Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
MAJOR TSUNAMI---Damage in N Japan after 8.9 quake
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="JRSherman" data-source="post: 1484462" data-attributes="member: 13432"><p>The news idiots have one agenda, and that is to wipe nuclear power clean so little fluffy bunnies can play in sunshine and unicorns can prance around farting out rainbows.</p><p></p><p>The comparisons of this type of event to Chernobyl are what really get me. Chernobyl's moderator was graphite, which has a positive coefficient of reactivity. In contrast, a reactor with water as the moderator has a negative coefficient of reactivity.</p><p></p><p>What this means is as water is introduced to a covered core, the molecules of the water "absorb" the radioactive fission neutrons. The reaction generates the heat that is then carried to steam generators, which draw the heat out of the primary system(the moderator) and is utilized to generate electricity via turbines. It's almost the same theory as an air conditioner compressor. In addition to this, the control rods that slam to the bottom when the reactor scrams are designed to absorb those same neutrons to a much greater degree, so you have double the effect when you use those control rods and water as the moderator. </p><p></p><p>Chernobyl's graphite moderator, however, with its positive coefficient of reactivity, means that the neutrons make the heat, but the graphite doesn't absorb them, so they keep making the heat. Even if you scrammed, you still have a long time period of semi-natural heat loss before you even start to touch the reactor cooling down.</p><p></p><p>When you combine this with rapid increase in pressure with no relief, the pressure and temperature compound each other faster than a Visa card with your wife at the mall.</p><p></p><p>That is why the big rush is to <strong>focus</strong> on keeping the pressure relieved to atmosphere while keeping any form of water based coolant, seawater included, flowing across the core to remove the decay heat. Once the decay heat is neutralized, the core will automatically begin to cool itself off due to lack of neutron emission.</p><p></p><p>That is also why none of this chit can be compared to Chernobyl, because the Russians proved to everyone how dumb they were being not listening behind the wall.</p><p></p><p>Also, something the media is blowing real hard is radiation levels announced as "amount that is Blah times greater than normal." The higher that Blah, the happier the media is and the public just doesn't know that the typical value is so tiny that it's only quantified and recorded for paperwork.</p><p></p><p></p><p>If you've read all of what I posted, I applaud you. I spent a year and a half in school learning this crap, as well as the operation of the junk, with a minimum average of 11 hours a day in the classroom, and it never really sunk in until I got out of the Navy.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JRSherman, post: 1484462, member: 13432"] The news idiots have one agenda, and that is to wipe nuclear power clean so little fluffy bunnies can play in sunshine and unicorns can prance around farting out rainbows. The comparisons of this type of event to Chernobyl are what really get me. Chernobyl's moderator was graphite, which has a positive coefficient of reactivity. In contrast, a reactor with water as the moderator has a negative coefficient of reactivity. What this means is as water is introduced to a covered core, the molecules of the water "absorb" the radioactive fission neutrons. The reaction generates the heat that is then carried to steam generators, which draw the heat out of the primary system(the moderator) and is utilized to generate electricity via turbines. It's almost the same theory as an air conditioner compressor. In addition to this, the control rods that slam to the bottom when the reactor scrams are designed to absorb those same neutrons to a much greater degree, so you have double the effect when you use those control rods and water as the moderator. Chernobyl's graphite moderator, however, with its positive coefficient of reactivity, means that the neutrons make the heat, but the graphite doesn't absorb them, so they keep making the heat. Even if you scrammed, you still have a long time period of semi-natural heat loss before you even start to touch the reactor cooling down. When you combine this with rapid increase in pressure with no relief, the pressure and temperature compound each other faster than a Visa card with your wife at the mall. That is why the big rush is to [B]focus[/B] on keeping the pressure relieved to atmosphere while keeping any form of water based coolant, seawater included, flowing across the core to remove the decay heat. Once the decay heat is neutralized, the core will automatically begin to cool itself off due to lack of neutron emission. That is also why none of this chit can be compared to Chernobyl, because the Russians proved to everyone how dumb they were being not listening behind the wall. Also, something the media is blowing real hard is radiation levels announced as "amount that is Blah times greater than normal." The higher that Blah, the happier the media is and the public just doesn't know that the typical value is so tiny that it's only quantified and recorded for paperwork. If you've read all of what I posted, I applaud you. I spent a year and a half in school learning this crap, as well as the operation of the junk, with a minimum average of 11 hours a day in the classroom, and it never really sunk in until I got out of the Navy. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
MAJOR TSUNAMI---Damage in N Japan after 8.9 quake
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom