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.