GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post - Meltdown may be under way at Fukushima nuclear reactor

borked · 03-14-2011, 01:05 PM

what I don't understand in this whole nuclear reactor setup is this....

Principle of nuclear energy:
1. nuclear rods are 'ignited' so to speak to go into a radiaactive energetic decay.
2. This energy is transmitted to water that is heated up to steam to turn turbines that generate electricity.
3. To shut off a nuclear reaction occurring inside the rods, you dump in "sponges" to mop up all the isotopes that permit the reaction to occur, shutting down the reaction occuring in the rods.

Once this has happened, there is little-to-zero chance of a chernobyl event, since no more nuclear reactions are occurring. Which is what happened a minute or two after the earthquake.

Now, these rods are still hot, frikken hot and need the time to cool down. The water they are in is still being boiled to super-heated steam. Temperature such that the nitrogen in the air in the vessel becomes radioactive nitrogen (N-16), which isn't very dangerous as its decay live is in the order of seconds. The water vapour though is under so much pressure that it breaks down to the gaseous hydrogen and oxygen (the explosion after venting).

So what I don't get is why the venting mechanism wasn't designed to take the gas out to sea? Why vent into the atmosphere, when a pipe running all 200 metres out to sea (or even further) could have dissolved that short-lived radioactive material into the sea water. No more explosion risk, no more gas cloud...

Or, why try to cool something that is like 1000oC with H20 at 25oC when you could cool it with something like liquid N2 (-160oC or thereabouts) and vent the N-16 gas into the sea, or liquid argon (whatever that temp is) and again vent whatever the short-lived argon radioactive isotope is out to sea too?

Basically, why vent into the air and have wind transmit it to people when you could vent out to the sea and keep it contained? OK, no fishing for a season, but shit, that's better than a gas surely?

Why is it these nuclear reactors are often located on the coast anyway if they don't use the sea as a safety net?

03-14-2011, 01:05 PM
borked Totally Borked Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 6,284	what I don't understand in this whole nuclear reactor setup is this.... Principle of nuclear energy: 1. nuclear rods are 'ignited' so to speak to go into a radiaactive energetic decay. 2. This energy is transmitted to water that is heated up to steam to turn turbines that generate electricity. 3. To shut off a nuclear reaction occurring inside the rods, you dump in "sponges" to mop up all the isotopes that permit the reaction to occur, shutting down the reaction occuring in the rods. Once this has happened, there is little-to-zero chance of a chernobyl event, since no more nuclear reactions are occurring. Which is what happened a minute or two after the earthquake. Now, these rods are still hot, frikken hot and need the time to cool down. The water they are in is still being boiled to super-heated steam. Temperature such that the nitrogen in the air in the vessel becomes radioactive nitrogen (N-16), which isn't very dangerous as its decay live is in the order of seconds. The water vapour though is under so much pressure that it breaks down to the gaseous hydrogen and oxygen (the explosion after venting). So what I don't get is why the venting mechanism wasn't designed to take the gas out to sea? Why vent into the atmosphere, when a pipe running all 200 metres out to sea (or even further) could have dissolved that short-lived radioactive material into the sea water. No more explosion risk, no more gas cloud... Or, why try to cool something that is like 1000oC with H20 at 25oC when you could cool it with something like liquid N2 (-160oC or thereabouts) and vent the N-16 gas into the sea, or liquid argon (whatever that temp is) and again vent whatever the short-lived argon radioactive isotope is out to sea too? Basically, why vent into the air and have wind transmit it to people when you could vent out to the sea and keep it contained? OK, no fishing for a season, but shit, that's better than a gas surely? Why is it these nuclear reactors are often located on the coast anyway if they don't use the sea as a safety net? __________________ For coding work - hit me up on andy // borkedcoder // com (consider figuring out the email as test #1) All models are wrong, but some are useful. George E.P. Box. p202 Last edited by borked; 03-14-2011 at 01:07 PM..