I just finished reading a heartening article in our local paper which touts nuclear energy as being thought of in a new light. "Up from the dead"
Dominion Energy is a huge Richmond VA based conglomerate who own VA Dominion Power, our statewide distributor. They have reapplied for license extensions to our big reactor sites at North Anna and Surry here in VA. The NRC are virtually sure to quickly extend their licenses. (the old ones are good until 2018!)
Dominion Energy has just purchased the Millstone reactor power plant in Waterford CT. and are negotiating for another nuclear power facility, the Seabrook site in New Hampshire. If you smoked in the past you almost had to come to Philip Morris in Richmond to light up. Who knows, if Dominion Energy gobbles up a bunch more nuclear facilities, you may, in future, send a large portion of your energy dollars here too!
Dominion is actively seeking license approval for what appears to be more new reactor startups in the "Old Dominion State". These will most likely be additional reactors at the Surry and North Anna sites already in operation with existing infrastructure.
Gee....It is all happening so fast. At least here. I have always said the future (immediate future) will be fission powered. EVERYTHING is ELECTRICAL except automobiles. The plan that frees us from fossil fuels, short term or long term, is a winner PERIOD.
In the article, a national survey by the Nuclear Energy Institute found that in 1999, 42% of Americans would support new nuclear plant startups, while in March 2001 that figure stands at 66%. Nice goin' folks.
There are 103 fission reactors in the US producing 20% of the entire national electrical need. France is almost oil independent with 75% of its electricity produced by online nuclear plants.
Federal reports show that Dominion produces nuclear power at its nuclear sites cheaper than any other producers 1.74 cent/kwh. The same federal report notes that the national average is 1.83 cents/kwh for nuclear plants, 2.07 cents/kwh for coal, 3.18 cents/kwh for oil fired and 3.52 cents/kwh for natural gas plants.
Fusion at the current level of investment and sophistication isn't even out of the primordial slime, being in truth, a totally non-existant power source on planet earth.
Richard Hull
Fission back in vogue?
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15023
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Fission back in vogue?
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
-
Jon Rosenstiel
- Posts: 1494
- Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2001 1:30 am
- Real name: Jon Rosenstiel
- Location: Southern California
Re: Fission back in vogue?
I recall the anti-nuclearites warning of the hidden cost of nuclear power, the burying and monitoring of nuclear wastes for years and years to come.
As recent events have shown oil has some hidden costs also!
Jon Rosenstiel
As recent events have shown oil has some hidden costs also!
Jon Rosenstiel
-
guest
Re: Fission back in vogue?
The Japanese have pioneered a "new" Idea .... Disposable reactors! You heard me. The latest phase and fad in nuclear
chiche is to build small sized reactors (about 1 MW) That are intended to be installed at user sites say an apartment building high rise. With integrally sealed units that use nak for internal cooling with built in heat exchanger coils
for steam generation. These units would have sealed control rods magnetically driven like those in nuclear subs. These small reactors would be fueled with 28 kg of pure plutonium.
These units would be run full out at the rated power then as the unit developes fission product poisoning a call is made to the reactor company. A large track pulls up the spent unit as a whole for recycling, or most likely burial. The a new mass manufacture unit arrives and within four hours is hooked up ready to go! The cost about 1 million dollars US.
If you think this is a radical idea that only the Japanese
could have thought of Think AGAIN this idea was pioneered by the Canadian government back in the late sixties early seventies as a substitute for oil fired heaters in the sub arctic regions of North America. (It was called the slow poke reactor system) The Canadian unit was sizable since it used natural uranium with a slightly enriched core. It would fit on a quarter acre and made only hot water not steam. The Japanese unit is about 10 feet high with an 4 ft radius. This reactor has a minischule core about the size
of a 2 foot waste can. Total estimated weight about 5 and half tons (long).
I pray for fusion to make a showing soon.
Larry Leins
Physics Teacher
chiche is to build small sized reactors (about 1 MW) That are intended to be installed at user sites say an apartment building high rise. With integrally sealed units that use nak for internal cooling with built in heat exchanger coils
for steam generation. These units would have sealed control rods magnetically driven like those in nuclear subs. These small reactors would be fueled with 28 kg of pure plutonium.
These units would be run full out at the rated power then as the unit developes fission product poisoning a call is made to the reactor company. A large track pulls up the spent unit as a whole for recycling, or most likely burial. The a new mass manufacture unit arrives and within four hours is hooked up ready to go! The cost about 1 million dollars US.
If you think this is a radical idea that only the Japanese
could have thought of Think AGAIN this idea was pioneered by the Canadian government back in the late sixties early seventies as a substitute for oil fired heaters in the sub arctic regions of North America. (It was called the slow poke reactor system) The Canadian unit was sizable since it used natural uranium with a slightly enriched core. It would fit on a quarter acre and made only hot water not steam. The Japanese unit is about 10 feet high with an 4 ft radius. This reactor has a minischule core about the size
of a 2 foot waste can. Total estimated weight about 5 and half tons (long).
I pray for fusion to make a showing soon.
Larry Leins
Physics Teacher
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15023
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: Fission back in vogue?
Wow! The japanese gave us miniaturized electronics.....now mini reactors? I don't know whether to be frightened or over joyed. I like my fission reactors large (10mw+), isolated, well guarded, and staffed by ostensibly knowledgable people. The thought of a 1 mw unit cookin' away outside of an apartment complex is frightening for sure. I may be liberal on the issue of fission, but not quite that liberal.
It seems every nation threw something into the ring during those heady days of Atoms for Peace (50s - 60s).
The US sort of got the nuclear power ball rolling and installed some of the earliest reactors, defined the technology, etc. Cananda worked with the idea that a cut and paste or VW type system would be needed to avoid complicated operation and expensive personnel. This generated the slow poke, CANDU and other systems. Canada sort of took the business away from the US in the late 60's, and by the mid-seventies after TMI, Canada was THE nuclear fission power innovator. Slowly, the US power companies refused to construct new fission plants as the rise to ascendency of the tree huggers and concerns of waste disposal coupled with the death blow of chernobyl continued the blackening of the fission power eye.
Canada has followed the US, for the most part, along with the UK in abandoning fission's promise. France, on the other hand, just slowly and insiduously built one after another power reactor until she became the fission electrical power world leader and remains so to this day with 75% of her electrical capacity derived from Uranium fission.
Japan has also followed the nuclear fission raod and has a percentage of her power produced by the atom. The Japanese had a recent "prompt" fission accident while mixing fuel which was splattered all over the news in 1999, I think, but is still committed to keeping her reactors online. Little known to the public, the US nuclear program (military) had several really bad similar prompt/delayed fission accidents in the 50s, 60s and 70s, mostly around poor waste handling and management controls.
Richard Hull
It seems every nation threw something into the ring during those heady days of Atoms for Peace (50s - 60s).
The US sort of got the nuclear power ball rolling and installed some of the earliest reactors, defined the technology, etc. Cananda worked with the idea that a cut and paste or VW type system would be needed to avoid complicated operation and expensive personnel. This generated the slow poke, CANDU and other systems. Canada sort of took the business away from the US in the late 60's, and by the mid-seventies after TMI, Canada was THE nuclear fission power innovator. Slowly, the US power companies refused to construct new fission plants as the rise to ascendency of the tree huggers and concerns of waste disposal coupled with the death blow of chernobyl continued the blackening of the fission power eye.
Canada has followed the US, for the most part, along with the UK in abandoning fission's promise. France, on the other hand, just slowly and insiduously built one after another power reactor until she became the fission electrical power world leader and remains so to this day with 75% of her electrical capacity derived from Uranium fission.
Japan has also followed the nuclear fission raod and has a percentage of her power produced by the atom. The Japanese had a recent "prompt" fission accident while mixing fuel which was splattered all over the news in 1999, I think, but is still committed to keeping her reactors online. Little known to the public, the US nuclear program (military) had several really bad similar prompt/delayed fission accidents in the 50s, 60s and 70s, mostly around poor waste handling and management controls.
Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Re: Fission back in vogue?
Not a nuke expert here, but I DID work long yrs in energy research for electric utilities. The small reactor is especially attractive in that it cannot "run away", like the very large units can. The critical power levels are in the 300-500 MW range. Above that, thermally induced nuke runaway is a definite possibility.
The smaller HTGR (high temp gas cooled reactors) was very attractive for its higher thermal efficiency, absence of water in the core, but was more costly. I always thought the utilities erred in seeking the dirt cheapest approaches.... but of course business success depends somewhat on the bottom line.
The key issue on these little fellas is how LONG they can deliver nameplate energy, before they need to be recycled/disposed or whatever.
At 1 Million bucks a pop, at today's retail energy costs, you need to sell simething like 10 million kwhrs of electricity to breakeven on capital. A good average for a residence is about 24 kwhr/day. That means about 5 households per million kwhr/yr. [ 5 x 24kwh x 8760 hr] So you can feed 50 households with a 1MW reactor, if that's the electrical output. Reactors are rated either as MWT or MWE for thermal or electrical output. At about 25% net conversion efficiency, (and if the thermally "hot" water were also used, it would seem the unit is practical.
Commercial reactors refuel when only a small fraction of the nuclear fuel is consumed. Which is why this country's no reprocessing posture is so economically wasteful.
Leave it to the Japanese to show us how to use our developments effectively!!
Dave Cooper
The smaller HTGR (high temp gas cooled reactors) was very attractive for its higher thermal efficiency, absence of water in the core, but was more costly. I always thought the utilities erred in seeking the dirt cheapest approaches.... but of course business success depends somewhat on the bottom line.
The key issue on these little fellas is how LONG they can deliver nameplate energy, before they need to be recycled/disposed or whatever.
At 1 Million bucks a pop, at today's retail energy costs, you need to sell simething like 10 million kwhrs of electricity to breakeven on capital. A good average for a residence is about 24 kwhr/day. That means about 5 households per million kwhr/yr. [ 5 x 24kwh x 8760 hr] So you can feed 50 households with a 1MW reactor, if that's the electrical output. Reactors are rated either as MWT or MWE for thermal or electrical output. At about 25% net conversion efficiency, (and if the thermally "hot" water were also used, it would seem the unit is practical.
Commercial reactors refuel when only a small fraction of the nuclear fuel is consumed. Which is why this country's no reprocessing posture is so economically wasteful.
Leave it to the Japanese to show us how to use our developments effectively!!
Dave Cooper
-
guest
Re: Fission back in vogue?
The Japanese Government is backing that reactor design known as the "Rapid L" reactor, it was originally conceived for moon colonies which would give some idea of the vintage of the principle. It's planned to be a 6 metre tall by two metre wide 200 Kw unit to be used inside apartment blocks in the Tokyo bay area to relieve peak loads. The research head is a Mr Mitsuru Kambe. The design relies on multiple liquid lithium 6 reservoirs above the core which are heated by the core which has tubes connected to the lithium running through the centre filled with an inert gas.
The principle of operation is that as the reactor core heats up, the liquid lithium reservoirs will expand and flow into the core through the tubes compressing the inert gas inside and moderating the reaction by being a liquid control rod. It's designed to run at 530 deg C and be sodium cooled.
It seems all the bugs are ironed out in the design now except for the long term durability of the reactor.
Personally I think it would make and ideal terrorist target being made of two explosive metals with a radioactive third inside.
regards
Mark Harriss
Dave Cooper wrote:
> Not a nuke expert here, but I DID work long yrs in energy research for electric utilities. The small reactor is especially attractive in that it cannot "run away", like the very large units can. The critical power levels are in the 300-500 MW range. Above that, thermally induced nuke runaway is a definite possibility.
>
> The smaller HTGR (high temp gas cooled reactors) was very attractive for its higher thermal efficiency, absence of water in the core, but was more costly. I always thought the utilities erred in seeking the dirt cheapest approaches.... but of course business success depends somewhat on the bottom line.
>
> The key issue on these little fellas is how LONG they can deliver nameplate energy, before they need to be recycled/disposed or whatever.
>
> At 1 Million bucks a pop, at today's retail energy costs, you need to sell simething like 10 million kwhrs of electricity to breakeven on capital. A good average for a residence is about 24 kwhr/day. That means about 5 households per million kwhr/yr. [ 5 x 24kwh x 8760 hr] So you can feed 50 households with a 1MW reactor, if that's the electrical output. Reactors are rated either as MWT or MWE for thermal or electrical output. At about 25% net conversion efficiency, (and if the thermally "hot" water were also used, it would seem the unit is practical.
>
> Commercial reactors refuel when only a small fraction of the nuclear fuel is consumed. Which is why this country's no reprocessing posture is so economically wasteful.
>
> Leave it to the Japanese to show us how to use our developments effectively!!
>
> Dave Cooper
Dave Cooper wrote:
> Not a nuke expert here, but I DID work long yrs in energy research for electric utilities. The small reactor is especially attractive in that it cannot "run away", like the very large units can. The critical power levels are in the 300-500 MW range. Above that, thermally induced nuke runaway is a definite possibility.
>
> The smaller HTGR (high temp gas cooled reactors) was very attractive for its higher thermal efficiency, absence of water in the core, but was more costly. I always thought the utilities erred in seeking the dirt cheapest approaches.... but of course business success depends somewhat on the bottom line.
>
> The key issue on these little fellas is how LONG they can deliver nameplate energy, before they need to be recycled/disposed or whatever.
>
> At 1 Million bucks a pop, at today's retail energy costs, you need to sell simething like 10 million kwhrs of electricity to breakeven on capital. A good average for a residence is about 24 kwhr/day. That means about 5 households per million kwhr/yr. [ 5 x 24kwh x 8760 hr] So you can feed 50 households with a 1MW reactor, if that's the electrical output. Reactors are rated either as MWT or MWE for thermal or electrical output. At about 25% net conversion efficiency, (and if the thermally "hot" water were also used, it would seem the unit is practical.
>
> Commercial reactors refuel when only a small fraction of the nuclear fuel is consumed. Which is why this country's no reprocessing posture is so economically wasteful.
>
> Leave it to the Japanese to show us how to use our developments effectively!!
>
> Dave Cooper
Dave Cooper wrote:
> Not a nuke expert here, but I DID work long yrs in energy research for electric utilities. The small reactor is especially attractive in that it cannot "run away", like the very large units can. The critical power levels are in the 300-500 MW range. Above that, thermally induced nuke runaway is a definite possibility.
>
> The smaller HTGR (high temp gas cooled reactors) was very attractive for its higher thermal efficiency, absence of water in the core, but was more costly. I always thought the utilities erred in seeking the dirt cheapest approaches.... but of course business success depends somewhat on the bottom line.
>
> The key issue on these little fellas is how LONG they can deliver nameplate energy, before they need to be recycled/disposed or whatever.
>
> At 1 Million bucks a pop, at today's retail energy costs, you need to sell simething like 10 million kwhrs of electricity to breakeven on capital. A good average for a residence is about 24 kwhr/day. That means about 5 households per million kwhr/yr. [ 5 x 24kwh x 8760 hr] So you can feed 50 households with a 1MW reactor, if that's the electrical output. Reactors are rated either as MWT or MWE for thermal or electrical output. At about 25% net conversion efficiency, (and if the thermally "hot" water were also used, it would seem the unit is practical.
>
> Commercial reactors refuel when only a small fraction of the nuclear fuel is consumed. Which is why this country's no reprocessing posture is so economically wasteful.
>
> Leave it to the Japanese to show us how to use our developments effectively!!
>
> Dave Cooper
Dave Cooper wrote:
> Not a nuke expert here, but I DID work long yrs in energy research for electric utilities. The small reactor is especially attractive in that it cannot "run away", like the very large units can. The critical power levels are in the 300-500 MW range. Above that, thermally induced nuke runaway is a definite possibility.
>
> The smaller HTGR (high temp gas cooled reactors) was very attractive for its higher thermal efficiency, absence of water in the core, but was more costly. I always thought the utilities erred in seeking the dirt cheapest approaches.... but of course business success depends somewhat on the bottom line.
>
> The key issue on these little fellas is how LONG they can deliver nameplate energy, before they need to be recycled/disposed or whatever.
>
> At 1 Million bucks a pop, at today's retail energy costs, you need to sell simething like 10 million kwhrs of electricity to breakeven on capital. A good average for a residence is about 24 kwhr/day. That means about 5 households per million kwhr/yr. [ 5 x 24kwh x 8760 hr] So you can feed 50 households with a 1MW reactor, if that's the electrical output. Reactors are rated either as MWT or MWE for thermal or electrical output. At about 25% net conversion efficiency, (and if the thermally "hot" water were also used, it would seem the unit is practical.
>
> Commercial reactors refuel when only a small fraction of the nuclear fuel is consumed. Which is why this country's no reprocessing posture is so economically wasteful.
>
> Leave it to the Japanese to show us how to use our developments effectively!!
>
> Dave Cooper
The principle of operation is that as the reactor core heats up, the liquid lithium reservoirs will expand and flow into the core through the tubes compressing the inert gas inside and moderating the reaction by being a liquid control rod. It's designed to run at 530 deg C and be sodium cooled.
It seems all the bugs are ironed out in the design now except for the long term durability of the reactor.
Personally I think it would make and ideal terrorist target being made of two explosive metals with a radioactive third inside.
regards
Mark Harriss
Dave Cooper wrote:
> Not a nuke expert here, but I DID work long yrs in energy research for electric utilities. The small reactor is especially attractive in that it cannot "run away", like the very large units can. The critical power levels are in the 300-500 MW range. Above that, thermally induced nuke runaway is a definite possibility.
>
> The smaller HTGR (high temp gas cooled reactors) was very attractive for its higher thermal efficiency, absence of water in the core, but was more costly. I always thought the utilities erred in seeking the dirt cheapest approaches.... but of course business success depends somewhat on the bottom line.
>
> The key issue on these little fellas is how LONG they can deliver nameplate energy, before they need to be recycled/disposed or whatever.
>
> At 1 Million bucks a pop, at today's retail energy costs, you need to sell simething like 10 million kwhrs of electricity to breakeven on capital. A good average for a residence is about 24 kwhr/day. That means about 5 households per million kwhr/yr. [ 5 x 24kwh x 8760 hr] So you can feed 50 households with a 1MW reactor, if that's the electrical output. Reactors are rated either as MWT or MWE for thermal or electrical output. At about 25% net conversion efficiency, (and if the thermally "hot" water were also used, it would seem the unit is practical.
>
> Commercial reactors refuel when only a small fraction of the nuclear fuel is consumed. Which is why this country's no reprocessing posture is so economically wasteful.
>
> Leave it to the Japanese to show us how to use our developments effectively!!
>
> Dave Cooper
Dave Cooper wrote:
> Not a nuke expert here, but I DID work long yrs in energy research for electric utilities. The small reactor is especially attractive in that it cannot "run away", like the very large units can. The critical power levels are in the 300-500 MW range. Above that, thermally induced nuke runaway is a definite possibility.
>
> The smaller HTGR (high temp gas cooled reactors) was very attractive for its higher thermal efficiency, absence of water in the core, but was more costly. I always thought the utilities erred in seeking the dirt cheapest approaches.... but of course business success depends somewhat on the bottom line.
>
> The key issue on these little fellas is how LONG they can deliver nameplate energy, before they need to be recycled/disposed or whatever.
>
> At 1 Million bucks a pop, at today's retail energy costs, you need to sell simething like 10 million kwhrs of electricity to breakeven on capital. A good average for a residence is about 24 kwhr/day. That means about 5 households per million kwhr/yr. [ 5 x 24kwh x 8760 hr] So you can feed 50 households with a 1MW reactor, if that's the electrical output. Reactors are rated either as MWT or MWE for thermal or electrical output. At about 25% net conversion efficiency, (and if the thermally "hot" water were also used, it would seem the unit is practical.
>
> Commercial reactors refuel when only a small fraction of the nuclear fuel is consumed. Which is why this country's no reprocessing posture is so economically wasteful.
>
> Leave it to the Japanese to show us how to use our developments effectively!!
>
> Dave Cooper
Dave Cooper wrote:
> Not a nuke expert here, but I DID work long yrs in energy research for electric utilities. The small reactor is especially attractive in that it cannot "run away", like the very large units can. The critical power levels are in the 300-500 MW range. Above that, thermally induced nuke runaway is a definite possibility.
>
> The smaller HTGR (high temp gas cooled reactors) was very attractive for its higher thermal efficiency, absence of water in the core, but was more costly. I always thought the utilities erred in seeking the dirt cheapest approaches.... but of course business success depends somewhat on the bottom line.
>
> The key issue on these little fellas is how LONG they can deliver nameplate energy, before they need to be recycled/disposed or whatever.
>
> At 1 Million bucks a pop, at today's retail energy costs, you need to sell simething like 10 million kwhrs of electricity to breakeven on capital. A good average for a residence is about 24 kwhr/day. That means about 5 households per million kwhr/yr. [ 5 x 24kwh x 8760 hr] So you can feed 50 households with a 1MW reactor, if that's the electrical output. Reactors are rated either as MWT or MWE for thermal or electrical output. At about 25% net conversion efficiency, (and if the thermally "hot" water were also used, it would seem the unit is practical.
>
> Commercial reactors refuel when only a small fraction of the nuclear fuel is consumed. Which is why this country's no reprocessing posture is so economically wasteful.
>
> Leave it to the Japanese to show us how to use our developments effectively!!
>
> Dave Cooper
Dave Cooper wrote:
> Not a nuke expert here, but I DID work long yrs in energy research for electric utilities. The small reactor is especially attractive in that it cannot "run away", like the very large units can. The critical power levels are in the 300-500 MW range. Above that, thermally induced nuke runaway is a definite possibility.
>
> The smaller HTGR (high temp gas cooled reactors) was very attractive for its higher thermal efficiency, absence of water in the core, but was more costly. I always thought the utilities erred in seeking the dirt cheapest approaches.... but of course business success depends somewhat on the bottom line.
>
> The key issue on these little fellas is how LONG they can deliver nameplate energy, before they need to be recycled/disposed or whatever.
>
> At 1 Million bucks a pop, at today's retail energy costs, you need to sell simething like 10 million kwhrs of electricity to breakeven on capital. A good average for a residence is about 24 kwhr/day. That means about 5 households per million kwhr/yr. [ 5 x 24kwh x 8760 hr] So you can feed 50 households with a 1MW reactor, if that's the electrical output. Reactors are rated either as MWT or MWE for thermal or electrical output. At about 25% net conversion efficiency, (and if the thermally "hot" water were also used, it would seem the unit is practical.
>
> Commercial reactors refuel when only a small fraction of the nuclear fuel is consumed. Which is why this country's no reprocessing posture is so economically wasteful.
>
> Leave it to the Japanese to show us how to use our developments effectively!!
>
> Dave Cooper
-
guest
Re: Fission back in vogue?
Oh I don't know. Just picture Bubba the maintenance guy hacking into the reactor because the landlord doesn't want to pay for the new one "just yet". Or deciding that he wants to retire, so he'll just bury the reactor and put in some nice cheap oil or electric unit. It might be nice to have cancer for a while....
(If nobody caught the sarcasm, they were not looking.)
(If nobody caught the sarcasm, they were not looking.)
-
guest
A TERRORIST's DREAM !!!!!!!
We are all forgetting one very important thing. The waste product in fission reactors can be easly used to make weapons grade Plutonium. The last thing ANYONE wants is portable mini-reactors floating all over the country(or world). God knows, we cant even keep the Cobalt 60 from radiotherapy machines from ending up in junkyards(re: El Cobalto).
Japan needs sanctions slapped on them if they should even TRY to consider such a thing !
Dont get me wrong, I am all for nuclear power, but portable power plants in the backyard of an apartment complex is nothing less than INSANE.
Japan needs sanctions slapped on them if they should even TRY to consider such a thing !
Dont get me wrong, I am all for nuclear power, but portable power plants in the backyard of an apartment complex is nothing less than INSANE.
-
guest
Re: A TERRORIST's DREAM !!!!!!!
That's nothing compared to what happens under the guise of national security.
The Air Force has dropped over a hundred nuclear powered power sets all over the Artic in order to power the DEW Line ... all unmanned. Each has a lifetime of about 20 years at full power (100 kw) about 2.5 kg of fissile material... all at concentrations of eighty percent or more. At least you can get a service man to the apartment complex. The radar units are only reachable by helicopter in the summer months.
Also a chain of nukes(weapons) in the Bering strait as an anti submarine measure (at least fifty about 50 KT... lost in a storm in 1963... sunk at sea.)
No sense talking about the Sea Dragon program.
A nuclear powered depth charge.
Darn near destoyed the Aircraft Carrier Forrestal.
The depth charge fell of it's rack in high seas.
It had a subcritical assembly.
It was rolled off the decks into the Sea of Japan.
It's still there for all I know.
The Navy officially retired the nuclear depth charge in 1965.
Ronny Reagan broke it out of moth balls in 1985.
Nasa dropped the Apollo 13 LEM With not one but two "Plut" batteries on board.
Then there's the Thresher wreck with 22 Polaris missiles still about 140 miles off Cape Haterus.
Where do old hot obsolete subs go? Why burrial at sea... of course. Russia's got a bunch ... so do we .
The Japanese just purchased over 2000 kg of reprocessed plutonium from the French and moved it it
in a transport ship! We didn't even blink an eye under Bush the first's Adminstration. James Watt thought it was great to break the strangle hold of enviromentalist
extremists.
We're are the last country who should even suggest sanctions... Pot calling the Kettle black.
Larry Leins
Physics Teacher
The Air Force has dropped over a hundred nuclear powered power sets all over the Artic in order to power the DEW Line ... all unmanned. Each has a lifetime of about 20 years at full power (100 kw) about 2.5 kg of fissile material... all at concentrations of eighty percent or more. At least you can get a service man to the apartment complex. The radar units are only reachable by helicopter in the summer months.
Also a chain of nukes(weapons) in the Bering strait as an anti submarine measure (at least fifty about 50 KT... lost in a storm in 1963... sunk at sea.)
No sense talking about the Sea Dragon program.
A nuclear powered depth charge.
Darn near destoyed the Aircraft Carrier Forrestal.
The depth charge fell of it's rack in high seas.
It had a subcritical assembly.
It was rolled off the decks into the Sea of Japan.
It's still there for all I know.
The Navy officially retired the nuclear depth charge in 1965.
Ronny Reagan broke it out of moth balls in 1985.
Nasa dropped the Apollo 13 LEM With not one but two "Plut" batteries on board.
Then there's the Thresher wreck with 22 Polaris missiles still about 140 miles off Cape Haterus.
Where do old hot obsolete subs go? Why burrial at sea... of course. Russia's got a bunch ... so do we .
The Japanese just purchased over 2000 kg of reprocessed plutonium from the French and moved it it
in a transport ship! We didn't even blink an eye under Bush the first's Adminstration. James Watt thought it was great to break the strangle hold of enviromentalist
extremists.
We're are the last country who should even suggest sanctions... Pot calling the Kettle black.
Larry Leins
Physics Teacher
-
guest
Re: A TERRORIST's DREAM !!!!!!!
Point well made. However, Apollo 13 LEM's and nuclear submarines are not buried in the backyard of the local suburbian apartment complex. In fact, all of the incidents you detailed placed the "material" in very hard to reach places. These Japanese power stations seem to be designed for the inner city and areas of high population. I work in the inner city and know darn well there are alot of crazies out there. A maniac who has too much PCP in his head is more likely to take a rifle and shoot at the reactor core in the inner city than go on a mission to the Bearing Straits.
How about the Harpers Magazine article on the "Radioactive Boyscout" ? This guy was a radiation junkie ! Imagine if thousands of personal reactors cores were all over the inner cities. The security of such units would be strikingly low and more likely than not, this guy would have obtained some "material". Then his homemade breeder reactor would have surely killed many people.
The issue of personal plutonium reactor cores is one of national security. In this instance, I dont care if we(or I) are(am) the pot calling the kettle black.
By the way, I didnt know about the Apollo 13 LEM dumping. Whats the deal on this ? I thought it was floating around in space or had completely burned up on re-entry.
How about the Harpers Magazine article on the "Radioactive Boyscout" ? This guy was a radiation junkie ! Imagine if thousands of personal reactors cores were all over the inner cities. The security of such units would be strikingly low and more likely than not, this guy would have obtained some "material". Then his homemade breeder reactor would have surely killed many people.
The issue of personal plutonium reactor cores is one of national security. In this instance, I dont care if we(or I) are(am) the pot calling the kettle black.
By the way, I didnt know about the Apollo 13 LEM dumping. Whats the deal on this ? I thought it was floating around in space or had completely burned up on re-entry.
-
guest
Re: A TERRORIST's DREAM !!!!!!!
Hey I worked for SAC and was training to be a
nuclear operator.
I know all about security.
I worked extremely close to about 30 tons of that stuff
at Barksdale Air Base at Shreveport LA.
Plutonium has no future on this planet.
It is pure poison in the nanogram range.
I am not fond of any use of this stuff.
I worked for a company who designs, builds and tests special weapons.
I think you might want to read Mcfees book " The Curve of Binding Energy" about how easy it is to get this stuff.
The Nuclear Kid incident is just the tip of the iceburg.
When I was with AEROJET General the missing and unaccounted for fissile materials was in the 6 kg range. Enough U-235 to build 3... 10 KT bombs.
Apollo 13 mission ended in low earth orbit.
The LEMS Power packs(SNAPS) are designed to reenter intact . That was in case the Saturn Five rocket blew up either on the pad or in the Earth's atmosphere. The metal shells burned up under reentry but the pyrolytic carbon shell surounding the isotopic battery is lying around the Pacific Ocean (near the Solomons Islands) "Plute" in the air is not a good thing ... Chernobyl proved that very well. And the really scary part about the batteries is they contain about 10 to 15 times the "plute" that was released by Chernobyl. Gulf General Atomic rates the shell life time at about 10,000 years.They assumed that someone with sense would pick it up before then. The half life of the 239 core is 93,000 years.
Oh yeah I get the shivers every time that idiot Ballard goes out. One day he's going to turn up something really special. How long before everyone is combing the ocean for bounty in a small RPV over the Internet?
A Handspring Portable with GPS and camera to see with could be it's brain with a sattelite phone link to a low orbit sattelite. A manipulator and there you go.
It could be the size of a model and be sold at Walmart for chump change. The guy could have absolute access to any part of the worlds oceans .... in his underwear in front of his computer screen.
Not Long Enough I think.
There is no such thing as a safe place anymore.... not even the planet Jupiter is safe from robotic technology.
Sweet Dreams Everyone.
NEW**** A Nova program on nuclear submarine developement has revealed that Mr Ballard was a
CIA contract operative. His main mission was to map
and discover the condition of sunk subs. His "extensive" search for the Titannic was his cover story for his true mission. Thank God!
That is why fusor is so vital to mankind.
Larry Leins
Physics Teacher
nuclear operator.
I know all about security.
I worked extremely close to about 30 tons of that stuff
at Barksdale Air Base at Shreveport LA.
Plutonium has no future on this planet.
It is pure poison in the nanogram range.
I am not fond of any use of this stuff.
I worked for a company who designs, builds and tests special weapons.
I think you might want to read Mcfees book " The Curve of Binding Energy" about how easy it is to get this stuff.
The Nuclear Kid incident is just the tip of the iceburg.
When I was with AEROJET General the missing and unaccounted for fissile materials was in the 6 kg range. Enough U-235 to build 3... 10 KT bombs.
Apollo 13 mission ended in low earth orbit.
The LEMS Power packs(SNAPS) are designed to reenter intact . That was in case the Saturn Five rocket blew up either on the pad or in the Earth's atmosphere. The metal shells burned up under reentry but the pyrolytic carbon shell surounding the isotopic battery is lying around the Pacific Ocean (near the Solomons Islands) "Plute" in the air is not a good thing ... Chernobyl proved that very well. And the really scary part about the batteries is they contain about 10 to 15 times the "plute" that was released by Chernobyl. Gulf General Atomic rates the shell life time at about 10,000 years.They assumed that someone with sense would pick it up before then. The half life of the 239 core is 93,000 years.
Oh yeah I get the shivers every time that idiot Ballard goes out. One day he's going to turn up something really special. How long before everyone is combing the ocean for bounty in a small RPV over the Internet?
A Handspring Portable with GPS and camera to see with could be it's brain with a sattelite phone link to a low orbit sattelite. A manipulator and there you go.
It could be the size of a model and be sold at Walmart for chump change. The guy could have absolute access to any part of the worlds oceans .... in his underwear in front of his computer screen.
Not Long Enough I think.
There is no such thing as a safe place anymore.... not even the planet Jupiter is safe from robotic technology.
Sweet Dreams Everyone.
NEW**** A Nova program on nuclear submarine developement has revealed that Mr Ballard was a
CIA contract operative. His main mission was to map
and discover the condition of sunk subs. His "extensive" search for the Titannic was his cover story for his true mission. Thank God!
That is why fusor is so vital to mankind.
Larry Leins
Physics Teacher