Nuclear anyone?

[lilranch2001]

It’s been nearly 50 years since I was close, and honestly I do not remember a security area, but I am sure that it has tightened up considerably since 9/11.

One of these days I should take a drive up and revisit it. I know my daughter was a toddler then, and now she is nigh on an old lady!!!

 

[oldnslo]

Looking out my picture window I see the Byron nuke plant towers. They have been threatening to close that plant for past several years.

Biggest problem with Nuke is what do you do with the spent rods. Toured the plant around 25 - 30 years ago with friend of mine that worked there and that time they could use approx 10% of the rod before reaction became uncontrollable so the spent rods are potentially more volatile than the new ones.

 

[lilranch2001]

Looking out my picture window I see the Byron nuke plant towers. They have been threatening to close that plant for past several years.

Biggest problem with Nuke is what do you do with the spent rods. Toured the plant around 25 - 30 years ago with friend of mine that worked there and that time they could use approx 10% of the rod before reaction became uncontrollable so the spent rods are potentially more volatile than the new ones.

I wish I knew more about the science of nuclear

 

[oldnslo]

Short simple answer it creates heat, lots and lots of heat. I also do not understand the whole fusion process.

 

[lilranch2001]

Short simple answer it creates heat, lots and lots of heat. I also do not understand the whole fusion process.

Yea, that much I do know, but like you said up to 10% of the rod, and then the rod gets more volatile really makes no sense to me, but I’m sure there is a scientific formula that tells us that!

But at 71 years old I doubt that I’m going to figure out how to solve the issue!

 

[oldnslo]

From what I recall as the fusion process starts depleting the rods the fusion process increases in intensity to the point it becomes uncontrollable. Like you at my age doubt will solve that issue either.

Side note: it was amusing that while touring the visitor center they lost power. Now if you are at a nuke plant and the lights go out would you be a little concerned???

Explanation was the power to that facility came from outside the plant.

 

[KennyG]

Looking out my picture window I see the Byron nuke plant towers. They have been threatening to close that plant for past several years.

Biggest problem with Nuke is what do you do with the spent rods. Toured the plant around 25 - 30 years ago with friend of mine that worked there and that time they could use approx 10% of the rod before reaction became uncontrollable so the spent rods are potentially more volatile than the new ones.

That's not really correct. The U-235 content has to be increased above the level in natural uranium in order to maintain a chain reaction. When the U-235 is used up to a certain level, the chain reaction can't be maintained and you can no longer get up to the design power level. Although it would be possible to stack spent rods in a way to go critical, the real danger in spent fuel is just from the high level of radiation from the various fission products and the decay heat they give off. It would be a lot harder to make used fuel go critical than new fuel. Depending on the operation during a fuel cycle, a reactor will often be unable to develop full power at the end of the cycle.

US reactors use fuel enriched to about 5% U-235. When the rods are "used up" they are about 1% U-235 plus a bunch of fission products. Canadian reactors use natural (unenriched) Uranium and are continuously refueled while operating. Navy reactors (submarines and aircraft carriers) use 90% enriched Uranium so they can go 30 years or so between refueling.

 

[lilranch2001]

That's not really correct. The U-235 content has to be increased above the level in natural uranium in order to maintain a chain reaction. When the U-235 is used up to a certain level, the chain reaction can't be maintained and you can no longer get up to the design power level. Although it would be possible to stack spent rods in a way to go critical, the real danger in spent fuel is just from the high level of radiation from the various fission products and the decay heat they give off. It would be a lot harder to make used fuel go critical than new fuel. Depending on the operation during a fuel cycle, a reactor will often be unable to develop full power at the end of the cycle.

US reactors use fuel enriched to about 5% U-235. When the rods are "used up" they are about 1% U-235 plus a bunch of fission products. Canadian reactors use natural (unenriched) Uranium and are continuously refueled while operating. Navy reactors (submarines and aircraft carriers) use 90% enriched Uranium so they can go 30 years or so between refueling.

I hope you are not “spilling” national secrets!

 

[DarkBlack]

From what I recall as the fusion process starts depleting the rods the fusion process increases in intensity to the point it becomes uncontrollable. Like you at my age doubt will solve that issue either.

Side note: it was amusing that while touring the visitor center they lost power. Now if you are at a nuke plant and the lights go out would you be a little concerned???

Explanation was the power to that facility came from outside the plant.

I think you mean to say fission
Fusion is the process the sun undergoes

 

[kirkawilson]

Pretty good video on nuclear power.

 

[lilranch2001]

Pretty good video on nuclear power.

I guess I knew most of that, (forgot it also) but as complicated as nuclear is, there has to be a billion more things about it than that…..

 

[dfkrug]

Power from fusion (combining heavy hydrogen atoms to produce heat) has been "almost there" for many decades. Power from fission (splitting large atoms like Uranium to produce heat) is a lot easier, and can be done very safely. Storage of spent fuel on-site of land-based reactors has not really been a problem since volumes are so low. Shipping it all by trucks to Nevada will probably never happen.

We even had a small test fission reactor at Michigan State where I studied physics and electrical engineering back in the 70s.

 

[ponytug]

Power from fusion (combining heavy hydrogen atoms to produce heat) has been "almost there" for many decades. Power from fission (splitting large atoms like Uranium to produce heat) is a lot easier, and can be done very safely. Storage of spent fuel on-site of land-based reactors has not really been a problem since volumes are so low. Shipping it all by trucks to Nevada will probably never happen.

We even had a small test fission reactor at Michigan State where I studied physics and electrical engineering back in the 70s.

Did you ever check out KMSfusion? Ann Arbor? Dexter? I forget. Kevin (Keve?) M. Segal did a bunch of work there and got fusion to energy break even around '76 (IIRC...) with his design and then had a heart attack and died, and the company did not last much longer. The optical group over in Dexter lived on making fusion laser mirror components for a long time, but I'm sure that they have been acquired long ago.

It sure was a much simpler and more economical fusion system than what has followed.

All the best,

Peter

 

[MossRoad]

Powerplant discharges are good for fishing because the water is warmer.

Every summer some clueless hikers wander into the clearly marked security area at Cook. They get an armed escort off site. The surveillance is pretty effective.

My wife and I took a hike at Grand Mere State Park and walked over the dunes and down the beach to the Cook Plant border. There are many large posts sticking out into the water about every 4 feet. I'm guessing to keep land vehicles out. There were large species of cormorants, one sitting on every post. Nice hike, but soft sand is hard on your calves by the end of the day.

 

[Sigarms]

I'm fairly certain Nuclear power is safe. That said, being in high school and about an hour or so away from 3 mile Island when they had an accident, don't blame me if I'm not a huge fan of it

 

[Yander]

I'm fairly certain Nuclear power is safe. That said, being in high school and about an hour or so away from 3 mile Island when they had an accident, don't blame me if I'm not a huge fan of it

Yep, just like it is hard to take the racism out of people who experienced it in their home or neighborhood as a kid.

Not impossible though.

 

[Rockbadchild]

The reality is people feel safe living down stream from a hydro dam when they are more suspectable to ''blow up'' then a nuclear reactor. There was 60 people that died in Chernobyl out of 350,000 people... how many people would die if lets say the hoover dam let go ? ... We are in a way programmed since the cold war to be scared of nuclear, from cartoons to Hollywood movies. Ninja turtles, Simpsons, Godzilla the list goes on and on when in reality they are over 400 of them operating in the world today with only two historical catastrophic failures Chernobyl and Fukushima. One can argue they where both cause by negligence's one was the first generation the second was in a high seismicity prone area. But again they are fine but not in my back yard that what 99% of people would say and don't give me with me wrong that's me included but with this mentality it is very hard to get any of them built.

List of films about nuclear issues - Wikipedia

 

[Sigarms]

Yep, just like it is hard to take the racism out of people who experienced it in their home or neighborhood as a kid.

Not impossible though.

The question becomes exactly how many natural resources of energy we have and when will those reources run out? Overall, not a fan of dams for hydro power (added all one has to do is look to the west for issues with water issues and water rights which is a topic unto itself).

I'm not a tree hugger by any means, but the issue of energy does need to be looked at.

As much as I distrust the government, don't hold it agasint me if I have the same distrust with "power" companies.

Thing is, and don't ask me why (perhaps due to my own ignorance) I'm not a fan of electric vehicles and don't think I ever will be.

 

[workinonit]

I do voltage regulator work on large generators and have worked in most of the nukes in the US and Spain in the past. There is no better or safer source for power. The biggest problem with them is load control. They don't perform very well at partial power so they are not good for control on the grid. But they make awesome base load units. If they keep closing nukes we are going to be in a place we can't recover from. Thank goodness some of the utilities refused to close their nuke sites. But most of the single unit sites in the US have already closed. DC Cook and River Bend in Baton Rouge are 2 that have survived.

 

[workinonit]

I really don't think we have the intelligence to build new reactors in the US anymore. The NRC is over the top with idiots and I really don't know if they would ever manage to get one built. They built 5 nuclear reactors in less than 5 years at Savannah River Plant back in 1951. It would take them a century to do that now.