- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: OT Engineers — Sodium Cooled Nuclear Reactors
Posted on 6/16/24 at 2:59 pm to CaptainDave
Posted on 6/16/24 at 2:59 pm to CaptainDave
I’m not sure what’s confusing. Real time load demand changes quickly. You can have load changes hundreds of megawatts per minute on the grid. Everytime load demand changes, the output of power has to change the same amount. Stand alone gas turbine are much easier to ramp up and ramp down. Nukes are, in my experience, base loaded, so they don’t change. A CT my dump or ramp 25 mw per minute.
0
Posted on 6/16/24 at 3:02 pm to Turnblad85
quote:
You think he's trying to trick the nuclear design engineers into using something that will cause a disaster?
Like Windows?
Posted on 6/16/24 at 3:07 pm to RanchoLaPuerto
quote:
Is this just a bunch of hooey? That doesn’t sound real safe.
There are a lot of publications out there touting this. I guess it is safe if air and water stay out of the sodium. I will not attempt to understand the physics of sodium cooling.
Posted on 6/16/24 at 5:24 pm to nugget
quote:
Natural gas was also at $8 not long ago. It
If you build a $35 billion Plant Vogul, and I set up right next door to you, i can spend $2 billion on a Nat Gas plant. And pay $8 for gas all day long. And deliver electricity to the grid for half what you do.
Even if I spent $1 billion a year on Nat Gas....you'll spend $5 billion a year on interest, depreciation, and maintenance costs.
Nuclear power will be ready 20 years from now. And you can say the same thing in 20 years
Posted on 6/16/24 at 5:45 pm to Turnblad85
quote:
think he's trying to trick the nuclear design engineers into using something that will cause a disaster?
Weeeeelllllll he does want human population reduced. So. Figure it out.
Posted on 6/16/24 at 5:46 pm to RanchoLaPuerto
Gates is a nuclear physicist now?
Posted on 6/16/24 at 6:01 pm to jeffsdad
quote:
Why?
Because Earth is orbiting the sun at ~30 km/s.
A rocket has to accelerate to ~11.2 m/s relative to Earth in order to escape the planet’s gravity (escape velocity). However, when the rocket escapes Earth orbit it is still moving in the same direction as Earth around the sun. It will either be moving faster or slower than Earth, relative to the sun, depending on the trajectory when it left Earth.
If it’s launched in the same direction as Earth’s orbit, it will be moving faster than Earth. This will allow it to move “higher” than Earth’s orbit. It will eventually settle into a new, higher orbit unless enough velocity is gained (either through rocket burns or slingshot effect around outer planets) to escape the solar system.
If it’s launched in the opposite direction as Earth’s orbit, it will be moving slower than Earth. This will cause it to fall closer to the sun, but it will miss the sun (falling into a lower orbit) unless it accelerates enough in a direction opposite Earth’s orbit to actually collide with the sun.
Given the size of the sun relative to the distance involved, this effectively means we would need the rocket to reach ~30 m/s relative to Earth, in a direction opposite of Earth’s orbital path… which is faster than any spacecraft we have ever launched. It takes considerably less delta-V to escape the solar system than it does to hit the sun.
Posted on 6/16/24 at 6:58 pm to RanchoLaPuerto
bunch of hooey. Na is a pispoor coolant that every leak is a major fire. While there may be advantages for operating at a higher temperature, the handling issues make it a no go.
My experience basis is from a caprolactam unit that used Na for high temperature cooling. Remember, high temperature also affects the metalurgity of the piping systems
My experience basis is from a caprolactam unit that used Na for high temperature cooling. Remember, high temperature also affects the metalurgity of the piping systems
Posted on 6/16/24 at 7:27 pm to lostinbr
Thanks!
Posted on 6/16/24 at 7:44 pm to Napoleon
quote:
But if a rocket explodes on take off. South Texas or Central Florida would be uninhabitable.
Move the launch pads to NY, NJ, CA, WA, OR , IL, MD or DE
Posted on 6/16/24 at 7:52 pm to Trevaylin
quote:
Na is a pispoor coolant
In a vacuum that statement is a bunch of hooey. Liquid metal ie sodium is an excellent conductor of heat. You probably own or at least have owned a vehicle with sodium cooled valves in it. One of the reasons it is used in valves outside of the high heat transfer is the fact it doesn't cause corrosion in steel parts.
Compared to water it has two huge advantages for use as a coolant in nuclear reactors. One is its nearly 800C delta at standard pressure between solid and vapor states which allows it to conduct far more heat than water having a much lower delta between solid and gas. This allows for much higher safety margins with sodium since they operate with the outlet temperature of the secondary sodium (in the intermediate loop) at about 500C to 550C.
The other advantage is sodium is a much weaker neutron moderator than is water a huge advantage in a fast reactor compared to water which is a much stronger neutron moderator.
The disadvantage is as several have pointed out that sodium is an alkali metal that produces sodium hydroxide and hydrogen when mixed with water. This wouldn't be much of an issue except in a nuclear reactor you need a heat exchanger where the heat is transferred to water producing high-pressure steam in order to spin turbines and produce electricity. That heat exchanger is where the biggest dangers lie. The fact the secondary sodium has such a high-temperature operating range allows for the coils of the heat exchanger to be much thicker and thus allows for more safety margin especially when it operates at a much lower pressure than steam in the secondary system in a typical water-cooled power plant lowering the chances of the sodium coming in contact with the water from the power generation loop. Further, keep in mind that leaks in a secondary water cooling system while it won't cause a fire will contaminate the generation loop water.
Schematic of a typical pool type liquid-cooled fast breeder reactor
I think that the fact neither Russia nor India has had a major issue with theirs is a checkmark in the viability column.
Posted on 6/16/24 at 8:01 pm to Obtuse1
From Wiki
quote:
A Russian breeder reactor, the BN-600, reported 27 sodium leaks in a 17-year period, 14 of which led to sodium fires.
This post was edited on 6/16/24 at 8:02 pm
Posted on 6/16/24 at 8:02 pm to billjamin
KYHJ
This post was edited on 10/2/24 at 9:14 am
Posted on 6/16/24 at 8:14 pm to Free888
quote:
A Russian breeder reactor, the BN-600, reported 27 sodium leaks in a 17-year period, 14 of which led to sodium fires.
I didn't consider that or the Indian issues "major" because they produced no impact outside the plant nor any radioactive material. That reactor was designed in the 70s and has been operational for over 40 years. Anything designed by the USSR in the 70s and operational since 1980 without killing a bunch of people is a positive account for a basic design in my book.
Posted on 6/16/24 at 8:16 pm to Tree_Fall
quote:
Unsolved problem with reactors is safe disposal of spent fuel.
All of the spent fuel in the life of a reactor will fit in casks stored on a pad the size of a tennis court
Posted on 6/16/24 at 8:17 pm to Napoleon
quote:
It's a good idea. But if a rocket explodes on take off. South Texas or Central Florida would be uninhabitable.
Then launch from California.
Posted on 6/16/24 at 8:17 pm to No Colors
quote:
If you build a $35 billion Plant Vogul, and I set up right next door to you, i can spend $2 billion on a Nat Gas plant. And pay $8 for gas all day long. And deliver electricity to the grid for half what you do. Even if I spent $1 billion a year on Nat Gas....you'll spend $5 billion a year on interest, depreciation, and maintenance costs. Nuclear power will be ready 20 years from now. And you can say the same thing in 20 years
This isn’t how utilities and the public service commission work. You have different budgets that are allocated and passed down to the customers in different ways. Also, nukes last over 2.5x longer than a natural gas plant. So you’ll be building another gas plant in 30 years at those rates, and then another half a plant 20 years from that, and the original nuke will still exist.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News