Westinghouse have developed the AP1000 PWR, which is capable of passively cooling itself in the event of something like a primary cooling loop failure like what happened at Three Mile Island. TMI apparently boiled its reactor dry and reached criticality in 2.5mins, it can be that fast. The AP1000 is a significant leap forward compared to the units that were in operation in Japan.
I don't think molten salt is used as a moderator. If they are working on some type of Breeder Reactor, which Thorium powered units often are, then the fast neutrons from fuel decay are used to break down other materials in the core, which is probably why they are claiming it produces no radioactive waste. If a moderator was present it would hoover up all the fast neutrons and drastically reduce the energy output.Originally Posted by Wheeze
I know absolutely nothing in this are Mr B, but is this something that Governments etc should be considering? Technology moves on extremely quickly - do we need to account for this in the engineering of the power stations? What I mean is, are there industry standards that can help you to 'future-proof' the power stations themselves - upgrades could be done easily?Westinghouse have developed the AP1000 PWR, which is capable of passively cooling itself in the event of something like a primary cooling loop failure like what happened at Three Mile Island. TMI apparently boiled its reactor dry and reached criticality in 2.5mins, it can be that fast. The AP1000 is a significant leap forward compared to the units that were in operation in Japan.
Very good question Heathens. Future-proofing at a component/device level is pretty much impossible due to the fact that newer things are always smaller, and advances in device communication and process control philosophy will render older equipment incompatible to a certain extent. It's also not ideal to make small scale local upgrades and leave the rest as it is, in processes where failure can lead to catastrophe. Most manufacturers will only certify and guarantee the operation of their equipment under specific circumstances, and small scale user installed upgrades can invalidate such certifications and guarantees. Full de-caps and commissioning of complete new plants is the safest way, industry standards and best practices would likely lead to this.
The vendor of a nuclear power generation unit, such as Westinghouse, will have performed what is called a 'String Test' on the plant at some point to verify that all the components and machinery meet the correct operational criteria when run as a unit, and any upgrades will invalidate the original test. This will probably take place as part of the commissioning procedure on something as vast as a reactor. Where i work we carry out the string tests on site before shipping, pumping sets are far less vast than nuclear reactors, customers often come on site to witness the tests and we can test anything up to 30MW power wise; even if it's driven by a gas turbine.
I heard a while ago that the UK was planning to install gas cooled reactor plants provided by EDF Energy, but that these wouldn't arrive in time because the coal fired power stations are due to hit their decommissioning stages long before. So what do we do? Start rolling blackouts to reduce output and prolong operational life or run them past their decommissioning dates? Obviously they'll be kept limping along. The problems are often more political than anything else, the Jap govt. should have decommissioned Fukushima yonks before the tsunami hit but they probably couldn't be arsed. Hopefully the IAEA will take note of how old arse plants can be really dangerous.
Currently in a grid locked London as a result of the climate change protesters. I'm with them. We need to drastically change our energy strategy. And for all the push to renewables, the total energy equation is never going to be solved quickly enough and with the required cut in CO2 without a move to nuclear.
Read about MSR. It is so far removed from our conventional ideas of nuclear power generation that it makes our fears of Cold War, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima irrelevant.
So, yes, lets get behind the push away from fossil fuels but at least have the common sense to replace it with a realistic alternative.
I thought this discussion might make a refreshing change from pounding the B word to death!
So many of us just don't care, with our big cars, and outside flood lights left on overnight because it looks pretty. Wastage everwhere.
Good on them.
Last edited by DrPatrickBarry; 17-04-2019 at 12:14 PM.
Hope there not about tomorrow otherwise I will be like a wind turbine.
They have a valid point but don't spoil my golf.
Waste, excess yes. The awful by products of a population addicted to the latest and greatest gadget/food/fad and a econoindustrial machine designed to feed and expand their addiction. The new Primark in Birmingham. AAAGGHHHH!
160,000 square feet of shite! And its been rammed out since it opened. No care for the water consumption/human oppression/transport pollution to feed their insatiable desire for a bit of coloured rag to wear today and toss tomorrow. I despair!
I agree. The problem is people like me, who care and want to make a difference but it’s not as high a priority as making a living and trying to better ourselves and our families in the current system. I drive a car and fly on planes (mainly for work).
Sure I do what I can, but all those little things like recycling and eating less red meat are probably playing at the margins.
No more wind turbines thank you. There is not a mountainous walk/run in Mid-Wales to be had without the view being blighted by the damn things.
They are not very green either when the manufacture, transportation, building of new access roads and erection are taken into consideration.
And when the wind doesn't blow.........
Visibility good except in Hill Fog
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote