Question for Fermi
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 PMN1 |
Question for Fermi |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 3415 (31-Mar-2008 14:05:41) |
|
||
|
emc |
|||
|
Posts: 3617 (31-Mar-2008 18:46:23) |
I'm not (as both Fermi2 and I are thankful for each day 8-) ) Fermi2. I will say that the engineering is highly non-trivial, as is the required level of
regulation. I, for one, wouldn't trust a company that puts a drunk in charge of a supertanker to safely operate a rowboat, let alone a ship with a nuclear
reactor, without quite literally putting guns to the heads of senior executives.
Last Edited By: emc
31-Mar-2008 22:42:46.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
seasick |
|||
|
Posts: 4540 (31-Mar-2008 20:16:51) |
I, for one, wouldn't trust a company that puts a drunk in charge of a supertanker to safely operate a rowboat, let alone a ship with a nuclear reactor, without quite literally putting guns to the heads of senior executives. I second that.
Nicotine: America's number one mind altering chemical.
|
||
|
Fermi2 |
Obviously | ||
|
Posts: 3246 ( 2-Apr-2008 23:45:36) |
No one involved in that trash is a Nuclear Engineer.
Mike |
||
|
cyborg7579 |
looked at before | ||
|
Posts: 157 ( 4-Apr-2008 05:09:45) |
I believe that this concept was looked at in naval reactors already. Killed due to the overwhelming engineering and saftey concerns. Also why you do not see
sodium cooled reactors any more.
|
||
|
emc |
|||
|
Posts: 3625 ( 4-Apr-2008 05:28:09) |
cyborg7579 wrote: ...actually, I believe that the French have a working fast breeder, which is sodium cooled. Arguably, on theoretical grounds, gas-cooled reactors (like
the Fort St Vrain plant, which has been decommissioned after a not-terribly successful few years of operation) are safer than water cooled units, because of
their very long thermal time constants and construction makes them less vulnerable to loss of coolant accidents.
|
||
|
Fermi2 |
Yes | ||
|
Posts: 3248 ( 4-Apr-2008 16:29:58) |
But no Gas Reactor to date has been able to have a successful circulator seal. The Brits haven't accomplished it and they have the most experience of
anyone with GCR. My exerience with gasses are if there is any place where they can eak they'll find the hole.
Aso, you cannot very well have a bunch of Helium or CO2 on a submarine. Despite all these pipe dream reactors these fools believe in you'll never see the USN go away from a Light Water PWR. The reason s it's simple to operate, very robust and easy to maintain. There are plenty of Liquid Metal Reactors around the world, but no successful ones. In Naval Nuclear Power School the Reactor Principles Text has three very interesting chapters on ther types of reactors the USN considered, their control systems and why that particular type of reactor was not chosen. They don't teach these chapters because it is beyond the scope of the course but I read them in my spare time. It was interesting reading. Mike
Last Edited By: Fermi2
4-Apr-2008 16:33:32.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
emc |
|||
|
Posts: 3628 ( 4-Apr-2008 18:23:39) |
I suspect that the likely volume of a gas-cooled reactor would make it impractical for maritime (naval or merchant) service, and the advantages of liquid-metal
cooling are not sufficient for any type of moderated reactor. From my brief reading of the history of the Fort St. Vrain plant, it seems that the main
problems were sealing issues, with both static (heat exchanger) and dynamic (shaft) seals giving trouble.
Of course, for fast breeders, water cooling isn't an option. |
||
|
Scott Brim |
Off-Topic: Mike's latest assessment of the nuclear revival | ||
|
Posts: 841 ( 6-Apr-2008 01:55:05) |
Mike, in late February, I attended an American Nuclear Society meeting in Augusta, GA, which featured a talk by Dr. Thomas Sanders who is in charge of the
Global Nuclear Futures program at Sandia Laboratories. His opinion is that the future of commercial nuclear power lies in smaller 200 and 300 megawatt plants
that can be plunked down wherever they are needed. He is not saying that the larger 1100 and 1300 mw plants won't be built at all, he is saying that
placing more but smaller plants closer to the source of consumption makes much better sense from the standpoint of putting less stress on the power
distribution infrastructure. Anyway, I'm curious what your thoughts are concerning Dr. Sander's opinions.
|
||
|
Fermi2 |
Obviously | ||
|
Posts: 3255 ( 6-Apr-2008 02:43:09) |
Dr Sanders has no idea about the economics of Nuclear Power. It costs the same to operate a 300 MW plant as it does to operate a 1300 MWE Plant. Both require
the same maintenance, roughly the same operations staff and the larger plant has the advantage of economics of scale. He OUGHT to check the ANS Weekly
Nucleonics Weekly and he'd see the best producers are the big plants. Given you cannot place a reactor near a big city regardless of reactor size it's
not conceivable to place small reactors near big cities He's a moron.
Mik |
||
|
emc |
|||
|
Posts: 3633 ( 6-Apr-2008 05:25:39) |
Fermi2 wrote: And your PhD was earned in what? Ad hominem argument? Whining? Try not to be so f***ing insulting to everybody who disagrees with you. MBA's may be
gotten by morons, but far fewer people can earn a PhD in engineering than can earn dolphins or nuclear reactor operator licenses.
Last Edited By: emc
6-Apr-2008 05:27:52.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
- Battleship Vs Battleship
- Should Battleships Be Back In Service?
- The United States Navy
- The Royal Navy
- The European Navies
- The Commonwealth Navies
- The Asian Navies
- Aircraft Carriers
- Fighting Ships Of The World
- Submarines
- Designing A Navy/Ship
- The Land Forces
- The Air Forces
- The Naval Fiction Board
- The Politics Of War
- Naval Help
