• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Question about nuclear fuel rods ...

B

Blieb

Diamond Member
Are they created on-site?
How are they transported?

Fuel rods didn't just drop from the sky and land in place.
Are they activated or something that I'm missing?

Fixed last sentence:
When a reactor is shut down. They just seal it off ... they don't pump water in there to cool it forever and ever.
 
Last edited:
They're not created on-site, but I can't give you the specifics of how they're transported. I'd have to kill you. No really, I'm not sure.

Fuel rods are hardly radioactive prior to being used in the reactor. Like near zero.

I have no idea what your last sentence is about.
 
Blieb said:
Are they created on-site?
How are they transported?

Fuel rods didn't just drop from the sky and land in place.
Are they activated or something that I'm missing?

Fixed last sentence:
When a reactor is shut down. They just seal it off ... they don't pump water in there to cool it forever and ever.
Click to expand...

The need to cool the rods down after you "shut it down"... someone who know's more can explain how long, but I heard around a month or so, then you won't need to cool them down anymore. This may seem absurd, but this is also what makes this energy source so powerful.
 
Blieb said:
Fixed last sentence:
When a reactor is shut down. They just seal it off ... they don't pump water in there to cool it forever and ever.
Click to expand...
Uh, generally the idea is to remove the fuel when it is "spent" and put it in the spent fuel pool (and eventually dry storage casks) so you can put fresh fuel in again.

Reactors have to be decommissioned when they're done for good, you can't just let them chill there with spent fuel in them.
 
Elganja said:
The need to cool the rods down after you "shut it down"... someone who know's more can explain how long, but I heard around a month or so, then you won't need to cool them down anymore. This may seem absurd, but this is also what makes this energy source so powerful.
Click to expand...

IIRC it's more like 4-5 years they need to be in cooling ponds before they are able to be in dry storage.
 
UPS Ground. Man you should see them flip out when the tracking information has it going to the wrong city!
 
I'm more curious why there hasnt been a design change to these reactors such that in case of a major failure like this, rather than relying on control rods to be inserted and pumped water to cool them, the fuel rods don't just simply fall into a 'safe' position. One that will both stop the reaction and allow them to cool, even if it's at a non-optimal rate.

Imagine them falling onto a 'bed' of lead-impregnated ceramics or some such material that they both won't melt and won't harm via radiation.

Presumably I'm underestimating the problem, or perhaps the cost of such a solution. I'm not a nukeular scientist.
 
Last edited:
10 years is more realistic, but the reality is that much of the fuel in pools is older than that. Pools are just now starting to fill up and force transfer to dry cask storage.
 
rivan said:
I'm more curious why there hasnt been a design change to these reactors such that in case of a major failure like this, rather than relying on control rods to be inserted and pumped water to cool them, the fuel rods don't just simply fall into a 'safe' position. One that will both stop the reaction and allow them to cool, even if it's at a non-optimal rate.

Imagine them falling onto a 'bed' of lead-impregnated ceramics or some such material that they both won't melt and won't harm via radiation.

Presumably I'm underestimating the problem, or perhaps the cost of such a solution. I'm not a nukeular scientist.
Click to expand...

These are gen 2 reactors. The newest stuff, gen 4 (and to a lesser extent gen 3+), have concepts where they default to a safe state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inherently_safe
 
Last edited:
rivan said:
I'm more curious why there hasnt been a design change to these reactors such that in case of a major failure like this, rather than relying on control rods to be inserted and pumped water to cool them, the fuel rods don't just simply fall into a 'safe' position. One that will both stop the reaction and allow them to cool, even if it's at a non-optimal rate.

Imagine them falling onto a 'bed' of lead-impregnated ceramics or some such material that they both won't melt and won't harm via radiation.

Presumably I'm underestimating the problem, or perhaps the cost of such a solution. I'm not a nukeular scientist.
Click to expand...

There are better designs. There were safer designs 40 years ago.

They COST more.

btw, I'm not an expert, but I think the reactor designs in Japan do have a type of last resort place for the fuel to go even if the primary containment fails. I remember hearing that at Three Mile Island the core ended up on a 6 inch thick stainless steel floor ? and only ate into it about half an inch before cooling.
 
Blieb said:
So let's bust out these rods and throw them in the cool pool!
Screw trying to save the reactors ...
Click to expand...
Considering the fuel pools are more of an issue than the reactors right now, that seems unwise.

Also, are you volunteering to be the one that swims into the reactor and uses superhero strength to throw the assemblies into the pool? Let me know how that feels afterward.
 
rcpratt said:
Considering the fuel pools are more of an issue than the reactors right now, that seems unwise.

Also, are you volunteering to be the one that swims into the reactor and uses superhero strength to throw the assemblies into the pool? Let me know how that feels afterward.
Click to expand...

It tastes like burning!
 
I wanted to say I'd gladly volunteer - but ... probably not.

I just don't understand overall ... how we can have something that has no negative side effect in the beginning, or at the end ... but in the middle ... just can't do a damn thing or all hell is gonna break loose.
 
rcpratt said:
Considering the fuel pools are more of an issue than the reactors right now, that seems unwise.

Also, are you volunteering to be the one that swims into the reactor and uses superhero strength to throw the assemblies into the pool? Let me know how that feels afterward.
Click to expand...

OHHHH you're saying it's the spent rods that are giving the most trouble ...
 
I didn't read any of the links posted above...but have heard that in France, they have a process that allows you to run the fuel rods through again and continue using them. It results in less nuclear waste. The states are so far behind though because nuclear regulations hold progress back and keep testing/development from moving forward.

I've heard stories of nuclear plant construction...they take the regulations that say to pour a concrete wall 6ft thick...start pouring concrete...it cures. The following year (prior to the build being complete), the regulations change. The work has to be torn out and replaced with a 10ft thick wall. Crap like that has really made companies not want to get into nuclear power...the accidents are one thing. The red tape from Washington is far worse from a cost control standpoint....and I'm sure it's about to get worse for the next few years until people forget about this disaster.

BTW...my sources for my info come from nuclear and fossil engineers. I used to drink with a few of them back in the day....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top