Jump to content

[Update: Confirmed] Unlimited* Powaaa! – Scientists achieve net positive nuclear fusion reaction

Lightwreather
Go to solution Solved by Lightwreather,

Well, it appears it has been confirmed by the Department of Energy,

Quote

On Tuesday, the US Department of Energy (DOE) confirmed information that had leaked out earlier this week: its National Ignition Facility had reached a new milestone, releasing significantly more fusion energy than was supplied by the lasers that triggered the fusion. "Monday, December 5, 2022 was an important day in science," said Jill Hruby, head of the National Nuclear Security Administration. "Reaching ignition in a controlled fusion experiment is an achievement that has come after more than 60 years of global research, development, engineering, and experimentation."

Quote

In terms of specifics, the lasers of the National Ignition Facility deposited 2.05 megajoules into their target in that experiment. Measurements of the energy released afterward indicate that the resulting fusion reactions set loose 3.15 megajoules, a factor of roughly 1.5. That's the highest output-to-input ratio yet achieved in a fusion experiment.

Although there is a bit of a snag here, it appears that the lasers that produced the 2 MJ, used about 300MJ.

Quote

As we noted above, the 3 MJ released in this experiment is a big step up from the amount of energy deposited in the target by the National Ignition Facility's lasers. But it's an enormous step down from the 300 MJ or so of grid power that was needed to get the lasers to fire in the first place.

But many speakers emphasized that the facility was built with once-state-of-the-art technology that's now over 30 years old. And, given its purpose of testing conditions for nuclear weapons, keeping power use low wasn't one of the design goals. "The laser wasn't designed to be efficient," said Herrmann, "the laser was designed to give us as much juice as possible to make these incredible conditions happen in the laboratory."

However she noted

Quote

Tammy Ma leads the DOE's Inertial Fusion Energy Institutional Initiative, which is designed to explore its possible use for electricity generation. She estimated that simply switching to current laser technology would immediately knock 20 percent off the energy use. She also mentioned that these lasers could fire far more regularly than the existing hardware at the National Ignition Facility.

And there are a host of other issues with Intertial Confinement.

Quote

Kim Budil, director of Lawrence Livermore National Lab, mentioned the other barriers. "This is one igniting capsule one time," Budil said. "To realize commercial fusion energy, you have to do many things; you have to be able to produce many, many fusion ignition events per minute. And you have to have a robust system of drivers to enable that." Drivers like consistent manufacturing of the targets, hardware that can survive repeated neutron exposures, and so on.

Therefore, despite the fact that laser-driven fusion has achieved significant energy milestones, a long list of issues still need to be resolved before it can be commercialised. An alternate strategy, magnetic confinement in tokamaks, is considered to primarily deal with difficulties of scale and magnetic field intensity and, as a result, to be considerably closer to commercialisation.

Quote

"There's a lot of commonalities between the two where we can learn from each other," Ma said optimistically. "There's burning plasma physics, material science, reactor engineering, and we're very supportive of each other in this community. A win for either inertial or magnetic confinement is a win for all of us." But another speaker noted that magnetic confinement works at much lower densities than laser-driven fusion, so not all of the physics would apply.

But Ma also suggested that, for laser-driven fusion to thrive, it may need to break away from its past in weapons testing. "Where we are right now is at a divergent point," she said. "We've been very lucky to be able to leverage the work that the National Nuclear Security Administration has done for inertial confinement fusion. But if we want to get serious about [using it for energy production], we need to figure out what an integrated system looks like... and what we need for a power plant. It has to be simple, it has to be high volume, it needs to be robust." None of those things had been required for the weapons work.

My thoughts

So while this has indeed confirmed that there was indeed a net positive energy output, this is only in relation to the power outputted by the lasers. Furthermore, it appears the NIF is having some difficulty reproducing what happened here, so yea. But there is hope that this milestone will be able to be carried forth to more efficient designs and bring commercial reactors. Although it is certainly some time away, this has certainly reduced the time that we will be waiting. Until it happens though, I seriously hope that governments start investing not only in fusion but fission and other renewables as well.

Sources

ArsTechnica

5 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

the real irony is that the german government specifically chose the worst possible place to store a majority of their waste , where literally everyone told them is the worst place possible... and now are all like "well this shit is expensive! "

Sure is, if you're doing absolutely everything completely wrong despite warnings of experts etc...

Honestly I don't understand why governments make decisions like that,  like with LA wanting to ban ICE cars and shut down their nuclear power but they haven't prepared the power grid yet to handle either of these individually let alone at the same time.

 

It's like someone deciding they want to grow all their own food and not be dependent on the shops so in excitement for he future they burn all their money then they start planting seeds.

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

No, you claimed that nuclear energy was "the cheapest", multiple times. Yes, you also claimed that mining Uranium is "dirt cheap".

 

Like it's right there:

On 12/15/2022 at 10:37 PM, mr moose said:

 

But not all countries can afford it (the fuel is dirt cheap, but the policies, politics and logistics are not).

 

 

 

 

The problem is you didn't read what I said and tried to correct me then in the process you conflated all the costs and started arguing nuclear cost more over all (which it doesn't as I showed from 4 different sources now) and now you are trying to refute several articles but you have posted nothing except telling me I am wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

- The dismantling of the 3 Swiss NPPs will cost around 23 Billion USD

- The dismantling of one NPP in Germany will cost 6.5 Billion Euro - payed by the taxpayer, not priced into energy costs

Don't dismantle them 🤷‍♂️

 

11 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

- The most recent French NPP will cost 12.7 Billion Euro and will finish in 2023 - planned: 3.4 Billion Euro and 2012. Over 3x price increase and 11 years of delay

Huge cost overruns and many year delays seems to be common for basically every large project now days. Same thing probably would have happen for any other power plant project renewable or not.

 

Here we can't even build motorways on time, at least 2 years overdue and minimum double the cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

 And up to now you could not show how mining tons of slightly radioactive rocks and processing them is supposed to be "dirt cheap". Also, if NPP fuel indeed is dirt cheap - it would only be a small part of the overall cost of nuclear energy.

I showed you two articles that clearly explained the costs of producing power. cost of producing 1 Mwh of electricity nuclear was only best by onshore wind and hydro.  Everything else cost more than that.   Honestly, I don't expect everyone to understand the economics of mining and processing materials, but I do expect that if you are going to make arguments about it that you at least try and understand.

 

22 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

And the last part about costs compared to wind and solar are still not true, especially universally, no matter how often you repeat this.

How ironic, I have provided 4 sources to support my claim, you have provided one biased article from a government with a shameful history in the energy sector and then repeated yourself over and over and over.

 

22 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

I gave that evidence to you many posts before, but I think this is a lost cause.

No, you gave me a government article that seeks to justify their mistakes.

 

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Don't dismantle them 🤷‍♂️

 

Huge cost overruns and many year delays seems to be common for basically every large project now days. Same thing probably would have happen for any other power plant project renewable or not.

 

Here we can't even build motorways on time, at least 2 years overdue and minimum double the cost.

Our state government is about to spend $60B (that's right billion) on a 27Km railway.  I has nothing to do with what's being built but the policies, politics and agendas behind it. 

 

 

 

 

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Our state government is about to spend $60B (that's right billion) on a 27Km railway.  I has nothing to do with what's being built but the policies, politics and agendas behind it. 

They are aware rail tracks don't need to be made from Titanium?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

They are aware rail tracks don't need to be made from Titanium?

I'd hope so.  The reason it costs so much is well outside this forums rules.

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Don't dismantle them 🤷‍♂️

works for italy! 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montalto_di_Castro_Nuclear_Power_Station

 

i can actually see this from one of my favorite beaches (but it doesn't look like on these photos... its black and very ominous looking, which im not sure why i cant find pictures of that... gladly was never in operation) 

 

but seriously,  yeah, i agree, its not necessary to completely "dismantle" a npp... make it a museum or something!  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

The direction tells you... the direction

-Scott Manley, 2021

 

Softwares used:

Corsair Link (Anime Edition) 

MSI Afterburner 

OpenRGB

Lively Wallpaper 

OBS Studio

Shutter Encoder

Avidemux

FSResizer

Audacity 

VLC

WMP

GIMP

HWiNFO64

Paint

3D Paint

GitHub Desktop 

Superposition 

Prime95

Aida64

GPUZ

CPUZ

Generic Logviewer

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Don't dismantle them 🤷‍♂️

Well at some point you have to. For the NPPs in question they are simply not up to safety standards anymore, cracks in containments or even the reactor vessel.

26 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Huge cost overruns and many year delays seems to be common for basically every large project now days. Same thing probably would have happen for any other power plant project renewable or not.

True, but not to that extent, like 3x or so. It also helps that renewable plants are usually far less complex. So far haven't heard from any cost overruns that are close to that league.

24 minutes ago, mr moose said:

No, you gave me a government article that seeks to justify their mistakes.

For Christs sake, how many times do you repeat that utter nonsense, bullshit claim?? How deluded are you? Do I have to repeat the same explanation now for the 4th time? Will you continue to simply ignore it? Do I have to extract the external sources of that report that are basically reprinted in there, for you??? Is it too hard for you to do that yourself?

image.png.0b5c695d8f7fee8761db29ae98105d

See that thing there that says "Source: Lazard estimates"? As we all now, Lazard is part of the German government.

24 minutes ago, mr moose said:

How ironic, I have provided 4 sources to support my claim, you have provided one biased article from a government with a shameful history in the energy sector and then repeated yourself over and over and over.

That "biased article" is a fucking collection of several independent studies, but you are absolutely imcapable of digesting that. You also utterly fail to proof that the report is invalid or biased. Your whole argument is "German gov === wrong about nuclear". Great effort, really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

Well at some point you have to. For the NPPs in question they are simply not up to safety standards anymore, cracks in containments or even the reactor vessel.

im not so sure honestly? dont you just have to remove the radioactive parts basically? (pretty sure some concrete works for any "cracks", doesn't have to be expensive either)

 

here's another one from Italy,  not "dismantled"! (well it still stands)

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrico_Fermi_Nuclear_Power_Plant_(Italy)

 

commission date 1964...

 

The direction tells you... the direction

-Scott Manley, 2021

 

Softwares used:

Corsair Link (Anime Edition) 

MSI Afterburner 

OpenRGB

Lively Wallpaper 

OBS Studio

Shutter Encoder

Avidemux

FSResizer

Audacity 

VLC

WMP

GIMP

HWiNFO64

Paint

3D Paint

GitHub Desktop 

Superposition 

Prime95

Aida64

GPUZ

CPUZ

Generic Logviewer

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Honestly I don't understand why governments make decisions like that,  like with LA wanting to ban ICE cars and shut down their nuclear power but they haven't prepared the power grid yet to handle either of these individually let alone at the same time.

 

It's like someone deciding they want to grow all their own food and not be dependent on the shops so in excitement for he future they burn all their money then they start planting seeds.

idk anything about the LA thing tbh, but wouldn't surprise me if there are similarities to german "decision making". 

The direction tells you... the direction

-Scott Manley, 2021

 

Softwares used:

Corsair Link (Anime Edition) 

MSI Afterburner 

OpenRGB

Lively Wallpaper 

OBS Studio

Shutter Encoder

Avidemux

FSResizer

Audacity 

VLC

WMP

GIMP

HWiNFO64

Paint

3D Paint

GitHub Desktop 

Superposition 

Prime95

Aida64

GPUZ

CPUZ

Generic Logviewer

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets have a look at those sources of yours which are so great:

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

That's an article from 2015 with data from 2012 - are you actually kidding me? Do I have to state what happened to prices for renewables over the past decade?

 

Then:

Quote

The estimates for the capital cost of nuclear – for plants entering service in 2019 – assume that units can be built without the disastrous delays and overruns that plagued the US industry in the past, and which have plagued some recent projects, too. 

 

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Lets have a look:

image.png.dae2f0338da6301c4db88de84711c626.png

So they average the cost for all types of renewables, use a report from 2015 which used data from - ?? I can't tell as the cited report downloads at 10kB/s.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

im not so sure honestly? dont you just have to remove the radioactive parts basically? (pretty sure some concrete works for any "cracks", doesn't have to be expensive either)

Well yes, but the radioactive parts is what make it so expensive. They have to check every part they take out for radiation levels with very controlled procedures and then send them to different recycling plants depending on radiation dosis. There are documentaries about this but all I know are in German.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

They have to check every part they take out for radiation levels with very controlled procedures

unnecessary ,  just assume it *is* radioactive tbh. 🙃

 

35 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

and then send them to different recycling plants depending on radiation dosis.

actually,  why the hell is it so expensive when dismantling a reactor in the US cost only ~600 million... 

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-11-28/how-to-decommission-a-nuclear-power-plant#:~:text=After the %24600 million dismantling,fields or a solar farm.

 

edit: oh ok that doesn't include storage, but we weren't talking about that for now, it was just about "dismantling" which is supposed to cost "billions"?! 

The direction tells you... the direction

-Scott Manley, 2021

 

Softwares used:

Corsair Link (Anime Edition) 

MSI Afterburner 

OpenRGB

Lively Wallpaper 

OBS Studio

Shutter Encoder

Avidemux

FSResizer

Audacity 

VLC

WMP

GIMP

HWiNFO64

Paint

3D Paint

GitHub Desktop 

Superposition 

Prime95

Aida64

GPUZ

CPUZ

Generic Logviewer

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

edit: oh ok that doesn't include storage, but we weren't talking about that for now, it was just about "dismantling" which is supposed to cost "billions"?! 

tbh I also don't fully get it, but maybe in the US simply less fucks are given about mildly radioactive parts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

unnecessary ,  just assume it *is* radioactive tbh. 🙃

 

actually,  why the hell is it so expensive when dismantling a reactor in the US cost only ~600 million... 

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-11-28/how-to-decommission-a-nuclear-power-plant#:~:text=After the %24600 million dismantling,fields or a solar farm.

I would propose upgrading or replacing with new reactors myself. It's not like "everything must go" when doing that. Since basically all radioactive material and fuel is actually stored on site for quite some time before anything is done to it like moving it off site all of that can simply stay. Either modernize and keep active or run as dormant and use the site for either grid battery or something else. Infrastructure is there, may as well use it.

 

To me seems like a waste to level the whole facility when it's still perfectly usable. The reactors are themselves separate from the building structure and both can be improved as needed.

 

Safety and compliance will always be the biggest cost contributing factor, that is in fact the same for coal and gas too.

 

One of the best places to store and deal with nuclear material is the power plants themselves. If you aren't concerned about reusing the land in the next 50-100 years then work out a plan that utilizes the existing capabilities and safety standards that are in place already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

tbh I also don't fully get it, but maybe in the US simply less fucks are given about mildly radioactive parts.

yeah, i mean, something doesn't add up here, which i think mr max headroom i mean, @mr moose is also trying to point out...

 

personally i think this is not a very interesting debate tbh , i would much rather know where are the billions we invest in thorium reactors,  a much more efficient alternative to everything else, including most "renewables" imho.

 

 

The direction tells you... the direction

-Scott Manley, 2021

 

Softwares used:

Corsair Link (Anime Edition) 

MSI Afterburner 

OpenRGB

Lively Wallpaper 

OBS Studio

Shutter Encoder

Avidemux

FSResizer

Audacity 

VLC

WMP

GIMP

HWiNFO64

Paint

3D Paint

GitHub Desktop 

Superposition 

Prime95

Aida64

GPUZ

CPUZ

Generic Logviewer

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I would propose upgrading or replacing with new reactors myself. It's not like "everything must go" when doing that. Since basically all radioactive material and fuel is actually stored on site for quite some time before anything is done to it like moving it off site all of that can simply stay. Either modernize and keep active or run as dormant and use the site for either grid battery or something else. Infrastructure is there, may as well use it.

 

To me seems like a waste to level the whole facility when it's still perfectly usable. The reactors are themselves separate from the building structure and both can be improved

yeah, i mean thats kinda what im arguing throughout this thread, just keep using nuclear, but modernized... if they could still use the old facilities even better! (i didn't think of that)

 

like i said above thorium reactors arent new, and more efficient and less dangerous... there isn't really an excuse not to build them imo, and honestly,  renewables are a good thing, but that won't be enough or nearly fast enough. 

 

ps: and yeah, they did that in italy apparently... their npp are still in use, just not as npps... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

The direction tells you... the direction

-Scott Manley, 2021

 

Softwares used:

Corsair Link (Anime Edition) 

MSI Afterburner 

OpenRGB

Lively Wallpaper 

OBS Studio

Shutter Encoder

Avidemux

FSResizer

Audacity 

VLC

WMP

GIMP

HWiNFO64

Paint

3D Paint

GitHub Desktop 

Superposition 

Prime95

Aida64

GPUZ

CPUZ

Generic Logviewer

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

personally i think this is not a very interesting debate tbh , i would much rather know where are the billions we invest in thorium reactors,  a much more efficient alternative to everything else, including most "renewables" imho.

Nuclear technology and practical application of it was born out of the US and the primary concern for usage was military and that is for both weapons and energy production. Molten salt type reactors weren't a good fit for the Navy, in particular submarines but also in general as any damage or mishap that involved water and the reactor would have a strong risk of explosion.

 

There were certainly political factors too, state funding as different states and their universities were studying different types, but when it comes down to it suitability is very important and Molten Salts just weren't the most suitable for the intended applications.

 

Now strictly as land base energy generation the suitable]ability is a totally different thing but all our development and practical knowledge simply is not in this type. Then it becomes a very difficult situation to develop another commercial nuclear reactor type based on vastly different principals and actually get support and funding to do it. When there is such a strong push to move away from Fission such a proposal is basically dead of delivery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Nuclear technology and practical application of it was born out of the US and the primary concern for usage for military and that is for both weapons and energy production. Molten salt type reactors weren't a good fit for the Navy, in particular submarines but also in general and any damage or mishap that involved water and the reactor would have a strong risk of explosion.

 

There were certainly political factors too, state funding as different states and their universities were studying different types, but when it comes down to it suitability is very important and Molten Salts just weren't the most suitable for the intended applications.

 

Now strictly as land base energy generation the suitable is a totally different thing but all our development and practical knowledge simply is not in this type. Then it becomes a very difficult situation to develop another commercial nuclear reactor type based on vastly different principals and actually get support and funding to do it. When there is such a strong push to move away from Fission such a proposal is basically dead of delivery.

ok, that wasn't what i wanted to hear, lol, but still interesting... i guess thats some good points.

 

but i think I've also read to just make really small thorium reactors to mitigate the risks, or was that something else?  kinda hard to keep up...

 

i also just read france is going all in on npps... as of last year at least,  and india and others apparently have working "prototype" thorium reactors... thats to say im not sure fision is dead (not at last because of no good suitable alternatives) 

 

ps: yeah, i know the history of uranium power plants, but it seems we're kinda stuck with it, with nuclear at least. the alternatives (like wind power) are just progressing way too slow in my impression.  🤔

The direction tells you... the direction

-Scott Manley, 2021

 

Softwares used:

Corsair Link (Anime Edition) 

MSI Afterburner 

OpenRGB

Lively Wallpaper 

OBS Studio

Shutter Encoder

Avidemux

FSResizer

Audacity 

VLC

WMP

GIMP

HWiNFO64

Paint

3D Paint

GitHub Desktop 

Superposition 

Prime95

Aida64

GPUZ

CPUZ

Generic Logviewer

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

but i think I've also read to just make really small thorium reactors to mitigate the risks, or was that something else?  kinda hard to keep up...

Micro reactors are based on the current type, forgot the name of the company but Bill Gates is invested in them. Seems like a really good idea since the fissile material is in such a low quantity a "meltdown" is impossible.

 

Anyway it's not like Thorium can't be done, as you know actually working reactors existed in the 60's from memory. Around that sort of time anyway. There is also strong current interest in them, China I believe is building at least one for actual power generation I think. Not sure about others since been a while since I looked at who was doing it.

 

I think it's a good option simply as a means to process/use/dispose current spent fuel supplies which actually have vast amounts of energy potential remaining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

ok, that wasn't what i wanted to hear, lol, but still interesting... i guess thats some good points.

 

but i think I've also read to just make really small thorium reactors to mitigate the risks, or was that something else?  kinda hard to keep up...

 

i also just read france is going all in on npps... as of last year at least,  and india and others apparently have working "prototype" thorium reactors... thats to say im not sure fision is dead (not at last because of no good suitable alternatives) 

 

ps: yeah, i know the history of uranium power plants, but it seems we're kinda stuck with it, with nuclear at least. the alternatives (like wind power) are just progressing way too slow in my impression.  🤔

I believe too Japan is restarting or extending shut down decommissioning due to the energy shortages happening around the world right now. 

 

Fukushima was a disaster as who the hell places emergency backup generators at sea level and get washed away...lmao. Chernobyl was an entirely different beast as the Soviet Union wanted to build nuclear reactors cheaply...cough cough RBMK-1000, without a reactor containment building and just a reactor hall with a roof of that like a warehouse. Three Mile Island was due to a faulty valve releasing pressurized steam and reactor operators halting reactor cooling pumps, resulting in it's partial meltdown. 

 

All of things are avoidable...yet operator training and terrible engineering lead to these disasters. 

CPU Cooler Tier List  || Motherboard VRMs Tier List || Motherboard Beep & POST Codes || Graphics Card Tier List || PSU Tier List 

 

Main System Specifications: 

 

CPU: AMD Ryzen 9 5950X ||  CPU Cooler: Noctua NH-D15 Air Cooler ||  RAM: Corsair Vengeance LPX 32GB(4x8GB) DDR4-3600 CL18  ||  Mobo: ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Dark Hero X570  ||  SSD: Samsung 970 EVO 1TB M.2-2280 Boot Drive/Some Games)  ||  HDD: 2X Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB(Game Drive)  ||  GPU: ASUS TUF Gaming RX 6900XT  ||  PSU: EVGA P2 1600W  ||  Case: Corsair 5000D Airflow  ||  Mouse: Logitech G502 Hero SE RGB  ||  Keyboard: Logitech G513 Carbon RGB with GX Blue Clicky Switches  ||  Mouse Pad: MAINGEAR ASSIST XL ||  Monitor: ASUS TUF Gaming VG34VQL1B 34" 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, CommanderAlex said:

I believe too Japan is restarting or extending shut down decommissioning due to the energy shortages happening around the world right now. 

 

Fukushima was a disaster as who the hell places emergency backup generators at sea level and get washed away...lmao. Chernobyl was an entirely different beast as the Soviet Union wanted to build nuclear reactors cheaply...cough cough RBMK-1000, without a reactor containment building and just a reactor hall with a roof of that like a warehouse. Three Mile Island was due to a faulty valve releasing pressurized steam and reactor operators halting reactor cooling pumps, resulting in it's partial meltdown. 

 

All of things are avoidable...yet operator training and terrible engineering lead to these disasters. 

right, chernobyl was also somewhat of a "freak accident" they were *never* supposed to do what they were doing and ideally there would have been mechanisms to not allow them to do that... (they removed the cooling rods... to avoid a meltdown... what)

Scott Manley actually has a great video about it... 

The direction tells you... the direction

-Scott Manley, 2021

 

Softwares used:

Corsair Link (Anime Edition) 

MSI Afterburner 

OpenRGB

Lively Wallpaper 

OBS Studio

Shutter Encoder

Avidemux

FSResizer

Audacity 

VLC

WMP

GIMP

HWiNFO64

Paint

3D Paint

GitHub Desktop 

Superposition 

Prime95

Aida64

GPUZ

CPUZ

Generic Logviewer

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

right, chernobyl was also somewhat of a "freak accident" they were *never* supposed to do what they were doing and ideally there would have been mechanisms to not allow them to do that... (they removed the cooling rods... to avoid a meltdown... what)

Scott Manley actually has a great video about it... 

I've watched and read books on Chernobyl, Midnight at Chernobyl by Adam Higginbotham, fantastic book. Xenon-135 poisoning was a big factor as the test experiment they were running at low power, which resulted in Xenon-135 building up leading to decreased reactivity in the core. Keep in mind the core of an RBMK-1000 is huge, 11.8m in diameter and 7 meters high. This. combined with the uneven reactivity across the core creates hot spots. Core reactivity dropped to zero and night operators were unfamiliar with the experiment (partially, but to keep things short some were). Operators overrode safety systems by pulling all control rods to try and regain reactivity, which resulted in the burning on Xenon-135 and eventually power increased exponentially.

 

The design of the core follows a positive void coefficient, whereas Western reactors follow a negative void coefficient. This resulted in loss of control of the reactor as water in an RBMK-1000 is both a neutron moderator and neutron absorber, and "bubbles" form due to the vaporization of water from liquid to gas inside. 

 

When the operators realized they needed to shut down the reactor, SCRAM button here, the AZ-5 button results in "immediate" drop/insert (from above and below reactor) of all control rods to stop reactivity. The time it takes for all control rods in the reactor to completely travel down the core was 18 seconds. Also, each control rod was tipped with graphite, due to water going in where the rods will go..displacement etc. This also increases reactivity in the core, which is what is theorized that led to a hydrogen gas buildup in the core, as at this point, temperatures are so high that hydrogen and oxygen separate decompose from water, leading to an initial hydrogen explosion in the core, then being exposed to the outside environment lead to a secondary explosion, lifting the 1,000T reactor lid off the reactor and throwing it up and falling back down on the reactor. 

 

Positive void coefficient was also noted at Ignalina NPP years prior to the Chernobyl disaster that saw a partial meltdown of the core from AZ-5 (IIRC from the book, I read two years ago). 

CPU Cooler Tier List  || Motherboard VRMs Tier List || Motherboard Beep & POST Codes || Graphics Card Tier List || PSU Tier List 

 

Main System Specifications: 

 

CPU: AMD Ryzen 9 5950X ||  CPU Cooler: Noctua NH-D15 Air Cooler ||  RAM: Corsair Vengeance LPX 32GB(4x8GB) DDR4-3600 CL18  ||  Mobo: ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Dark Hero X570  ||  SSD: Samsung 970 EVO 1TB M.2-2280 Boot Drive/Some Games)  ||  HDD: 2X Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB(Game Drive)  ||  GPU: ASUS TUF Gaming RX 6900XT  ||  PSU: EVGA P2 1600W  ||  Case: Corsair 5000D Airflow  ||  Mouse: Logitech G502 Hero SE RGB  ||  Keyboard: Logitech G513 Carbon RGB with GX Blue Clicky Switches  ||  Mouse Pad: MAINGEAR ASSIST XL ||  Monitor: ASUS TUF Gaming VG34VQL1B 34" 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

@CommanderAlexthat's probably closer to what happened than what i said but the Scott Manley video mentions all that too, i think. he also explained the lead up (the "experiment" or test) really well, and that one shift didn't really know what the prior shift was doing,  also the top down hierachy... and i don't remember if it was control rods, or cooling rods, or both, point is according to him they panicked and at some point there were only 1 or 2 "cooling rods" in the reactor and that then led to several chain reactions as you explained.  pretty fascinating,  and more so pretty stupid actually (he definitely put most blame on the operators, who didn't really understand how the reactor works, and the top down hierachy, to be fair, but you could also say due to poor training,  the end result is the same)

 

ps: also mentioned that prior accident,  but the operators may not have known about this in detail due to soviet "secrecy"... 

The direction tells you... the direction

-Scott Manley, 2021

 

Softwares used:

Corsair Link (Anime Edition) 

MSI Afterburner 

OpenRGB

Lively Wallpaper 

OBS Studio

Shutter Encoder

Avidemux

FSResizer

Audacity 

VLC

WMP

GIMP

HWiNFO64

Paint

3D Paint

GitHub Desktop 

Superposition 

Prime95

Aida64

GPUZ

CPUZ

Generic Logviewer

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×