[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

You could also use coal.

The local radiation emitted by natural Carbon 14 from coal plants is greater than most Nuclear facilities are permitted.

[hurley_108]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

You could also use coal.

And expose people to as much or more radiation than a nuclear plant does.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

hurley_108 hurley_108:

To my thinking, the tritium wouldn't be that much of a threat. It's still hydrogen, so it'll float up and either escape earth's gravity or live in the upper atmosphere.

Also, the long half life means fewer decays per second than something with a short half life, like iodine-131 which was one of the big problems from Chernobyl, which has a half life of 8 days. Good for being mostly gone soon, but atom-for-atom more radioactive. Also looks like the betas emitted by tritium have a mean energy of 19keV, while those from I-131 have 190keV.

All of which just means that the CANDUs are that much safer.

Or that I'm full of crap.

Quite correct. (you are not full of crap) Tritium gives off Beta radiation, which won't penetrate skin. But just the word 'radiation' scares irrational people. Tell them that their TV emits photon radiation, and I've seen some panic.

In total, in 50 years of nuclear power, something like 500 pounds of Tritium has been produced, but it's mixed into millions of tons of water. I saw one Greenpeacer on the news yesterday saying that 'cumulative radiation' is what kills residents, in regards to the demineralized (non radioactive) water spilled from the Bruce Power plant in Ontairo yesterday. It's those guys that self inflict many woes on the nuclear industry.

It was Pickering, and over the course of a year one would have to drink something like 20,000-30,000 litres of water contaminated with tritium to the maximum Health Canada guideline in order to receive an additional dose of radiation equal to what a person gets annually from normal background radiation.
In other words from an environmental perspective, Ontario's heavy water plants are just about the safest NPPs in the world.

[Bruce_the_vii]

I asked AECL about the breeding ratio of the ARC-1000 (?) and the pamphlet they sent me says it'd already be a near breeder. The smaller CANDU's bread 50% of their fuel or something and a plutonium/thorium ARC-1000 would be much higher. The CANDU has a lot of potential.

There have been a couple of commercial sized breeder reactors. They have a denser neutron flux and have to be cooled with liquid sodium. There's a French one and an American one. I believe they were shut down decades ago. Heavy water is probably the way to go.

[DrCaleb]

Bruce_the_vii Bruce_the_vii:

I asked AECL about the breeding ratio of the ARC-1000 (?) and the pamphlet they sent me says it'd already be a near breeder. The smaller CANDU's bread 50% of their fuel or something and a plutonium/thorium ARC-1000 would be much higher. The CANDU has a lot of potential.

There have been a couple of commercial sized breeder reactors. They have a denser neutron flux and have to be cooled with liquid sodium. There's a French one and an American one. I believe they were shut down decades ago. Heavy water is probably the way to go.

Yea, heavy water spills can be cleaned with a mop. Liquid Sodium, not so much.

[martin14]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Bruce_the_vii Bruce_the_vii:

I asked AECL about the breeding ratio of the ARC-1000 (?) and the pamphlet they sent me says it'd already be a near breeder. The smaller CANDU's bread 50% of their fuel or something and a plutonium/thorium ARC-1000 would be much higher. The CANDU has a lot of potential.

There have been a couple of commercial sized breeder reactors. They have a denser neutron flux and have to be cooled with liquid sodium. There's a French one and an American one. I believe they were shut down decades ago. Heavy water is probably the way to go.

Yea, heavy water spills can be cleaned with a mop. Liquid Sodium, not so much.

Liquid Sodium needs potatoes for proper absorption, preferably with a sour cream and bacon backup.

[Proculation]

I knew this site since some time but only read some of the articles: http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/

It talks about CANDU reactors and nuclear energy in general.

I may be fool, but I learned that a nuclear reactor CANNOT explode like a nuclear bomb (or like in the Simpsons)

A lot to learn there about nuclear energy.

[scarecrowe]

Proculation Proculation:

I learned that a nuclear reactor CANNOT explode like a nuclear bomb (or like in the Simpsons)

A lot to learn there about nuclear energy.

The Ontario "EDUCTION" Premier needs to revise the curriculum.

[Proculation]

scarecrowe scarecrowe:

Proculation Proculation:

I learned that a nuclear reactor CANNOT explode like a nuclear bomb (or like in the Simpsons)

A lot to learn there about nuclear energy.

The Ontario "EDUCTION" Premier needs to revise the curriculum.

I'm from Quebec

[Brenda]

Proculation Proculation:

scarecrowe scarecrowe:

Proculation Proculation:

I learned that a nuclear reactor CANNOT explode like a nuclear bomb (or like in the Simpsons)

A lot to learn there about nuclear energy.

The Ontario "EDUCTION" Premier needs to revise the curriculum.

I'm from Quebec

Maybe you shouldn't have said that

(I agree with you btw, that a nuclear reactor cannot explode like a nuclear bomb. If it only was that simple... )

[BartSimpson]

Proculation Proculation:

a nuclear reactor CANNOT explode like a nuclear bomb

True. When a nuclear weapon detonates above ground (like in Hiroshima) the fissile material is near instantly dispersed into the atmosphere and in a matter of a few weeks (or days if it's the rainy season) it's safe to enter the area again for short periods.

When a reactor ruptures, explodes, or etc. the fissile material can be ejected in high concentrations or it can escape in a super heated plume. Heavier particles will tend to fall in the immediate vicinity of the reactor rendering it unapproachable for perhaps millenia. Lighter particles will fall as they cool and in the case of Chernobyl they can cause near as much contamination hundreds of kilometres away as the particles about the reactor did.

So I say we nuke the Fukushima reactor site and just get it on.

[Proculation]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Proculation Proculation:

a nuclear reactor CANNOT explode like a nuclear bomb

True. When a nuclear weapon detonates above ground (like in Hiroshima) the fissile material is near instantly dispersed into the atmosphere and in a matter of a few weeks (or days if it's the rainy season) it's safe to enter the area again for short periods.

When a reactor ruptures, explodes, or etc. the fissile material can be ejected in high concentrations or it can escape in a super heated plume. Heavier particles will tend to fall in the immediate vicinity of the reactor rendering it unapproachable for perhaps millenia. Lighter particles will fall as they cool and in the case of Chernobyl they can cause near as much contamination hundreds of kilometres away as the particles about the reactor did.

So I say we nuke the Fukushima reactor site and just get it on.

Very clever Bart !

But... seriously ?

[BartSimpson]

Proculation Proculation:

Very clever Bart !

Thanks!

Proculation Proculation:

But... seriously ?

If it were up to me? I'd let this drama play out and see what happens. But at the point this thing were to 1) threaten Tokyo or 2) no longer have any hope of being controllable I would absolutely put dispersement on the table.

Pick a day when the winds are blowing out to sea with some force - pull civilians back 100 miles, military and etc back as far, too.

Then smack it with a ground-penetrating and high efficiency 5 kiloton device.

By using a ground penetrator most of the force of the explosion could be directed up from underneath the facility blowing the fissile material up into the air and out to sea. And fallout from the bomb would also go out to sea.

Worst case scenario with this is the area is uninhabitable for 10-20 years.

Right now the potential for a big chunk of Japan being uninhabitable for the balance of this millenium is on the table.

I think my idea is actually the less radical plan.

[Gunnair]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Gunnair Gunnair:

An aircraft carrier does not need to close within 50 nm to perform a rescue

That's true. But you can go back and read the stories on this particular situation and the fact remains that the two ships closed to 50nm in seven hours.

Wiki says the Dawn can make 21 knots. Going with that you're still looking at the Reagan making 50 knots.

There's just no other way to work that out.

The stories I read said nothing of the 50nm fact, only that the Reagan launched at 175 nm - which means about 34 kts, which is likely below max.

[Gunnair]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

why would a carrier have to get so close

Why does a dog lick it's balls?

Because it can.

A dog licking its balls makes more sense than a CVN racing to cruise liner at 52 knts, completely discounting its helos, in order to conduct a medevac.

Zero sense.

I'd like to see a link, because the only ones I've seen say 175 nm.