e-truck insanity

[TailingsPond + 1,009]

2 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Guys you clearly havent read the article

The design uses Molten Salt Reactors, operating under high temperature and low-pressure conditions, mitigating the risk of a reactor meltdown from the outset.

I didn't have any concerns over a meltdown.  i just don't think the world will accept a whole bunch of ships carrying around reactors - and for good reason.  Stationary power plants can have tight security and can be closely monitored.  At ship at sea, bearing who knows what flag, can do pretty much anything they want.

 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,192]

4 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Guys you clearly havent read the article

We are perfectly aware of molten salt reactor designs.  After all WE TOLD YOU ABOUT THEM!!!

YOU linked to US nuclear subs.... Guess what they run on? 

Solid Plutonium

Not molten salt which governments REFUSE to fund which are INHERENTLY safe and been known to be safe since Oak Ridge Labs made the first one back in the 1960's!!!  But lost due to fact you can't harvest Plutonium out of them as easily as you can with the current designs. 

Ai carumba ... Use a mirror man

[Anup_b 0]

Casual dating at its finest – join the leading platform for relaxed and fun encounters!
Live Women
[URL=https://matchnow.life]Premier casual Dating[/URL]

[turbguy + 1,545]

On 4/26/2024 at 2:20 PM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

YOU linked to US nuclear subs.... Guess what they run on? 

Solid Plutonium

While theoretically possible, it's hard for me to believe that. I was under the impression they used HEUF, to achieve long core life.

Got a link??

 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,192]

13 hours ago, turbguy said:

While theoretically possible, it's hard for me to believe that. I was under the impression they used HEUF, to achieve long core life.

Got a link??

 

Lets put it this way: If you go to Sub Brief and H. I Sutton they go over history of submarines and their nuclear power.  What they go over are generally the ACCIDENTS and most of those accidents they talk about are in the USSR and uh... they aren't using Uranium, or more specifically, the nuclear problems they have are off gassing daughter products etc mostly associated with Plutonium.  If the USSR isn't using Uranium, its a guarantee the USA isn't either for same technical reasons. 

That being said, I have spent time in the Nuclear side of power engineering.  Lets go over some rough(very) numbers and constraints:

Nuclear aircraft carriers and Nuclear submarines today in the USN will NEVER have a core replacement in their service history and without moving fuel rods etc around(No hands touching it)...  Lets ignore the aircraft carrier(they have tons of Volume) So, submarines are liming factor and they use the same power core.  This requires neutron density flux must be constant over its lifespan(specifically at its end of lifespan ~30 years from now).  For this to happen requires a VERY VERY high initial neutron flux to begin with and high energy state.  Uranium core to function for even a ~year and a half requires a core at minimum of 1.5ft in diameter, but its efficiency will be abysmal.  Giant Uranium piles in Civilian space are ~20ft wide etc and upwards of 20ft thick(produces more power though).  IN submarines how much space do you have hrmm?  A 1.5ft Uranium core requires a pressure vessel for ~safe operations at minimum ~10ft in diameter + wall/shielding/piping etc and produces ~20MW of power VERY VERY VERY inefficiently as its core temperature is VERY LOW.  A submarine is ~30ft in diameter in its pressure vessel.  Back to size: Much talked about SMNR(Small Modular Nuclear Reactors)  They are using the HIGH enriched Uranium to make this happen by the way not low enrichment Uranium.  A low enrichment SMNR barely functions at all and needs replacement of its core in about ~6-->12 months and absolutely no one has built one, a high Uranium Enrichment SMNR has the higher efficiency due to hotter core, but still must be replaced in ~18 months    A Nuclear Submarine has ~200+++ MW of power and good for 30+ years. 

1+ 1 = ?

EDIT: Oh it should be pointed out USS nautilus made ~10MW and barely hit 20knts while requiring core replacements VERY frequently(I believe every 18 months?  which eventually went to every 3 years or so? There are documentaries out there).  Virginia class is near identical in size in diameter and has 10X power, and its next core replacement is 30+ years  So, yes, initial Nuclear Powered subs used Uranium, when they stopped and changed.... = don't know, they aren't saying

There is a famous Russian Bismuth Uranium reactor meltdown.  Why bismuth?  same reason USA wanted molten Salt reactors.  Allows VERY HIGH temperatures and smaller power cores while obtaining higher efficiencies of fuel and therefore do not have to remove core. 

Edited June 23 by footeab@yahoo.com

[turbguy + 1,545]

1 hour ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

1+ 1 = ?

2

Thank you.  I have always been impressed by the amount of MWt that a "small box" inside of sub can produce for the Life-Of-Ship, without have to shuffle the stuff around and add some new stuff every few years .  

All of my experience is on the civilian side, and dealt with the steam-turbine/generator island (what the nuc guys referred to as the "pressure reducing valve" next door).  Avoiding the "zoomies"  (gamma) during operation of BWR plants was a concern, particularly if operations didn't control dissolved O₂ in the feedwater.  Finding those damn air in-leakage sources on the vacuum side was a real pain in the ass.  I noted that stellite (cobalt) alloy hard-facing inlays were never used in nuclear steam valves, while fossil units make significant use of them.  

In any event, I never argued with the Health Physics Officer.

I suppose that the actual fuel mix used in naval reactors is classified info.  Public sources indicate HEUF is used, but I approach that info as "questionable".

 

Edited June 23 by turbguy

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,192]

7 hours ago, turbguy said:

I suppose that the actual fuel mix used in naval reactors is classified info.  Public sources indicate HEUF is used, but I approach that info as "questionable".

Initially 100% it is HEUF.  Real question is: What percentage is actually Plutonium?  Plutonium will ~breed the Uranium, so technically my statement they are using SOLID Plutonium, I am sure is hyperbole.  Then again, the Satellite Plutonium reactors use 100% Plutonium, but then their mass is more important so...