational pressurized water nuclear reactors,
generating about 70% of the county's electricity. They are
basically the Westinghouse design. I visited the St. Alban
reactor some years ago. That was interesting.

Depleted uranium is what's left over after the U235 has been
extracted from natural uranium in an enrichment plant, mostly
ultra-centrifuges these days. It has never been in a reactor,
so it's not particularly radioactive. It's mostly a waste product.
It's used in ammunition because it's heavy, so it improves the
penetrating power, and it burns, increasing the damage. It's also
a toxic heavy metal.

Jeroen Belleman

The CANDU reactor is designed to work on un-enriched uranium, and it
does not produce weapons grade materials without extensive enriching
after the fuel rod is spent.

It can also run on Thorium...

https://cna.ca/technology/energy/candu-technology/

No melt-downs (so far...). The safety systems can be tested when the
reactor is running full-tilt.

Heavy water is the moderator, so if the reactor overheats and boils off
the HW the reaction then reduces intensity and you are then left trying
to cool the overheated mass, rather than dealing with a melt-down. The
backup safety systems help reduce risk of leakage of radioactive steam, etc.

I thought this sounded wrong. The heavy water is the coolant for the core. Losing the coolant water destroys the reactor. Control rods are used to reduce the chain reaction. If that fails nuclear "poison" is injected, "boron as boric anhydride, and gadolinium as gadolinium nitrate"

https://interestingengineering.com/nuclear-meltdown-what-would-happen-in-the-worst-case-scenario

Nothing is perfect, but the CANDU reactor has a safety record that is
hard to beat. Releases far less radiation than burning coal (radon
released burning coal).

https://interestingengineering.com/nuclear-meltdown-what-would-happen-in-the-worst-case-scenario

These days no one worries about radiation released as part of the normal operation of a reactor. I don't know why you mention it. It's the accidents and even more importantly the fuel waste that is the problem.

> Also CANDU reactors operate more efficiently than any other...

How is that exactly? In what way are they more efficient?

--

Rick C.

-++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[whit3rd]

On Monday, July 8, 2019 at 9:52:59 AM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:

On Monday, July 8, 2019 at 12:27:35 PM UTC-4, John Robertson wrote:
On 2019/07/08 8:46 a.m., Jeroen Belleman wrote:

The CANDU reactor is designed to work on un-enriched uranium, and it
does not produce weapons grade materials without extensive enriching
after the fuel rod is spent.

It can also run on Thorium...

https://cna.ca/technology/energy/candu-technology/

No melt-downs (so far...). The safety systems can be tested when the
reactor is running full-tilt.

Heavy water is the moderator, so...

I thought this sounded wrong. The heavy water is the coolant for the core. Losing the coolant water destroys the reactor.

It is NOT wrong; heavy water may act as coolant, but it is expensive stuff, and is used as
the moderator; it IS an enhancement over a graphite core. If you lose the
heavy water, the unenriched uranium fuel doesn't make a chain reaction.

Losing the heavy water destroys the reaction, not the reactor. It might still
overheat, there's isotope decay involved, but that's a matter of fuel element
packaging design.

 

[speff]

On Saturday, 6 July 2019 19:30:13 UTC-4, John Doe wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote:

John Doe wrote:
amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/safer-nuclear-reacto
rs-
are-on-the-way/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign
=Feed% 3A+ScientificAmerican-News+%28Content%3A+News%29

There is nothing dangerous about nuclear reactors, relative to
other power producers. Responsible for ZERO deaths in the United
States. According to NASA, using nuclear power has saved
thousands of lives. It produces no carbon dioxide. It's total
waste from the beginning would fill a football field to less than
10 yards high. That's why our leaders act not very concerned
about Yucca Mountain and the like.

People who cry about the Fukushima nuclear disaster are just
weird, considering the tsunami itself killed 15,000.

Someday a huge meteor will strike the Earth, sending us
perilously out of orbit, and the freaks will scream "The nuclear
power plants are failing!"

I also find it amusing that most of the tree huggers who say CO2
emissions are going to doom us all soon are also against nuclear
power. Whatever risk there is from nuclear power, seems it should
still be far better than a global climate catastrophe. The same
folks are pretty much against everything else too. They talk
wind, but when it comes time to actually build a wind farm, that's
no good too. Offshore it will kill fish, kill birds, look ugly.
On land, NIMBY, it's ugly, it will kill birds.... Many of them
think electricity just comes out of the receptacle.

Except for the production cost and waste, solar power is a good thing.
But for those reasons and others wind is nonsensical. If global
warming is the concern, you do not want to decrease the wind flow
across the surface of the earth.

And Yes, people should be ignored when they promote electric vehicles
without promoting the most viable electricity production, nuclear
power plants.

Once again, Germany is acting like the Land of the Idiots. They are
dismantling all of their nuclear reactors. Intelligent people being so
badly misled. It will be a great lesson for the rest of the world.
What happens when it falls apart.

This is a country with a nominal (not just inflation-adjusted real) negative interest rate on their 10-year bond.

https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/?symbol=DE10Y-DE

What the heck is that about?

--Spehro Pefhany

 

[Jeroen Belleman]

On 2019-07-08 18:35, Rick C wrote:

On Monday, July 8, 2019 at 11:46:37 AM UTC-4, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
Rick C wrote:
On Monday, July 8, 2019 at 8:09:36 AM UTC-4, jurb...@gmail.com
wrote:
[Deleted...]

I can't recall reading any post here that showed such a profound
ignorance on so many levels at once.

I truly feel sorry for this guy.


You could have made a small effort to set a few things straight.
Just stating he's wrong in so many places isn't productive.

Productive in what sense? He isn't going to acknowledge anything you
wrote. He will just spew more ignorance. I don't think others here
need education about these issues. Most are willing to read and
learn.

Granted.

Why did you react at all then?

Jeroen Belleman

 

[whit3rd]

On Monday, July 8, 2019 at 7:30:09 AM UTC-7, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

On Monday, July 8, 2019 at 8:34:38 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
jurb6006@gmail.com wrote in
news:84520213-a317-4788-9fb7-c21de41b32a2@googlegroups.com:

We are not talking about radiation poisoning wrecking land and
people have to move, we are talking taking a couple of states
right off the map.

Yer an idiot.

A Hydrogen Fusion A-Bomb does that.

A Tritium fusion reactor would not be "explosive"... EVER.

I would not go that far. No one knows what design...

Yes, you CAN go that far. All the proposed fusion reactors are hard-pressed
to hold a small quantity of fuel, NONE of them employs a chain reaction
nor holds a repository of fuel to make a large burst. The tokamak-style
reactors might be made to hum, but they cannot pop.

 

[whit3rd]

On Monday, July 8, 2019 at 5:32:29 AM UTC-7, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

> Fission has radioactive waste products. Fusion, not.

Well, that's potentially true (there's an 'advanced fusion cycle' possible with
no neutrons emitted) but the usual test reactions are done with deuterium-tritium
(the easiest kind of fusion to achieve) and that DOES emit neutrons,
so makes the chamber (and environs) radioactive.

Energetic neutrons can't be contained by magnetic fields, but protons maybe can...
It takes higher pressures and temperatures, though, to use other fuels (and
some of the schemes require pure isotopes for input).

 

[John Robertson]

On 2019/07/08 9:52 a.m., Rick C wrote:

On Monday, July 8, 2019 at 12:27:35 PM UTC-4, John Robertson wrote:
On 2019/07/08 8:46 a.m., Jeroen Belleman wrote:
Rick C wrote:
On Monday, July 8, 2019 at 8:09:36 AM UTC-4, jurb...@gmail.com
wrote:
For those uninformed wiki has an article on it, it mentions the
design as being the most viable possibility for fusion reactors
to date, but the thing has been running, or at least operational
for over twenty years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokamak

I got wind of those a long time ago. Checked it out a bit. They
got tubing for the wires that make the containment field. (Star
Trek anyone ?) They don't care if the wires get hot they care if
they melt. If that happens you pretty much have an H bomb going
off.

I remember when people were afraid on nuclear, Chernobyl, Three
Mile Island all that, and that was fission. It is dangerous but
fusion is much more dangerous if it gets out of control. We are
not talking about radiation poisoning wrecking land and people
have to move, we are talking taking a couple of states right off
the map. (I hope they're California and New York, but get
Lieberman out first)
..
Another thing they could do is go with thorium. They don't
really want to talk about it because it cannot be bred into bomb
stuff. Also, I don't remember exactly but a thorium reactor has
cooling problems. So these pipsqueak countries, we could let
them have thorium reactors but the whole thing is more
expensive.

Using uranium and all that type of stuff they can reuse it a few
times and then just make ammo out of it. Depleted uranium rounds
are bad to the bone. They warm when deformed which makes them
able to pierce armor. And FAST. Fast enough that they still have
some kinetic energy after going through the armor. If I was a
country and had that shit I would never give it up.
...
Bottom line is if you can make fusion really work you probably
get a Nobel prize. You don't have to patent it and really you
probably shouldn't. They just pay you.

I can't recall reading any post here that showed such a profound
ignorance on so many levels at once.

I truly feel sorry for this guy.


You could have made a small effort to set a few things straight.
Just stating he's wrong in so many places isn't productive.

So, fusion reactors can't explode like hydrogen bombs. They'll
be lucky to attain any significant amount of fusion at all.
Tokamaks have no lasers. They confine a deuterium plasma using
magnetic fields. Lasers are used for Inertial Confinement Fusion.
Neither tokamak nor ICF works well enough for energy production,
up to present.

France has 19 operational pressurized water nuclear reactors,
generating about 70% of the county's electricity. They are
basically the Westinghouse design. I visited the St. Alban
reactor some years ago. That was interesting.

Depleted uranium is what's left over after the U235 has been
extracted from natural uranium in an enrichment plant, mostly
ultra-centrifuges these days. It has never been in a reactor,
so it's not particularly radioactive. It's mostly a waste product.
It's used in ammunition because it's heavy, so it improves the
penetrating power, and it burns, increasing the damage. It's also
a toxic heavy metal.

Jeroen Belleman

The CANDU reactor is designed to work on un-enriched uranium, and it
does not produce weapons grade materials without extensive enriching
after the fuel rod is spent.

It can also run on Thorium...

https://cna.ca/technology/energy/candu-technology/

No melt-downs (so far...). The safety systems can be tested when the
reactor is running full-tilt.

Heavy water is the moderator, so if the reactor overheats and boils off
the HW the reaction then reduces intensity and you are then left trying
to cool the overheated mass, rather than dealing with a melt-down. The
backup safety systems help reduce risk of leakage of radioactive steam, etc.

I thought this sounded wrong. The heavy water is the coolant for the core. Losing the coolant water destroys the reactor. Control rods are used to reduce the chain reaction. If that fails nuclear "poison" is injected, "boron as boric anhydride, and gadolinium as gadolinium nitrate"

https://interestingengineering.com/nuclear-meltdown-what-would-happen-in-the-worst-case-scenario

Heavy water is part of the moderator system:

https://www.thebalance.com/candu-nuclear-reactor-is-moderated-with-heavy-water-1182652

https://teachnuclear.ca/all-things-nuclear/nuclear-energy/candu-reactors/

Nothing is perfect, but the CANDU reactor has a safety record that is
hard to beat. Releases far less radiation than burning coal (radon
released burning coal).

https://interestingengineering.com/nuclear-meltdown-what-would-happen-in-the-worst-case-scenario

These days no one worries about radiation released as part of the normal operation of a reactor. I don't know why you mention it. It's the accidents and even more importantly the fuel waste that is the problem.

Also CANDU reactors operate more efficiently than any other...

How is that exactly? In what way are they more efficient?

You do not need to shut the reactor down to refuel - this can happen
while the reactor is running at full capacity. That is a savings right
there in terms of reliable power.

True, CANDUs run around 30% efficiency which is comparable to most
reactors, but are inherently safer to operate and with no containment
failures in over 50 years gives them an enviable record.

All I ask is you take a look at the CANDU system and consider it as a
viable alternative to LWR.

Last word:

http://www.xylenepower.com/CANDU%20Reactors.htm

John :-#)#

 

[George Herold]

On Monday, July 8, 2019 at 3:10:17 PM UTC-4, speff wrote:

On Saturday, 6 July 2019 19:30:13 UTC-4, John Doe wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote:

John Doe wrote:
amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/safer-nuclear-reacto
rs-
are-on-the-way/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign
=Feed% 3A+ScientificAmerican-News+%28Content%3A+News%29

There is nothing dangerous about nuclear reactors, relative to
other power producers. Responsible for ZERO deaths in the United
States. According to NASA, using nuclear power has saved
thousands of lives. It produces no carbon dioxide. It's total
waste from the beginning would fill a football field to less than
10 yards high. That's why our leaders act not very concerned
about Yucca Mountain and the like.

People who cry about the Fukushima nuclear disaster are just
weird, considering the tsunami itself killed 15,000.

Someday a huge meteor will strike the Earth, sending us
perilously out of orbit, and the freaks will scream "The nuclear
power plants are failing!"

I also find it amusing that most of the tree huggers who say CO2
emissions are going to doom us all soon are also against nuclear
power. Whatever risk there is from nuclear power, seems it should
still be far better than a global climate catastrophe. The same
folks are pretty much against everything else too. They talk
wind, but when it comes time to actually build a wind farm, that's
no good too. Offshore it will kill fish, kill birds, look ugly.
On land, NIMBY, it's ugly, it will kill birds.... Many of them
think electricity just comes out of the receptacle.

Except for the production cost and waste, solar power is a good thing.
But for those reasons and others wind is nonsensical. If global
warming is the concern, you do not want to decrease the wind flow
across the surface of the earth.

And Yes, people should be ignored when they promote electric vehicles
without promoting the most viable electricity production, nuclear
power plants.

Once again, Germany is acting like the Land of the Idiots. They are
dismantling all of their nuclear reactors. Intelligent people being so
badly misled. It will be a great lesson for the rest of the world.
What happens when it falls apart.

This is a country with a nominal (not just inflation-adjusted real) negative interest rate on their 10-year bond.

https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/?symbol=DE10Y-DE

What the heck is that about?

A coming recession?
http://www.aei.org/publication/government-bond-markets-right-fear-recession/

George H.

--Spehro Pefhany

 

[Rick C]

On Monday, July 8, 2019 at 3:11:44 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

On Monday, July 8, 2019 at 9:52:59 AM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:
On Monday, July 8, 2019 at 12:27:35 PM UTC-4, John Robertson wrote:
On 2019/07/08 8:46 a.m., Jeroen Belleman wrote:

The CANDU reactor is designed to work on un-enriched uranium, and it
does not produce weapons grade materials without extensive enriching
after the fuel rod is spent.

It can also run on Thorium...

https://cna.ca/technology/energy/candu-technology/

No melt-downs (so far...). The safety systems can be tested when the
reactor is running full-tilt.

Heavy water is the moderator, so...

I thought this sounded wrong. The heavy water is the coolant for the core. Losing the coolant water destroys the reactor.

It is NOT wrong; heavy water may act as coolant, but it is expensive stuff, and is used as
the moderator; it IS an enhancement over a graphite core. If you lose the
heavy water, the unenriched uranium fuel doesn't make a chain reaction.

Losing the heavy water destroys the reaction, not the reactor. It might still
overheat, there's isotope decay involved, but that's a matter of fuel element
packaging design.

You didn't read the citation. There are control rods within the reactor to control the reaction. But as in any reactor, once the control rods are fully inserted and the chain reaction is prevented, there is still significant amounts of radiation and heat production which requires cooling. This is true of all reactors that I am aware of. Removing the neutron moderator only stops the chain reaction. Stopping the chain reaction does not eliminate the need for cooling.

Rather than shooting from the hip, how about you do a little reading... like the link I've provided?

--

Rick C.

+-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

bitrex <user@example.net> wrote in
news:MkKUE.32602$rq.19663@fx13.iad:

On 7/8/19 8:12 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 1:30:13 AM UTC+2, John Doe wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote:

John Doe wrote:
amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/safer-nuclear-reac
to rs-
are-on-the-way/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campa
ign =Feed% 3A+ScientificAmerican-News+%28Content%3A+News%29

There is nothing dangerous about nuclear reactors, relative to
other power producers. Responsible for ZERO deaths in the
United States. According to NASA, using nuclear power has
saved thousands of lives. It produces no carbon dioxide. It's
total waste from the beginning would fill a football field to
less than 10 yards high. That's why our leaders act not very
concerned about Yucca Mountain and the like.

People who cry about the Fukushima nuclear disaster are just
weird, considering the tsunami itself killed 15,000.

Someday a huge meteor will strike the Earth, sending us
perilously out of orbit, and the freaks will scream "The
nuclear power plants are failing!"

I also find it amusing that most of the tree huggers who say
CO2 emissions are going to doom us all soon are also against
nuclear power. Whatever risk there is from nuclear power,
seems it should still be far better than a global climate
catastrophe. The same folks are pretty much against everything
else too. They talk wind, but when it comes time to actually
build a wind farm, that's no good too. Offshore it will kill
fish, kill birds, look ugly. On land, NIMBY, it's ugly, it will
kill birds.... Many of them think electricity just comes out of
the receptacle.

Except for the production cost and waste, solar power is a good
thing.

John Doe doesn't seem to have access to up-to-date information.

Solar cells now produce power more cheaply than anything than
hydroelectric plants in favoured locations (pretty much all of
which have been exploited for the last century). Where's the
waste?

But for those reasons and others wind is nonsensical.

Wind is equally practical. Both solar and wind power are
intermittent, and you need power storage if you want them to be
your main source of power, but that too is practical.

If global warming is the concern, you do not want to decrease
the wind flow across the surface of the earth.

Why? More of the heat moves from the equator to the poles in
ocean currents, and windmills aren't going to slow the
air-circulation enough to have a perceptible effect.

And Yes, people should be ignored when they promote electric
vehicles without promoting the most viable electricity
production, nuclear power plants.

John Doe's idea of what is "viable" is about as reliable as the
rest of his output.

Once again, Germany is acting like the Land of the Idiots. They
are dismantling all of their nuclear reactors. Intelligent
people being so badly misled. It will be a great lesson for the
rest of the world. What happens when it falls apart.

They didn't have many nuclear reactors, and those that they had
are being retired early. It was a political choice aimed at
keeping the less intelligent voters happy. The US makes it's own
politically motivated idiotic choices - look at the health care
system - and is at considerably greater risk of falling apart
that Germany - and this was true even before Trump got to be
president.


Germany's few remaining reactors are all pushing 40 years old now
so there may be lifespan issues to consider as well. The
containment structures and closed-loop cooling portion of the
plumbing degrade with time and exposure to neutron radiation and
become brittle, you can't just run them forever. The cost to
repair or replace degraded portions is probably enormous.

Won't see ANY "PTFE" parts or "Teflon" sheathed wiring in a nuclear
reactor containment zone.

No chem attack, but the radiation literally turns Teflon to a
powder. It is decidedly bad when a group of wires decide to form a
single node and creat an entirely new circuit called "A SHORT".

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:8326bb14-d781-462a-b0c1-dff7647e0f17@googlegroups.com:

Technically it's not weight, it's density that is useful in
projectiles.

Copper isn't so dense, but move it fast and plasma-tize it and it
penetrates a LOT of ordinarily hard and dense materials.

Du has similar heat up and slice through capacity. It does not
need to be a plasma, but still penetrates very hot. Probably cheaper
than copper at that level too.

Copper like explosive force to render it into a plasma. A shaped
charge at the tip of an RPG for example.

DU likely is a boattail shaped projectile that merely enjoys the
velocity that dense an object is sent downrange at. It punches
through armor and spatters once inside

 

[Rick C]

On Monday, July 8, 2019 at 4:10:27 PM UTC-4, John Robertson wrote:

On 2019/07/08 9:52 a.m., Rick C wrote:
On Monday, July 8, 2019 at 12:27:35 PM UTC-4, John Robertson wrote:
On 2019/07/08 8:46 a.m., Jeroen Belleman wrote:
Rick C wrote:
On Monday, July 8, 2019 at 8:09:36 AM UTC-4, jurb...@gmail.com
wrote:
For those uninformed wiki has an article on it, it mentions the
design as being the most viable possibility for fusion reactors
to date, but the thing has been running, or at least operational
for over twenty years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokamak

I got wind of those a long time ago. Checked it out a bit. They
got tubing for the wires that make the containment field. (Star
Trek anyone ?) They don't care if the wires get hot they care if
they melt. If that happens you pretty much have an H bomb going
off.

I remember when people were afraid on nuclear, Chernobyl, Three
Mile Island all that, and that was fission. It is dangerous but
fusion is much more dangerous if it gets out of control. We are
not talking about radiation poisoning wrecking land and people
have to move, we are talking taking a couple of states right off
the map. (I hope they're California and New York, but get
Lieberman out first)
..
Another thing they could do is go with thorium. They don't
really want to talk about it because it cannot be bred into bomb
stuff. Also, I don't remember exactly but a thorium reactor has
cooling problems. So these pipsqueak countries, we could let
them have thorium reactors but the whole thing is more
expensive.

Using uranium and all that type of stuff they can reuse it a few
times and then just make ammo out of it. Depleted uranium rounds
are bad to the bone. They warm when deformed which makes them
able to pierce armor. And FAST. Fast enough that they still have
some kinetic energy after going through the armor. If I was a
country and had that shit I would never give it up.
...
Bottom line is if you can make fusion really work you probably
get a Nobel prize. You don't have to patent it and really you
probably shouldn't. They just pay you.

I can't recall reading any post here that showed such a profound
ignorance on so many levels at once.

I truly feel sorry for this guy.


You could have made a small effort to set a few things straight.
Just stating he's wrong in so many places isn't productive.

So, fusion reactors can't explode like hydrogen bombs. They'll
be lucky to attain any significant amount of fusion at all.
Tokamaks have no lasers. They confine a deuterium plasma using
magnetic fields. Lasers are used for Inertial Confinement Fusion.
Neither tokamak nor ICF works well enough for energy production,
up to present.

France has 19 operational pressurized water nuclear reactors,
generating about 70% of the county's electricity. They are
basically the Westinghouse design. I visited the St. Alban
reactor some years ago. That was interesting.

Depleted uranium is what's left over after the U235 has been
extracted from natural uranium in an enrichment plant, mostly
ultra-centrifuges these days. It has never been in a reactor,
so it's not particularly radioactive. It's mostly a waste product.
It's used in ammunition because it's heavy, so it improves the
penetrating power, and it burns, increasing the damage. It's also
a toxic heavy metal.

Jeroen Belleman

The CANDU reactor is designed to work on un-enriched uranium, and it
does not produce weapons grade materials without extensive enriching
after the fuel rod is spent.

It can also run on Thorium...

https://cna.ca/technology/energy/candu-technology/

No melt-downs (so far...). The safety systems can be tested when the
reactor is running full-tilt.

Heavy water is the moderator, so if the reactor overheats and boils off
the HW the reaction then reduces intensity and you are then left trying
to cool the overheated mass, rather than dealing with a melt-down. The
backup safety systems help reduce risk of leakage of radioactive steam, etc.

I thought this sounded wrong. The heavy water is the coolant for the core. Losing the coolant water destroys the reactor. Control rods are used to reduce the chain reaction. If that fails nuclear "poison" is injected, "boron as boric anhydride, and gadolinium as gadolinium nitrate"

https://interestingengineering.com/nuclear-meltdown-what-would-happen-in-the-worst-case-scenario

Heavy water is part of the moderator system:

https://www.thebalance.com/candu-nuclear-reactor-is-moderated-with-heavy-water-1182652

https://teachnuclear.ca/all-things-nuclear/nuclear-energy/candu-reactors/

Irrelevant. It is not in any way part of the safety system to prevent a meltdown. Losing the heavy water may eliminate a chain reaction in the fuel, but it does not eliminate the need for cooling. Since the heavy water *is* the coolant, that would be a very bad thing.

Nothing is perfect, but the CANDU reactor has a safety record that is
hard to beat. Releases far less radiation than burning coal (radon
released burning coal).

https://interestingengineering.com/nuclear-meltdown-what-would-happen-in-the-worst-case-scenario

These days no one worries about radiation released as part of the normal operation of a reactor. I don't know why you mention it. It's the accidents and even more importantly the fuel waste that is the problem.

Also CANDU reactors operate more efficiently than any other...

How is that exactly? In what way are they more efficient?

You do not need to shut the reactor down to refuel - this can happen
while the reactor is running at full capacity. That is a savings right
there in terms of reliable power.

True, CANDUs run around 30% efficiency which is comparable to most
reactors, but are inherently safer to operate and with no containment
failures in over 50 years gives them an enviable record.

All I ask is you take a look at the CANDU system and consider it as a
viable alternative to LWR.

Last word:

http://www.xylenepower.com/CANDU%20Reactors.htm

I will if you get your facts straight. Show me one reference that indicates a loss of the coolant in a CANDU reactor will not destroy the reactor and will prevent a meltdown.

--

Rick C.

+-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:40962275-4dc0-45f2-b579-bd4421600239@googlegroups.com:

On Monday, July 8, 2019 at 6:22:34 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:e55e20db-06ca- 4ec6-95dc-230d6c3b4634@googlegroups.com:

This is true of all reactors that I am aware of.

Fission reactors.

No "control rods" in a fusion reactor.

I'm not sure how you know that.

Obviously. If you knew how a fusion reactor works, you would not
have mde such a stupid remark.

> There are no fusion reactors.

Sure there are. Just not any feeding a grid yet.

Regardless, they will not be "fed" in any way like a fission
reactor is.

MAYBE you get it now. Or MAYBE you need to look it up or simply
use some common sense.

 

DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote in
news:qg0fve$s30$1@gioia.aioe.org:

Maybe you should read more thoroughly.

Quoted within ten seconds of hitting the page...

6. Inherent safety. If there is a significant loss of heavy water
the fission reactions stop because the reactor becomes
subcritical. However, some pressure tube water flow must be
maintained to remove fission product decay heat.

It does not say if damage or destruction occurs.

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:738896d8-37ab-4cf3-a1b7-12cddab88b0d@googlegroups.com:

On Monday, July 8, 2019 at 4:10:27 PM UTC-4, John Robertson wrote:
On 2019/07/08 9:52 a.m., Rick C wrote:
On Monday, July 8, 2019 at 12:27:35 PM UTC-4, John Robertson
wrote:
On 2019/07/08 8:46 a.m., Jeroen Belleman wrote:
Rick C wrote:
On Monday, July 8, 2019 at 8:09:36 AM UTC-4,
jurb...@gmail.com wrote:
For those uninformed wiki has an article on it, it mentions
the design as being the most viable possibility for fusion
reactors to date, but the thing has been running, or at
least operational for over twenty years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokamak

I got wind of those a long time ago. Checked it out a bit.
They got tubing for the wires that make the containment
field. (Star Trek anyone ?) They don't care if the wires
get hot they care if they melt. If that happens you pretty
much have an H bomb going off.

I remember when people were afraid on nuclear, Chernobyl,
Three Mile Island all that, and that was fission. It is
dangerous but fusion is much more dangerous if it gets out
of control. We are not talking about radiation poisoning
wrecking land and people have to move, we are talking
taking a couple of states right off the map. (I hope
they're California and New York, but get Lieberman out
first) ..
Another thing they could do is go with thorium. They don't
really want to talk about it because it cannot be bred into
bomb stuff. Also, I don't remember exactly but a thorium
reactor has cooling problems. So these pipsqueak countries,
we could let them have thorium reactors but the whole thing
is more expensive.

Using uranium and all that type of stuff they can reuse it
a few times and then just make ammo out of it. Depleted
uranium rounds are bad to the bone. They warm when deformed
which makes them able to pierce armor. And FAST. Fast
enough that they still have some kinetic energy after going
through the armor. If I was a country and had that shit I
would never give it up.
...
Bottom line is if you can make fusion really work you
probably get a Nobel prize. You don't have to patent it and
really you probably shouldn't. They just pay you.

I can't recall reading any post here that showed such a
profound ignorance on so many levels at once.

I truly feel sorry for this guy.


You could have made a small effort to set a few things
straight. Just stating he's wrong in so many places isn't
productive.

So, fusion reactors can't explode like hydrogen bombs.
They'll be lucky to attain any significant amount of fusion
at all. Tokamaks have no lasers. They confine a deuterium
plasma using magnetic fields. Lasers are used for Inertial
Confinement Fusion. Neither tokamak nor ICF works well enough
for energy production, up to present.

France has 19 operational pressurized water nuclear reactors,
generating about 70% of the county's electricity. They are
basically the Westinghouse design. I visited the St. Alban
reactor some years ago. That was interesting.

Depleted uranium is what's left over after the U235 has been
extracted from natural uranium in an enrichment plant, mostly
ultra-centrifuges these days. It has never been in a reactor,
so it's not particularly radioactive. It's mostly a waste
product. It's used in ammunition because it's heavy, so it
improves the penetrating power, and it burns, increasing the
damage. It's also a toxic heavy metal.

Jeroen Belleman

The CANDU reactor is designed to work on un-enriched uranium,
and it does not produce weapons grade materials without
extensive enriching after the fuel rod is spent.

It can also run on Thorium...

https://cna.ca/technology/energy/candu-technology/

No melt-downs (so far...). The safety systems can be tested
when the reactor is running full-tilt.

Heavy water is the moderator, so if the reactor overheats and
boils of
f
the HW the reaction then reduces intensity and you are then
left tryin
g
to cool the overheated mass, rather than dealing with a
melt-down. The backup safety systems help reduce risk of
leakage of radioactive steam
, etc.

I thought this sounded wrong. The heavy water is the coolant
for the c
ore. Losing the coolant water destroys the reactor. Control rods
are used to reduce the chain reaction. If that fails nuclear
"poison" is injected, "boron as boric anhydride, and gadolinium as
gadolinium nitrate"

https://interestingengineering.com/nuclear-meltdown-what-would-h
appen-i
n-the-worst-case-scenario

Heavy water is part of the moderator system:

https://www.thebalance.com/candu-nuclear-reactor-is-moderated-with
-heavy-
water-1182652

https://teachnuclear.ca/all-things-nuclear/nuclear-energy/candu-re
actors/

Irrelevant. It is not in any way part of the safety system to
prevent a meltdown. Losing the heavy water may eliminate a chain
reaction in the fuel, but it does not eliminate the need for
cooling. Since the heavy water *is* the coolant, that would be a
very bad thing.


Nothing is perfect, but the CANDU reactor has a safety record
that is hard to beat. Releases far less radiation than burning
coal (radon released burning coal).

https://interestingengineering.com/nuclear-meltdown-what-would-
happen-
in-the-worst-case-scenario

These days no one worries about radiation released as part of
the norma
l operation of a reactor. I don't know why you mention it. It's
the accidents and even more importantly the fuel waste that is the
problem.

Also CANDU reactors operate more efficiently than any other...

How is that exactly? In what way are they more efficient?

You do not need to shut the reactor down to refuel - this can
happen while the reactor is running at full capacity. That is a
savings right there in terms of reliable power.

True, CANDUs run around 30% efficiency which is comparable to
most reactors, but are inherently safer to operate and with no
containment failures in over 50 years gives them an enviable
record.

All I ask is you take a look at the CANDU system and consider it
as a viable alternative to LWR.

Last word:

http://www.xylenepower.com/CANDU%20Reactors.htm

I will if you get your facts straight. Show me one reference that
indicates a loss of the coolant in a CANDU reactor will not
destroy the reactor and will prevent a meltdown.

Maybe you should read more thoroughly.

Quoted within ten seconds of hitting the page...

6. Inherent safety. If there is a significant loss of heavy water the
fission reactions stop because the reactor becomes subcritical.
However, some pressure tube water flow must be maintained to remove
fission product decay heat.