Log in
Register
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
News
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Features
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to thread
Home
Forums
Off Topic
The Basement
Attempting to bring clarity to the nuclear problems facing Japan
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Phil Graham" data-source="post: 24184" data-attributes="member: 430"><p>Re: Attempting to bring clarity to the nuclear problems facing Japan</p><p></p><p></p><p> </p><p>Rob, I think that's exactly right.</p><p></p><p>The Manhattan Project scaled (literal) lab bench tests to full giant factories in a time frame likely never to be duplicated. To go from miligrams to tonnes of anything in the space of months is a beyond amazing achievement.</p><p></p><p>I think after the war, and the bravado, wore off, people realized what a big genie was stuffed in this bottle.</p><p></p><p>TMI caused wholesale changes to facilities that were being built, as they were being built. US nuke operators, generally, have done a serviceable job since TMI. And they do better every year. The fraction of power generated by the nuke plants creeps up every year, even though new facilities are not being built. They are simply learning to run what they have better.</p><p></p><p>I think the NRC move towards streamlining reflects the idea that they know the paperwork is an added cost factor that would be better spent on safety design.</p><p></p><p>Clearly Japan is going to cause them to do a thorough re-evaluation of a lot of things with the current class of plants. Realistically I can see the following changes made for existing plants.</p><p></p><p>1. Aggressive movement of SNF to dry casket storage at an appreciable distance from the reactors.</p><p></p><p>2. Re-visiting SNF fuel pond locations in reactors where they are close to the reaction containment vessel.</p><p></p><p>3. Decomissioning of the old reactors (e.g. GE BWR Mark 1)</p><p></p><p>4. Uprating and hardening of on-site power to deal with residual core heat from fission products.</p><p></p><p>5. A thorough evaluation of "weakest link" points as the primary concerns</p><p></p><p>6. Require better hydrogen suppression in the older facilities, to prevent explosions.</p><p></p><p>I look forward to reading the commentary from the NRC on the small reactors that are starting to knock on their door. I think when they make it through the approval process they will be really exceptionally well vetted, even by existing standards.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Phil Graham, post: 24184, member: 430"] Re: Attempting to bring clarity to the nuclear problems facing Japan Rob, I think that's exactly right. The Manhattan Project scaled (literal) lab bench tests to full giant factories in a time frame likely never to be duplicated. To go from miligrams to tonnes of anything in the space of months is a beyond amazing achievement. I think after the war, and the bravado, wore off, people realized what a big genie was stuffed in this bottle. TMI caused wholesale changes to facilities that were being built, as they were being built. US nuke operators, generally, have done a serviceable job since TMI. And they do better every year. The fraction of power generated by the nuke plants creeps up every year, even though new facilities are not being built. They are simply learning to run what they have better. I think the NRC move towards streamlining reflects the idea that they know the paperwork is an added cost factor that would be better spent on safety design. Clearly Japan is going to cause them to do a thorough re-evaluation of a lot of things with the current class of plants. Realistically I can see the following changes made for existing plants. 1. Aggressive movement of SNF to dry casket storage at an appreciable distance from the reactors. 2. Re-visiting SNF fuel pond locations in reactors where they are close to the reaction containment vessel. 3. Decomissioning of the old reactors (e.g. GE BWR Mark 1) 4. Uprating and hardening of on-site power to deal with residual core heat from fission products. 5. A thorough evaluation of "weakest link" points as the primary concerns 6. Require better hydrogen suppression in the older facilities, to prevent explosions. I look forward to reading the commentary from the NRC on the small reactors that are starting to knock on their door. I think when they make it through the approval process they will be really exceptionally well vetted, even by existing standards. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Off Topic
The Basement
Attempting to bring clarity to the nuclear problems facing Japan
Top
Bottom
Sign-up
or
log in
to join the discussion today!