Integral Fast Reactor???
he...@link.physchem.kth.se
particularly the concern about the heat exchanger safety at the
sodium-water interface, another question springs to mind :
How is start-up achieved in a reactor containing presumeably, many hundreds
of tonnes of Sodium ?
I presume that it would be decanted or pumped from some kind of
containment vessel into the reactor pool and secondary HX system which
initially contain some inert gas that can be purged. This would probably
have to be done before the nuclear reaction was initiated and in order to
have a smooth startup the coolant would be kept at molten temperature by
running the secondary HX in reverse with process steam heating.
If for some reason, the reactor was shut down (perhaps due to HX leaks!)
and the Sodium in the primary cooling system solidified, then I can imagine
a very difficult restart as it would probably take weeks to heat up to
operating temperature.
Are there any design features included in liquid metal reactors that
circumvent this problem ?
Incidentally, when containment vessels (converters, furnaces, etc.) undergo
startup in the metal processing industry, they usually require heating in the
form of natural gas burners (they make great flame-throwers also) for a number
of days beforehand so that the liquid metal, matte or slag does not solidify
as soon as it encounters the walls of the vessel (except for a small amount
which provides a good insulating layer.
Perhaps another technical objection to using lead as a coolant (besides
pumping problems) would be that its melting point is much higher than
sodium (327.5 C vs. 97.8 C) and so startup would be more difficult (not half
as difficult as starting up a Nickel converter or similar furnace, however).
This problem could be partly overcome by using a Lead alloy with a lower m.p.
but then you would probably have other problems with induced radioactivity
in the alloying components.
Any thoughts on this?
Kind Regards
James
P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550
>Having observed this thread with interest for a couple of days and most
>particularly the concern about the heat exchanger safety at the
>sodium-water interface, another question springs to mind :
>
>How is start-up achieved in a reactor containing presumeably, many hundreds
>of tonnes of Sodium ?
>
Quite easily and routinely
>I presume that it would be decanted or pumped from some kind of
>containment vessel into the reactor pool and secondary HX system which
>initially contain some inert gas that can be purged. This would probably
>have to be done before the nuclear reaction was initiated and in order to
>have a smooth startup the coolant would be kept at molten temperature by
>running the secondary HX in reverse with process steam heating.
>
No! The sodium remains in a pool, and the reactor is first taken critical, then
the secondary draws energy out and the reactor follows a power rise commesurate
with the delta T across the core. The Na is kept >750 deg C allways, including
in shutdown mode
>If for some reason, the reactor was shut down (perhaps due to HX leaks!)
>and the Sodium in the primary cooling system solidified, then I can imagine
>a very difficult restart as it would probably take weeks to heat up to
>operating temperature.
>
Never happens- see above.
>Are there any design features included in liquid metal reactors that
>circumvent this problem ?
>
>
>Incidentally, when containment vessels (converters, furnaces, etc.) undergo
>startup in the metal processing industry, they usually require heating in the
>form of natural gas burners (they make great flame-throwers also) for a number
>of days beforehand so that the liquid metal, matte or slag does not solidify
>as soon as it encounters the walls of the vessel (except for a small amount
>which provides a good insulating layer.
>
>This problem could be partly overcome by using a Lead alloy with a lower m.p.
>but then you would probably have other problems with induced radioactivity
>in the alloying components.
>
>Any thoughts on this?
>
Conceptual reactors with lead coolants have been studied, however have
found that the pumps/valves that are incontact with this element go through
brutal environment
>Kind Regards
>
>
>
>James
Peter Angelo
pan...@anl.gov
Geoffrey Sherwood
: No! The sodium remains in a pool, and the reactor is first taken critical, then
: the secondary draws energy out and the reactor follows a power rise commesurate
: with the delta T across the core. The Na is kept >750 deg C allways, including
: in shutdown mode
: >If for some reason, the reactor was shut down (perhaps due to HX leaks!)
: >and the Sodium in the primary cooling system solidified, then I can imagine
: >a very difficult restart as it would probably take weeks to heat up to
: >operating temperature.
: >
: Never happens- see above.
Are you saying that there are no failure modes which would cause heat to be
withdrawn from the sodium? I realize this would be a very unlikely scenario,
but I would hope that if it *could* happen that it would be recoverable -- hate
to lose a rather expensive reactor just because its pipes were frozen....
Second question. You say the sodium remains in a pool. Does this mean it
is not piped? A bit later in the article you said lead was rejected because
of damage to the pumps which seems to indicate to me that the coolant is
piped? What am I missing?
geoff sherwood
T Orth FP/207/ 8505
|> Having observed this thread with interest for a couple of days and most
|> particularly the concern about the heat exchanger safety at the
|> sodium-water interface, another question springs to mind :
|>
|> How is start-up achieved in a reactor containing presumeably, many hundreds
|> of tonnes of Sodium ?
Sodium remains in the pool at all times (primary). FFTF has been in standby
status for a few years now, and they have not allowed the sodium to solidify.
Any FFTF guys out there want to comment on how it's handled?
|>
|> I presume that it would be decanted or pumped from some kind of
|> containment vessel into the reactor pool and secondary HX system which
|> initially contain some inert gas that can be purged. This would probably
|> have to be done before the nuclear reaction was initiated and in order to
|> have a smooth startup the coolant would be kept at molten temperature by
|> running the secondary HX in reverse with process steam heating.
The sodium pool is covered with argon gas and is cycled through a purification
system steadily.
|>
|> If for some reason, the reactor was shut down (perhaps due to HX leaks!)
|> and the Sodium in the primary cooling system solidified, then I can imagine
|> a very difficult restart as it would probably take weeks to heat up to
|> operating temperature.
See above for FFTF experience.
|>
|> Are there any design features included in liquid metal reactors that
|> circumvent this problem ?
|>
Pete? your in IFRO, can you help me out here? I'm just a fuels guy.
|>
|> Incidentally, when containment vessels (converters, furnaces, etc.) undergo
|> startup in the metal processing industry, they usually require heating in the
|> form of natural gas burners (they make great flame-throwers also) for a number
|> of days beforehand so that the liquid metal, matte or slag does not solidify
|> as soon as it encounters the walls of the vessel (except for a small amount
|> which provides a good insulating layer.
|>
|> Kind Regards
|>
|>
|>
|> James
Tom Orth
Nuclear Engineer
Argonne National Laboratory
Speaking for myself
or...@flicker.fp.anl.gov
P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550
>P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550 (b41...@flash.ra.anl.gov) wrote:
>
>: No! The sodium remains in a pool, and the reactor is first taken critical, then
>: the secondary draws energy out and the reactor follows a power rise commesurate
>: with the delta T across the core. The Na is kept >750 deg C allways, including
>: in shutdown mode
>
>: >If for some reason, the reactor was shut down (perhaps due to HX leaks!)
>: >and the Sodium in the primary cooling system solidified, then I can imagine
>: >a very difficult restart as it would probably take weeks to heat up to
>: >operating temperature.
>: >
>: Never happens- see above.
>
>Are you saying that there are no failure modes which would cause heat to be
>withdrawn from the sodium? I realize this would be a very unlikely scenario,
>but I would hope that if it *could* happen that it would be recoverable -- hate
>to lose a rather expensive reactor just because its pipes were frozen....
I don't think any initiating event to my knowledge has been identified
as significant. Having read the 2-volume PRA, I have to conclude that it
is not credible.
>
>Second question. You say the sodium remains in a pool. Does this mean it
>is not piped? A bit later in the article you said lead was rejected because
>of damage to the pumps which seems to indicate to me that the coolant is
>piped? What am I missing?
>
>geoff sherwood
The IHX is connected by a Z-pipe which is also in the pool. The shell side
of the IHX goes to another HX connected to the plant secondary system.
I really cant get into the specifics of the plant design, for obvious reasons,
however I will state that this reactor is 30 years old. I also bellieve I
had a typo, its 750 deg F.
In so far as lead as a coolant, this was a paper study. I don't believe any
reactors that Iknow of employs this method. Remember, Pb is much dense than
Na. Also, the Na drives an EM pump. I am not certain how Pb could be pumped.
Peter Angelo
on my soapbox-by myself
pangelo@an;.gov
P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550
--
There is an extensive network of thermocouples to monitor temperature. To
my knowledge, the thermal energy from a reduced primary pump speed duing
shutdown is enough to maintian temperature during shutdown. The pumps can
also be used to bring the temp up during heatup. Can't get into much more
detail, but the basic idea is the same
____________________________________________________________________
Peter L. Angelo EBR-II Reactor Physics
Argonne National Laboratory-West IFRO Division
email pan...@anl.gov
(The Univ of Chicago and ANL/DOE are absolved of my sins)
____________________________________________________________________
T Orth FP/207/ 8505
|> Second question. You say the sodium remains in a pool. Does this mean it
|> is not piped? A bit later in the article you said lead was rejected because
|> of damage to the pumps which seems to indicate to me that the coolant is
|> piped? What am I missing?
The sodium in the second loop is pumped through pipes. The sodium in the pool
is not piped anywhere, but circulated through a heat exchanger "in the pool"
to transfer heat to the secondary sodium loop which is piped. In both cases
pumps are used. Perhaps a schmematic would be helpful. It is important to
note however, that EBR-II is only a testing site for IFR fuel, not a
prototype of an IFR reactor.
|>
|> geoff sherwood
John De Armond
>>Are you saying that there are no failure modes which would cause heat to be
>>withdrawn from the sodium? I realize this would be a very unlikely scenario,
>>but I would hope that if it *could* happen that it would be recoverable - hate
>>to lose a rather expensive reactor just because its pipes were frozen....
>I don't think any initiating event to my knowledge has been identified
>as significant. Having read the 2-volume PRA, I have to conclude that it
>is not credible.
Ya, and before 1979, who would have ever suspected a stuck PORV
coincident with loss of condenser vacuum, loss of condensate polishing,
a stuck pressurizer level indicator, an ancient plant computer and
improperly trained operators would result in a destroyed core at TMI?
I suggest that if you want your opinions to be credible, you'd better
tell us WHY something that, to a layman is not only possible but reasonable
(the cooling of the Na pit), can't happen.
>The IHX is connected by a Z-pipe which is also in the pool. The shell side
>of the IHX goes to another HX connected to the plant secondary system.
>I really cant get into the specifics of the plant design, for obvious reasons,
>however I will state that this reactor is 30 years old. I also bellieve I
>had a typo, its 750 deg F.
Why the hell not? Are you claiming there is some great veil of secrecy
on the details of the IFR design or is some more of that "trust us, we're
the experts"? I've just about had enough of this type BS from you two.
I watched the same tactics, employed then because of rank inocence,
destroy the LWR industry. This round I suspect your motives are less
innocent and more involved with groveling for funding.
You'd better get ready to answer the hard questions with specific data
to support your opinions. Trotting your "Dr's" out doesn't cut it -
indeed, it probably reduces your credibility. You'd better be able to
tell people, many of whom have seen explosive sodium/water reactions in
chemistry class, why a sodium-water mix through a HX leak won't result
in an explosion. And you'd better be able to explain how a massive
Na/H2O reaction won't overwhelm the inerting blanket with hydrogen. And
how the coolant will stay non-radioactive as you claim in the face of
inevitable failed fuel. And what the consequences of a Na/H2O explosion
involving Na laden with fission products will be. You'd better be able
to discuss the effects of a simultaneous design-basis earthquake and
flood on the Na pool. Or the effects of having to let the Na pool
solidify for some reason or the other. And when you're ready to explain
these things and answer questions from skeptical but not-yet-anti-nuke
people, you'd better know how to do it without trotting out your
titles and without minimal use of jargon. >I< know what
doppler shift is but to most people not educated in the field it
is bullshit accompanied by arm-waving. If you can't deal with
these questions from the pro- or neutral camps, you don't have a
chance with the anti-nukes, some of whom are as evily motivated
as Yackadamn but with the technical background to make things difficult.
If you continue as you're going right now, and with all due regard to
Mike's request, I'm going to take the time to come up to speed on the details
of IFR and you won't like my questions at all. I'd damn sure rather the
criticism come from our side than to have Dan Rather do a somber lead-in
to video showing Clamshell Alliance members dropping an ingot of sodium
into a little model of TMI containing some water. The fireball will
live forever in the memories of the American public and IFR will be
dead on the blocks.
>In so far as lead as a coolant, this was a paper study. I don't believe any
>reactors that I know of employs this method. Remember, Pb is much dense than
>Na. Also, the Na drives an EM pump. I am not certain how Pb could be pumped.
There have been no other test reactors because of DOE's 20 year infactuation
with Sodium. Lead brings a bunch of good properties to the table including
low vapor pressure, high density which absorbs gammas and converts
them to heat and shields the structures from same, good neutronics,
reasonable melting point, high boiling point and very low chemical
reactivity. I think it deserves more than just a paper study before
summary dismissal.
I see the results of Rickhover cramming LWRs down our throats; I'm not
going to stand bye and do nothing to prevent it from happening again.
IFR may be the the best thing since sliced bread but this time you're
going to have to prove it.
John
--
John De Armond, WD4OQC | For a free sample magazine, send
Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | a digest-size 52 cent SASE
Marietta, Ga "Hotrods'n'computers" | (Domestic) to PO Box 669728
j...@dixie.com "What could be better?" | Marietta, GA 30066
P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550
>b41...@flash.ra.anl.gov (P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550) writes:
>
>>>Are you saying that there are no failure modes which would cause heat to be
>>>withdrawn from the sodium? I realize this would be a very unlikely scenario,
>>>but I would hope that if it *could* happen that it would be recoverable - hate
>>>to lose a rather expensive reactor just because its pipes were frozen....
>
>>I don't think any initiating event to my knowledge has been identified
>>as significant. Having read the 2-volume PRA, I have to conclude that it
>>is not credible.
>
>Ya, and before 1979, who would have ever suspected a stuck PORV
>coincident with loss of condenser vacuum, loss of condensate polishing,
>a stuck pressurizer level indicator, an ancient plant computer and
>improperly trained operators would result in a destroyed core at TMI?
>
you forgot one critical point: THe operators TURNED OFF safety injection when
faulty pressurizer level indication told them the core was covered. BTW, 2/3
pzr logic was OR and post-TMI backfit of similar plants (B&W)
corrected it to AND. Note: recall the Davis-Besse incident, then get back to me.
>I suggest that if you want your opinions to be credible, you'd better
>tell us WHY something that, to a layman is not only possible but reasonable
>(the cooling of the Na pit), can't happen.
>
For the mere fact that the volume of Na is large enough that the energy cant
be lost fast enough. Basic heat transfer and thermodynamics. I think with
30 years operating experience, EBR-II (not IFR BTW) has demonstrated from
fuel cycle to fuel cycle (I think the number of startups and extended shutdowns
range in the hundreds) that sufficient safeguards exist to keep such a
fantastical scenario from happening. I can understand your lack of information
on plant design, just as I cant comment on how you run your magazine on
a day-to-day basis. Be advised, I don't want to tread on my employer wrt
to information NOT in the public domain. Somethings are better left proprietary
for obvious reasons (national security).
>>The IHX is connected by a Z-pipe which is also in the pool. The shell side
>>of the IHX goes to another HX connected to the plant secondary system.
>>I really cant get into the specifics of the plant design, for obvious reasons,
>>however I will state that this reactor is 30 years old. I also bellieve I
>>had a typo, its 750 deg F.
>
>Why the hell not? Are you claiming there is some great veil of secrecy
>on the details of the IFR design or is some more of that "trust us, we're
>the experts"? I've just about had enough of this type BS from you two.
>I watched the same tactics, employed then because of rank inocence,
>destroy the LWR industry. This round I suspect your motives are less
>innocent and more involved with groveling for funding.
>
NO!!! This is what I mean. You obviously do not appreciate the position as
a netter you place me in. I don't have the right to compromise security and
inform you of anything not in the public domain. You see, you are grossly
defensive for all the wrong reasons, and I feel I have been more than
accomidating. If you can't handle it, then its a wonder you left the industry
disgruntled and frustrated. You see, I don't care if you believe the
letter of the law, but this is an OPEN forum, but its a fact of life that
somethings are not meant for public disclosure by someone not acting in an
official capacity. You should know better than to interpret any otherway!
BTW, there is no self-promotion/funding jockeying going on, I just like
to get facts straight. One of the downfalls of this forum is that people
assume anything they want even if it is not ground in reality. Its as
simple as you cant tell me the weather outside my door this instant (its
raining). You cant comment on things you have absolutely no clue on. You
may have DOE/LWR experience, but not currently. You cant even tell me the state
of current affairs, or detailed ops, not even at the places you have
worked (Vogle?), because I'm sure they have changed since you last was there.
>You'd better get ready to answer the hard questions with specific data
>to support your opinions. Trotting your "Dr's" out doesn't cut it -
>indeed, it probably reduces your credibility. You'd better be able to
Sounds like you have a disgruntled axe to grind. Maybe you can side with
Mr. Yodiaken and get recruited by the UCS. Its about as much as you can
muster. I don't trod out any academic achievements to pad crediblity. (My
sig doesn't say Phd, does it.) Don't patronize me. I work for a living.
If you want specific data, refer to the Transactions of the ANS the past
few years for metal fuel performance. Refer to the Fistedis book on the
Inherrent safety tests in 1986. Refer to an ad-infinitum of
public documents including the ANS book "The EBR-II Story". I must again
caution your demands for information not in the public domain. THis technology
is classified as "Applied Technology" and due to the world-wide distribution
on this net, I am restricted by law, from divulging propietary information
NOT in the public domain. If you want SAR's and Tech Specs, then thats another
story. THere are literally hundreds of volumes of plant data, and I neither
have the time nor inkling to provide you with them just to satisfy your
apparent lack of trust for this industry.
>tell people, many of whom have seen explosive sodium/water reactions in
>chemistry class, why a sodium-water mix through a HX leak won't result
>in an explosion. And you'd better be able to explain how a massive
>Na/H2O reaction won't overwhelm the inerting blanket with hydrogen. And
>how the coolant will stay non-radioactive as you claim in the face of
>inevitable failed fuel. And what the consequences of a Na/H2O explosion
>involving Na laden with fission products will be. You'd better be able
>to discuss the effects of a simultaneous design-basis earthquake and
>flood on the Na pool. Or the effects of having to let the Na pool
>solidify for some reason or the other. And when you're ready to explain
>these things and answer questions from skeptical but not-yet-anti-nuke
>people, you'd better know how to do it without trotting out your
>titles and without minimal use of jargon. >I< know what
>doppler shift is but to most people not educated in the field it
>is bullshit accompanied by arm-waving. If you can't deal with
>these questions from the pro- or neutral camps, you don't have a
>chance with the anti-nukes, some of whom are as evily motivated
>as Yackadamn but with the technical background to make things difficult.
>
If you spent 1 month working here, you would realize what crap you just
posted. Why do you constantly stipulate your rendition of the EBR-II plant
design. There will never be a Na-H20 reaction WITHIN the core. THis is a
complete sodium system save the turbine side!
Also, there is no consequence of a Na leak causing explosions in the pool!
Probably for the simple reason there is an argon cover gas in the pool and
there is no, I repeat NO oxygen. Sounds like basic chemistry. There is not
H20 within the boundaries of containment. The IHX has sodium on BOTH
sides. But then you would know this if you had detailed knoledge of the
plant. So before you spout off like an ignoramus, you better know what you
are talking about.
>If you continue as you're going right now, and with all due regard to
>Mike's request, I'm going to take the time to come up to speed on the details
>of IFR and you won't like my questions at all. I'd damn sure rather the
>criticism come from our side than to have Dan Rather do a somber lead-in
>to video showing Clamshell Alliance members dropping an ingot of sodium
>into a little model of TMI containing some water. The fireball will
>live forever in the memories of the American public and IFR will be
>dead on the blocks.
>
With that bit of crap you just posted, its a wonder your an industry
throw-away. Hey, you have about as much crediblity on IFR as a dung beetle.
Please take the time to educate yourself. Read the literature. Study the
technical details as presented in the ANS Transactions/Fistedis book. Look
at the public documents. Read the popular literature. OMNI magazine did
a nice piece on IFR in the late 80's. Your attacks are not credible because
you simply are not informed. There are other avenues for you to obtain info.
I have better things to do, especially MY JOB, than to babysit your paranoia.
I guarentee that if you are pro-nuclear, you will be posting a million apoligies
for the simplistic argument you just posted, ONCE you become informed!!
>>In so far as lead as a coolant, this was a paper study. I don't believe any
>>reactors that I know of employs this method. Remember, Pb is much dense than
>>Na. Also, the Na drives an EM pump. I am not certain how Pb could be pumped.
>
>There have been no other test reactors because of DOE's 20 year infactuation
>with Sodium. Lead brings a bunch of good properties to the table including
>low vapor pressure, high density which absorbs gammas and converts
>them to heat and shields the structures from same, good neutronics,
>reasonable melting point, high boiling point and very low chemical
>reactivity. I think it deserves more than just a paper study before
>summary dismissal.
>
WHose, dismissing it? Find a better mousetrap and build it.
>I see the results of Rickhover cramming LWRs down our throats; I'm not
>going to stand bye and do nothing to prevent it from happening again.
Are you going to single handedly stop Westighouse's AP600, GE's ABWR,
CE's advanced LWR? I think LWR is here to stay, irreguardless of ALMR.
There's way too much ifrastructure to think otherwise.
>IFR may be the the best thing since sliced bread but this time you're
>going to have to prove it.
I think the technology will prove itself. With or without me.
I think you misunderstand this "Field of Dreams" mentality of "If we build
it they will come". There are no guarentees espoused. Yes I am a proponent
of the technology, for obvious reasons. Like I said before, the IFR will
have to take up the cross of public acceptance, it doesn't have to be nailed
to it though.
>
>John
>
>--
>John De Armond, WD4OQC | For a free sample magazine, send
>Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | a digest-size 52 cent SASE
>Marietta, Ga "Hotrods'n'computers" | (Domestic) to PO Box 669728
>j...@dixie.com "What could be better?" | Marietta, GA 30066
BTW, if you want to advertise your product on the net, better be prepared
to pay for the promotion. One of the tenets of this forum is not for
personal profit!!!
____________________________________________________________________
Peter L. Angelo EBR-II Reactor Physics
Argonne National Laboratory-West IFRO Division
email pan...@anl.gov Idaho Falls,ID
"O.K. you guys, coffee break is over, everybody back on their heads.."
T Orth FP/207/ 8505
|> improperly trained operators would result in a destroyed core at TMI?
All of the reactors on duty at TMI had extensive experience...probably too
much experience, with both navy and commercial reactors.
|>
|> I suggest that if you want your opinions to be credible, you'd better
|> tell us WHY something that, to a layman is not only possible but reasonable
|> (the cooling of the Na pit), can't happen.
|>
|> >The IHX is connected by a Z-pipe which is also in the pool. The shell side
|> >of the IHX goes to another HX connected to the plant secondary system.
|> >I really cant get into the specifics of the plant design, for obvious reasons,
|> >however I will state that this reactor is 30 years old. I also bellieve I
|> >had a typo, its 750 deg F.
|>
|> Why the hell not? Are you claiming there is some great veil of secrecy
|> on the details of the IFR design or is some more of that "trust us, we're
|> the experts"? I've just about had enough of this type BS from you two.
The obvious reasons are that EBR-II is not an IFR. The research at this time
is on fuel and fuel studies only. Some experiments were done on EBR-II to
demonstrate the passive cooling cabability of this "type" of reactor. IFR
is a fuel system at this point with EBR-II acting as a testing site for it.
In light of the possibility of any statements being misconstrued, it is
important not to discuss the details of a 30 year old reactor
experimental reactor when talking about an advanced reactor concept.
|> You'd better get ready to answer the hard questions with specific data
|> to support your opinions. Trotting your "Dr's" out doesn't cut it -
|> indeed, it probably reduces your credibility. You'd better be able to
|> tell people, many of whom have seen explosive sodium/water reactions in
|> chemistry class, why a sodium-water mix through a HX leak won't result
|> in an explosion. And you'd better be able to explain how a massive
|> Na/H2O reaction won't overwhelm the inerting blanket with hydrogen. And
|> how the coolant will stay non-radioactive as you claim in the face of
|> inevitable failed fuel. And what the consequences of a Na/H2O explosion
|> involving Na laden with fission products will be. You'd better be able
It is important to point out here that the use of an intermediate,
sodium to sodium heat exchanger is for the purpose of keeping the reactor
loop separate from the secondary loop which is used in the sodium to water
HX. These statements are therefore misleading..and again, I don't know why
you would do this. Secondly, a complete loss of this secondary sodium
would not compromise the sodium in the pool. This would be similar to the loss
of heat sink accident simulated at EBR-II. Adequate cooling was provided
in this scenario.
|> >In so far as lead as a coolant, this was a paper study. I don't believe any
|> >reactors that I know of employs this method. Remember, Pb is much dense than
|> >Na. Also, the Na drives an EM pump. I am not certain how Pb could be pumped.
|>
|> There have been no other test reactors because of DOE's 20 year infactuation
|> with Sodium. Lead brings a bunch of good properties to the table including
|> low vapor pressure, high density which absorbs gammas and converts
|> them to heat and shields the structures from same, good neutronics,
|> reasonable melting point, high boiling point and very low chemical
|> reactivity. I think it deserves more than just a paper study before
|> summary dismissal.
So do we. But that's right, if GE or Westinghouse don't fund it, it must not
be a worthwhile project.
|>
|> I see the results of Rickhover cramming LWRs down our throats; I'm not
|> going to stand bye and do nothing to prevent it from happening again.
|> IFR may be the the best thing since sliced bread but this time you're
|> going to have to prove it.
|>
That's what we're trying to do. We think it could be the greatest thing
"since sliced bread too".
|> John
|>
|> --
|> John De Armond, WD4OQC | For a free sample magazine, send
|> Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | a digest-size 52 cent SASE
|> Marietta, Ga "Hotrods'n'computers" | (Domestic) to PO Box 669728
|> j...@dixie.com "What could be better?" | Marietta, GA 30066
A reference on the effects of sodium as coolant is the 1990 Proceedings of the
International Fast Reactor Safety Meeting.
P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550
>
>|> improperly trained operators would result in a destroyed core at TMI?
>
>All of the reactors on duty at TMI had extensive experience...probably too
>much experience, with both navy and commercial reactors.
>
>
>|>
>|> I suggest that if you want your opinions to be credible, you'd better
>|> tell us WHY something that, to a layman is not only possible but reasonable
>|> (the cooling of the Na pit), can't happen.
>|>
>|> >The IHX is connected by a Z-pipe which is also in the pool. The shell side
>|> >of the IHX goes to another HX connected to the plant secondary system.
>|> >I really cant get into the specifics of the plant design, for obvious reasons,
>|> >however I will state that this reactor is 30 years old. I also bellieve I
>|> >had a typo, its 750 deg F.
>|>
>|> Why the hell not? Are you claiming there is some great veil of secrecy
>|> on the details of the IFR design or is some more of that "trust us, we're
>|> the experts"? I've just about had enough of this type BS from you two.
>
>
>The obvious reasons are that EBR-II is not an IFR. The research at this time
>is on fuel and fuel studies only. Some experiments were done on EBR-II to
>demonstrate the passive cooling cabability of this "type" of reactor. IFR
>is a fuel system at this point with EBR-II acting as a testing site for it.
>In light of the possibility of any statements being misconstrued, it is
>important not to discuss the details of a 30 year old reactor
>experimental reactor when talking about an advanced reactor concept.
>
>
seems to be a great confusion out there vis a vis EBR-II and IFR. From now
on, for the sake of laypeople, the EBR-II reactor, a 30-year old fast
reactor, has been outfitted with "IFR type" fuel ie metal alloy (U/Pu/Zr).
The reactor is only the FRONT END of the process. The BACK END, which is
the focus of much research, includes the Fuel Cycle Facility, and all assoc-
iated components necesary for actinide recovery. It is actinide recovery
(electrorefining and casting the fuel) which makes this technique novel.
>|> You'd better get ready to answer the hard questions with specific data
>|> to support your opinions. Trotting your "Dr's" out doesn't cut it -
>|> indeed, it probably reduces your credibility. You'd better be able to
>|> tell people, many of whom have seen explosive sodium/water reactions in
>|> chemistry class, why a sodium-water mix through a HX leak won't result
>|> in an explosion. And you'd better be able to explain how a massive
>|> Na/H2O reaction won't overwhelm the inerting blanket with hydrogen. And
>|> how the coolant will stay non-radioactive as you claim in the face of
>|> inevitable failed fuel. And what the consequences of a Na/H2O explosion
>|> involving Na laden with fission products will be. You'd better be able
>
>It is important to point out here that the use of an intermediate,
>sodium to sodium heat exchanger is for the purpose of keeping the reactor
>loop separate from the secondary loop which is used in the sodium to water
>HX. These statements are therefore misleading..and again, I don't know why
>you would do this. Secondly, a complete loss of this secondary sodium
>would not compromise the sodium in the pool. This would be similar to the loss
>of heat sink accident simulated at EBR-II. Adequate cooling was provided
>in this scenario.
>
>
Once again, I agree that the Georgian is as confused as a Carribean weather
system. I cant understand all the fuss about a reactor which is 30 years
old! The PRA for EBR-II showed at least an order of magnitude in additional
safety. The fact that one would think one barrier of Na-H20 reaction is
a design feature is absolutely ludacrous. This is probably why the Georgian
is the automobile magazine publishing business, and out of nuclear all together.
>
>|> >In so far as lead as a coolant, this was a paper study. I don't believe any
>|> >reactors that I know of employs this method. Remember, Pb is much dense than
>|> >Na. Also, the Na drives an EM pump. I am not certain how Pb could be pumped.
>
>|> John
>|>
>|> --
>|> John De Armond, WD4OQC | For a free sample magazine, send
>|> Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | a digest-size 52 cent SASE
>|> Marietta, Ga "Hotrods'n'computers" | (Domestic) to PO Box 669728
>|> j...@dixie.com "What could be better?" | Marietta, GA 30066
>
PLEASE JOHN, REMOVE THE ADVERTISING FROM YOUR SIG !!!!!
It only compromises your integrity on this forum!
>A reference on the effects of sodium as coolant is the 1990 Proceedings of the
>International Fast Reactor Safety Meeting.
>
>Tom Orth
>Nuclear Engineer
>Argonne National Laboratory
>Speaking for myself
>or...@flicker.fp.anl.gov
Additional literature may be found in the Kyoto meeting in the 1992 Proceedings
of the International Fast Reactory Safety Meeting. Also refer to C.Till,
Y.Chang "THe Integral Fast Reactor",
E. Michael Smith
>In article <rkp...@dixie.com> j...@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>>b41...@flash.ra.anl.gov (P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550) writes:
>>>>Are you saying that there are no failure modes which would cause heat to be
>>>>withdrawn from the sodium?
>>>I don't think any initiating event to my knowledge has been identified
>>>as significant. Having read the 2-volume PRA, I have to conclude that it
>>>is not credible.
Um, what is to prevent an administrative whacko from simply issuing
an executive order stating 'SHUT IT DOWN FOR TWO YEARS WHILE WE STUDY IT.'
and, by the time you get it through their head that this is 'Not A
Good Thing', it is two years later and you have a solid chunk of Na...
>>Ya, and before 1979, who would have ever suspected a stuck PORV
>>coincident with loss of condenser vacuum, loss of condensate polishing,
>>a stuck pressurizer level indicator, an ancient plant computer and
>>improperly trained operators would result in a destroyed core at TMI?
>>
>This is a reach John. Both you and I know the sequence of events at TMI, but
>you forgot one critical point: THe operators TURNED OFF safety injection when
>faulty pressurizer level indication told them the core was covered.
So? The fact is that something un-anticipated happened and caused a mess.
The essence of what you've said is 'The Na can't solidify because we
thought of everything.' John has said "That's what the other guy
thought too." You have said, but what went wrong involved operator
screwups too. I say, So What! The essence remains. What happens if
the UNLIKELY does happen, and the Na solidifies? You have NOT thought
of everything and something really odd happens, like that executive
order or an operator who panics in an earthquake and turns off the heat
or ... What then?
>BTW, 2/3
>pzr logic was OR and post-TMI backfit of similar plants (B&W)
>corrected it to AND. Note: recall the Davis-Besse incident, then get back to me.
So they fixed the others after the screw-up. Again, so what? We are
talking about a problem that DID happen, not what was done after that
to fix the others of like kind. The screw-up, FROM UNANTICIPATED CAUSES,
still happened.
>>I suggest that if you want your opinions to be credible, you'd better
>>tell us WHY something that, to a layman is not only possible but reasonable
>>(the cooling of the Na pit), can't happen.
>>
>For the mere fact that the volume of Na is large enough that the energy can't
>be lost fast enough. Basic heat transfer and thermodynamics. I think with
Ok, how long does it take to cool? One year? 2? I can easily envision
something nasty happening that causes the plant to be shut down for a
couple of years. Say a terrorist drives a truck load of Pu oxide
in and sets off a few pounds of TNT in the middle... Heck, doesn't
even have to get to the 'guts' to make the site dirty enough that
the EPA et. al. would have the plant shut down for a few years of clean-up...
What is your 'fast enough'? Numbers, please.
>30 years operating experience, EBR-II (not IFR BTW) has demonstrated from
>fuel cycle to fuel cycle (I think the number of startups and extended shutdowns
>range in the hundreds) that sufficient safeguards exist to keep such a
>fantastical scenario from happening.
Um, pardon me, but a few fuel cycles of an R&D plant don't mean squat
in the Real World of production... Yeah, you can keep the pot warm
in a nice R&D site without {terrorists, bad operators, earthquakes,...}.
Again, so what? What do you do when the unthinkable DOES happen and
the Na is hard as a brick?
>Be advised, I don't want to tread on my employer wrt
>to information NOT in the public domain. Somethings are better left proprietary
>for obvious reasons (national security).
Excuse me, but 'proprietary' and 'national security' are orthogonal reasons.
If it is an 'national security' issue, then the Gov't owns it and you do
not have any remaining proprietary claims. I smell a dodge...
What is so hard about saying (picking imaginaary examples...) any of:
1) It takes 10 years to cool, which is not a credible event.
2) There are natural gas heaters installed that work post quake.
3) You just bring the core up to critical Real Slow, and the heat
conduction of solid metalic Na is so good that it doesn't matter if
the pipes are 'frozen', the heat still diffuses out to the end of
the lines and melts the Na.
I can't think of a single rational 'proprietary' or 'national security'
issue that would prevent a circumspect statement of how a solid Na
cooling system would be handled. Read 'The Curve of Binding Energy'
for an example. Where Taylor is talking about how to build an H bomb,
and gives broad hints that don't violate national security, but do
give you an idea that he clearly knows his stuff.
>>>The IHX is connected by a Z-pipe which is also in the pool. The shell side
>>>of the IHX goes to another HX connected to the plant secondary system.
>>>I really cant get into the specifics of the plant design, for obvious reasons
>>
>>Why the hell not? Are you claiming there is some great veil of secrecy
>>on the details of the IFR design or is some more of that "trust us, we're
>>the experts"? I've just about had enough of this type BS from you two.
That's what it looks like to me, too.
>>I watched the same tactics, employed then because of rank inocence,
>>destroy the LWR industry. This round I suspect your motives are less
>>innocent and more involved with groveling for funding.
Well, I'm more a believer in 'Never attribute to malice that which is
adequately explained by stupidity.' than John is. My guess is that the
poster is just a worry wart and looking for an easy dodge of some
difficult to phrase posting work.
>NO!!! This is what I mean. You obviously do not appreciate the position as
>a netter you place me in. I don't have the right to compromise security and
>inform you of anything not in the public domain.
Oh really? Gee, and I thought John had to live under those exact
same constraints with respect to HIS past employment... Just as I have
to do the same with MY employer. You are not unique, and we fully
understand the situation. That does NOT get you off the hook, though.
'Its all a Great Big Important Secret!' is a sure fire one way ticket
to the scrap heap of history for any technolgy that is touted as being
for the public good in public power production. If you can't tell me
HOW IT IS MADE SAFE, I can't let you build it. I'm a voter. A rather
ordinary typical voter. With friends. Friends of the Earth...
>You see, you are grossly
>defensive for all the wrong reasons, and I feel I have been more than
>accomidating.
Yeah, John is defensive for the wrong reasons, he needs to get the
right one ;-) But the 'defensiveness' is still well placed, IMHO.
>If you can't handle it, then its a wonder you left the industry
>disgruntled and frustrated. You see, I don't care if you believe the
>letter of the law, but this is an OPEN forum, but its a fact of life that
>somethings are not meant for public disclosure by someone not acting in an
>official capacity. You should know better than to interpret any otherway!
Golly Gee, a 30 year old technology that is still so secret that he
can't tell us mere citizens what he would do, THEORETICALLY, if the
damn thing froze solid. Guess I'll add LM reactors to my list of
Highly Suspect Technologies...
>>You'd better get ready to answer the hard questions with specific data
>>to support your opinions. Trotting your "Dr's" out doesn't cut it -
>>indeed, it probably reduces your credibility. You'd better be able to
>
>Sounds like you have a disgruntled axe to grind.
Nope, he is just telling it like it is. Most of the "Dr's" of physics
I've known were really out of touch with reality and had trouble with
things like, oh, 'common sense'. You know the kind, can do partial
integrals on heat transfere in his head, but forgets that freshly made
coffee burns his mouth, frequently. The title is nothing, the facts
are everything.
>Maybe you can side with
>Mr. Yodiaken and get recruited by the UCS. Its about as much as you can
>muster.
OH MY, a PERSONAL attack! Bet John is quivering in his boots now!!
Look, if you can't stand the truth, at least don't slander other folks
for saying it. The fact is, John is right.
The question stands: What do you do if the Na freezes?
All your side has said is: 1) Trust me, it can't happen. 2) We don't
have to worry about it because the plant won't do it. 3) I can't tell
you why because, um, it's a secret.
Bull pucky. Near as I can tell, from what you've said so far, no one
has considered the issue of what to do if the thing freezes or how
to prevent it (other than keeping it running in a normal mode.).
Time to 'put up or shut up'. WHY, specifically, is it IMPOSSIBLE for
the plant to have the Na freeze? Include magnitudes, even if only
order of magnitude magnitudes ;-) such as 'takes decades for decay
heat to leak out'. If somehow it DID freeze up, what would be done?
Mothball it? External reheat? Core heat? Add water and stir ;-)
>>tell people, many of whom have seen explosive sodium/water reactions in
>>chemistry class, why a sodium-water mix through a HX leak won't result
>>in an explosion. And you'd better be able to explain how a massive
>>Na/H2O reaction won't overwhelm the inerting blanket with hydrogen.
I don't think he can. I'd guess that the H2 is safe due to a lack of
oxygen, but the question about the inerting blanket is an interesting
one...
>>And how the coolant will stay non-radioactive as you claim in the face of
>>inevitable failed fuel.
Oh, but John, this is only THEORETICAL fuel, it Never fails in
an unexpected way after slightly out of spec fabrication... or
unanticipated behaviours in changed scale or changed technology
commercialized plant...
>>And what the consequences of a Na/H2O explosion
>>involving Na laden with fission products will be.
Hmmm... Wonder what it would take for a determined squad of terrorists
with, say, Stingers from Afganistan and HK-47s from the middle east,
and a cement truck full of urea-nitrate to get to the HX ... Nah,
not a credible scenario. Terrorists would NEVER attack a major
facility in the US with a stupid truck bomb... not even one with
a 'mud pump' and a long pipe...
>>You'd better be able
>>to discuss the effects of a simultaneous design-basis earthquake and
>>flood on the Na pool.
Gee, like maybe if the New Madrid had let loose during the flood
we just had on the Ol' Miss'? That should only happen once every
few thousand years ... or is it few hundred given all faults and
all flood zones...
>>Or the effects of having to let the Na pool
>>solidify for some reason or the other.
From what I've seen so far, the plan is to hope it doesn't and, if it
does, admire the new public art work/sculpture. Great plan...
>If you spent 1 month working here, you would realize what crap you just
>posted. Why do you constantly stipulate your rendition of the EBR-II plant
>design.
It isn't his 'rendition'of the plant, John is giving you a reasonable
rendition of the quesitons the nutral to anti-nukes are going to ask.
Like he said, if you can't answer them when they are 'friendly fire',
you don't stand a chance of convincing the anti's.
>There will never be a Na-H20 reaction WITHIN the core. THis is a
>complete sodium system save the turbine side!
So? Say the fuel bundles are damaged (poor fabrication? botched
fuel loading? whatever) and the pool is contaminated. Just then
a major quake happens (like, oh, a 9) and it is found that the
pipes from the pool to the HX aren't as strong as thought, and the
H2 explosion from the Na/steam reaction manages to put a tinsy little
leak into the pool... What then? Not credible? WHY not?
>Also, there is no consequence of a Na leak causing explosions in the pool!
>Probably for the simple reason there is an argon cover gas in the pool and
>there is no, I repeat NO oxygen.
And can there NEVER be? No level of flooding can put water (with
oxygen in it) over the core? No Na/steam explosion can possibly
put steam on the core? No terrorist threat can ever put enough
high explosives in the place to break it?
>>If you continue as you're going right now, and with all due regard to
>>Mike's request, I'm going to take the time to come up to speed on the details
>>of IFR and you won't like my questions at all.
Hold off, let us amatures have a crack at it first. Don't take all
our fun away!!
>>I'd damn sure rather the
>>criticism come from our side than to have Dan Rather do a somber lead-in
>>to video showing Clamshell Alliance members dropping an ingot of sodium
>>into a little model of TMI containing some water. The fireball will
>>live forever in the memories of the American public and IFR will be
>>dead on the blocks.
What a neat idea for a demo! You could have the fire and smoke
blasting out a vent hole in the top of the containment dome and
add some materials so that the 'deposits' were permanent stains
and make the smoke red or orange and talk about 25,000 years of
contamination downwind (a nice desk fan would assure rapid
'contamination' of everyone at the demo!). I like it!
>With that bit of crap you just posted, its a wonder your an industry
>throw-away. Hey, you have about as much crediblity on IFR as a dung beetle.
Golly, more personal attacks. Must have hit close to home, John.
If he is resorting to personal attack, then he doesn't have a technical
leg to stand on and you've nailed his butt to the wall. IMHO, of course.
>Your attacks are not credible because
>you simply are not informed. There are other avenues for you to obtain info.
>I have better things to do, especially MY JOB, than to babysit your paranoia.
"I'm smarter than you are and I know better." "Stop wasting my valuable
time." Golly, what great evidence you offer to support your views...
If you can't prove your points, then shut up and sit down. If you
are going to post that something is Truth, be prepared to defend it.
Heck, I've spent 10 to 20 hours at times researching something I KNEW
was true, so that I could prove it. If you can't stand the heat...
>I guarentee that if you are pro-nuclear, you will be posting a million apoligies
>for the simplistic argument you just posted, ONCE you become informed!!
John is about as pro-nuclear as you can get. Hell, he even convinced
me to stop being an 'anti' and move to being a 'neutral or slightly pro'.
I have dropped my Friends of the Earth membership, and stopped donating
to Greenpeace, in part due to his efforts. 'If you are pro'? My god
man, is the Pope Catholic?
John was posting 'simplistic arguements' so they would be easy for you
to refute. You botched it. When the coach lobs an easy ball to you
and you muff it, time to hang up the racket...
>>IFR may be the the best thing since sliced bread but this time you're
>>going to have to prove it.
>
>I think the technology will prove itself. With or without me.
>I think you misunderstand this "Field of Dreams" mentality of "If we build
>it they will come". There are no guarentees espoused. Yes I am a proponent
>of the technology, for obvious reasons. Like I said before, the IFR will
>have to take up the cross of public acceptance, it doesn't have to be nailed
>to it though.
Duck dodge weave. With advocacy like this, LM and IFR are doomed...
and I can kiss the methanol from nuclear process heat idea goodby
as well...
>BTW, if you want to advertise your product on the net, better be prepared
>to pay for the promotion. One of the tenets of this forum is not for
>personal profit!!!
OTOH, it is common practice for public access unix sites to state
that they are so (everyone benefits, especially when someone gets
laid off somewhere and needs net access in a hurry...) and it is
also common for an employers name to be in the signature...
>
>____________________________________________________________________
>Peter L. Angelo EBR-II Reactor Physics
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Argonne National Laboratory-West
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Gee, a little advertizing of our own axe, I see...
--
E. Michael Smith e...@apple.COM
'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has
genius, power and magic in it.' - Goethe
I am not responsible nor is anyone else. Everything is disclaimed.
E. Michael Smith
>|> Why the hell not? Are you claiming there is some great veil of secrecy
>|> on the details of the IFR design or is some more of that "trust us, we're
>|> the experts"? I've just about had enough of this type BS from you two.
>The obvious reasons are that EBR-II is not an IFR. The research at this time
>is on fuel and fuel studies only. Some experiments were done on EBR-II to
>demonstrate the passive cooling cabability of this "type" of reactor. IFR
>is a fuel system at this point with EBR-II acting as a testing site for it.
>In light of the possibility of any statements being misconstrued, it is
>important not to discuss the details of a 30 year old reactor
>experimental reactor when talking about an advanced reactor concept.
OK, so you are saying that IFR is just a brand new concept that
is starting the testing phase. I can accept that. Give it about 30
more years of development, then about 20 in demonstation and prototype
plants and we can start worring about commercialization...
In that case, I withdraw my complaint about showing why the Na
won't ever be frozen, since it is obviouse from your statements
that the EBR-II design is not pertinent and any future design of
an IFR will be Brand New and need complete scrutiny then.
>|> inevitable failed fuel. And what the consequences of a Na/H2O explosion
>|> involving Na laden with fission products will be. You'd better be able
>
>It is important to point out here that the use of an intermediate,
>sodium to sodium heat exchanger is for the purpose of keeping the reactor
>loop separate from the secondary loop which is used in the sodium to water
>HX. These statements are therefore misleading..and again, I don't know why
>you would do this.
I think that John is positing a contaminated pool AND a breach of
the secondary sodium loop into that pool as part of the Na/water
reaction/explosion. I.e. the secondary loop gets contaminated by
the primary due to some unforseen event, like an explosion. This
one should be a 'soft ball' for you to field. Show the likely
distances between loops and approximate magnitude of explosion
required to breach primary and secondary loops and that that
magnitude of explosion cannot be attained with a Na/water mix of
any size at the HX. Piece of cake. Just do it. None of this
'trust us we know better and that is a stupid question' stuff, OK?
>Secondly, a complete loss of this secondary sodium
>would not compromise the sodium in the pool. This would be similar to the loss
>of heat sink accident simulated at EBR-II. Adequate cooling was provided
>in this scenario.
I don't think John was talking about a loss of cooling, rather a
breakage of pipes and fuel bundles due to explosive intrusion of
steam/H2 due to steam/Na mixing...
>|> Lead brings a bunch of good properties to the table including
>|> low vapor pressure, high density which absorbs gammas and converts
>|> them to heat and shields the structures from same, good neutronics,
>|> reasonable melting point, high boiling point and very low chemical
>|> reactivity. I think it deserves more than just a paper study before
>|> summary dismissal.
Hmmm... maybe a Lead/Na Hx ... but you would have to choose the
reduced reactivity with water OR the advantages in the core...
What about a lead pool, Na primary loop (where most of the pumping
is going on, and then a short lead secondary loop?
It would have great PR value... "The reactor is completely blanketed
with XXXX Tons of Lead at all times"...
P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550
>In article <745513...@flash.ra.anl.gov> b41...@flash.ra.anl.gov (P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550) writes:
>>In article <rkp...@dixie.com> j...@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>>>b41...@flash.ra.anl.gov (P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550) writes:
>
>>>>>Are you saying that there are no failure modes which would cause heat to be
>>>>>withdrawn from the sodium?
>
>>>>I don't think any initiating event to my knowledge has been identified
>>>>as significant. Having read the 2-volume PRA, I have to conclude that it
>>>>is not credible.
>
>Um, what is to prevent an administrative whacko from simply issuing
>an executive order stating 'SHUT IT DOWN FOR TWO YEARS WHILE WE STUDY IT.'
>and, by the time you get it through their head that this is 'Not A
>Good Thing', it is two years later and you have a solid chunk of Na...
>
This sets the tone for your totally incredlous and stupid response. To think
that 800 people are just going to walk out this gate shows your moronic grasp
of the technology. You aren't even worth engaging in debate. Clod.
Firts, in the worst case scenario, the Clinton administration has a three
year operationg contingency to decommission the 30 yr reactor. Second, Na
would never solidify under the conditions you proposed since to do so
would require 1) opening the core 2) purging the argon covergas, 3) violation
of the Tec Specs. You see, as long as there is coolant in the pool, there
must be operations staff on duty. There is no asleep at the wheel, or
walk away scenario.
>>>Ya, and before 1979, who would have ever suspected a stuck PORV
>>>coincident with loss of condenser vacuum, loss of condensate polishing,
>>>a stuck pressurizer level indicator, an ancient plant computer and
>>>improperly trained operators would result in a destroyed core at TMI?
>>>
>>This is a reach John. Both you and I know the sequence of events at TMI, but
>>you forgot one critical point: THe operators TURNED OFF safety injection when
>>faulty pressurizer level indication told them the core was covered.
>
>So? The fact is that something un-anticipated happened and caused a mess.
Yeah, and I suppose you can predict every man-made disaster to date.
>
>The essence of what you've said is 'The Na can't solidify because we
>thought of everything.' John has said "That's what the other guy
>thought too." You have said, but what went wrong involved operator
>screwups too. I say, So What! The essence remains. What happens if
o
No the essence of what I said is Na solidification is about as remote
as the Cubs and the Redsox in the world series together. Never will happen.
(Ludicrous example)
>the UNLIKELY does happen, and the Na solidifies? You have NOT thought
>of everything and something really odd happens, like that executive
>order or an operator who panics in an earthquake and turns off the heat
>or ... What then?
>
>So they fixed the others after the screw-up. Again, so what? We are
IF JOHN AND YOU ARE FRIENDLY FIRE< THE INDUSTRY DOESNT NEED YOUR
BLATANT INCOMPETENCE>>>>> STUDY THE ISSUES AS THEY ARE!!!!
How can you sit there and say,...Your plant is constructed this way...
when you know nothing of its design. Sit down..clod.
>>There will never be a Na-H20 reaction WITHIN the core. THis is a
Not credible because 1) the system is not designed as you describe. The
argon inert atmosphere is present in the Argon cell (you know what that
is mr. ) 2) Fuel handling takes place within the pool.
>
>>Also, there is no consequence of a Na leak causing explosions in the pool!
>>Probably for the simple reason there is an argon cover gas in the pool and
>>there is no, I repeat NO oxygen.
>
>And can there NEVER be? No level of flooding can put water (with
>oxygen in it) over the core? No Na/steam explosion can possibly
>put steam on the core? No terrorist threat can ever put enough
>high explosives in the place to break it?
>
Yes. There could NEVER be. No. No. No. (In that order)
>
>Hold off, let us amatures have a crack at it first. Don't take all
>our fun away!!
>
>>>I'd damn sure rather the
>>>criticism come from our side than to have Dan Rather do a somber lead-in
>>>to video showing Clamshell Alliance members dropping an ingot of sodium
>>>into a little model of TMI containing some water. The fireball will
>>>live forever in the memories of the American public and IFR will be
>>>dead on the blocks.
>
>What a neat idea for a demo! You could have the fire and smoke
>blasting out a vent hole in the top of the containment dome and
>add some materials so that the 'deposits' were permanent stains
>and make the smoke red or orange and talk about 25,000 years of
>contamination downwind (a nice desk fan would assure rapid
>'contamination' of everyone at the demo!). I like it!
>
>>With that bit of crap you just posted, its a wonder your an industry
>>throw-away. Hey, you have about as much crediblity on IFR as a dung beetle.
>
>Golly, more personal attacks. Must have hit close to home, John.
>
You and JOhn belong together. Maybe you morons can have little morons.
Geez!
>If he is resorting to personal attack, then he doesn't have a technical
>leg to stand on and you've nailed his butt to the wall. IMHO, of course.
>If you can't prove your points, then shut up and sit down. If you
PHYSICIAN HEAL THYSELF!!!!!!!!!!
>are going to post that something is Truth, be prepared to defend it.
>
>Heck, I've spent 10 to 20 hours at times researching something I KNEW
Unlike you, I have a paycheck to collect and cannot engage mindless
dilletantes like yourself. Saysomething substantitive, ....
>was true, so that I could prove it. If you can't stand the heat...
I feel no heat from you. Remember, you must DISPROVE me. You went first.
>
>>I guarentee that if you are pro-nuclear, you will be posting a million apoligies
>>for the simplistic argument you just posted, ONCE you become informed!!
>
>John is about as pro-nuclear as you can get. Hell, he even convinced
>me to stop being an 'anti' and move to being a 'neutral or slightly pro'.
>I have dropped my Friends of the Earth membership, and stopped donating
>to Greenpeace, in part due to his efforts. 'If you are pro'? My god
>man, is the Pope Catholic?
Yeah right. I can state from his posts, he's never been faced with the
tough operations/decisions. Else why is he doing his rag?
>
>John was posting 'simplistic arguements' so they would be easy for you
>to refute. You botched it. When the coach lobs an easy ball to you
>and you muff it, time to hang up the racket...
Hey I am not some eager beaver waiting to be blessed by his assholiness.
I am not even sure what you are
Pardon me, with a coach like that, might as well go home. YOu are the
most clueless ass**** I have read.
BULLSHIT JOHN AND YOU ARE STUPID FUCKS WHO LIKE BAITING OTHERS. I'D GLADLY
PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION. BUT THIS IS NOT SOME GAME YOU STUPID JACKASS.
YOU ARE MORE ANTI_NUKE THAN YODAIKEN. JOHN KNOWS SHIT ABOUT NUCLEAR, ELSE
HE'D STILL BE GAINLULLY EMPLOYED. YOUR ARROGANCE IS AMAZING
>
>--
>
>E. Michael Smith e...@apple.COM
>
>'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has
> genius, power and magic in it.' - Goethe
>I am not responsible nor is anyone else. Everything is disclaimed.
____________________________________________________________________
Peter L. Angelo EBR-II Reactor Physics
Bari Weick
Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550) wrote:
>
[edit]
>
> BULLSHIT JOHN AND YOU ARE STUPID FUCKS WHO LIKE BAITING OTHERS. I'D GLADLY
> PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION. BUT THIS IS NOT SOME GAME YOU STUPID JACKASS.
> YOU ARE MORE ANTI_NUKE THAN YODAIKEN. JOHN KNOWS SHIT ABOUT NUCLEAR, ELSE
> HE'D STILL BE GAINLULLY EMPLOYED. YOUR ARROGANCE IS AMAZING
> >
Now that's what I'd call a breach of containment!
Bari Weick
SRI International
bari_...@qm.sri.com
T Orth FP/207/ 8505
|>
|> Um, what is to prevent an administrative whacko from simply issuing
|> an executive order stating 'SHUT IT DOWN FOR TWO YEARS WHILE WE STUDY IT.'
|> and, by the time you get it through their head that this is 'Not A
|> Good Thing', it is two years later and you have a solid chunk of Na...
You aren't trying to equate this with a radiological accident are you?
If the fuel is so cold that the sodium solidfies, it sure isn't dangerous.
|>
|> >>Ya, and before 1979, who would have ever suspected a stuck PORV
|> >>coincident with loss of condenser vacuum, loss of condensate polishing,
|> >>a stuck pressurizer level indicator, an ancient plant computer and
|> >>improperly trained operators would result in a destroyed core at TMI?
|> >>
|> >This is a reach John. Both you and I know the sequence of events at TMI, but
|> >you forgot one critical point: THe operators TURNED OFF safety injection when
|> >faulty pressurizer level indication told them the core was covered.
|>
|> So? The fact is that something un-anticipated happened and caused a mess.
|>
|> The essence of what you've said is 'The Na can't solidify because we
|> thought of everything.' John has said "That's what the other guy
|> thought too." You have said, but what went wrong involved operator
|> screwups too. I say, So What! The essence remains. What happens if
|> the UNLIKELY does happen, and the Na solidifies? You have NOT thought
|> of everything and something really odd happens, like that executive
|> order or an operator who panics in an earthquake and turns off the heat
|> or ... What then?
What do you think will happen? This would be an operational problem, not
a radiological one.
|>
|> Um, pardon me, but a few fuel cycles of an R&D plant don't mean squat
|> in the Real World of production... Yeah, you can keep the pot warm
|> in a nice R&D site without {terrorists, bad operators, earthquakes,...}.
|> Again, so what? What do you do when the unthinkable DOES happen and
|> the Na is hard as a brick?
|> Excuse me, but 'proprietary' and 'national security' are orthogonal reasons.
|> If it is an 'national security' issue, then the Gov't owns it and you do
|> not have any remaining proprietary claims. I smell a dodge...
No, it isn't a dodge. I don't think you have the foggiest notion of what it
means to work in a national lab.
|> for an example. Where Taylor is talking about how to build an H bomb,
|> and gives broad hints that don't violate national security, but do
|> give you an idea that he clearly knows his stuff.
First of all, national security issues are only a subset of the issues...
proprietory are other reasons.
|> >Sounds like you have a disgruntled axe to grind.
|>
|> Nope, he is just telling it like it is. Most of the "Dr's" of physics
|> I've known were really out of touch with reality and had trouble with
|> things like, oh, 'common sense'. You know the kind, can do partial
|> integrals on heat transfere in his head, but forgets that freshly made
|> coffee burns his mouth, frequently. The title is nothing, the facts
|> are everything.
It's Dr. of nuclear engineering, we are paid to work in the real world.
|>
|> Look, if you can't stand the truth, at least don't slander other folks
|> for saying it. The fact is, John is right.
Actually, he knows enough to be dangerous.
|>
|> The question stands: What do you do if the Na freezes?
|>
|> All your side has said is: 1) Trust me, it can't happen. 2) We don't
|> have to worry about it because the plant won't do it. 3) I can't tell
|> you why because, um, it's a secret.
It ain't a radiological event silly.
|>
|> >>tell people, many of whom have seen explosive sodium/water reactions in
|> >>chemistry class, why a sodium-water mix through a HX leak won't result
|> >>in an explosion. And you'd better be able to explain how a massive
|> >>Na/H2O reaction won't overwhelm the inerting blanket with hydrogen.
|>
|> I don't think he can. I'd guess that the H2 is safe due to a lack of
|> oxygen, but the question about the inerting blanket is an interesting
|> one...
|>
|> >>And how the coolant will stay non-radioactive as you claim in the face of
|> >>inevitable failed fuel.
failed fuel tests are run on purpose all of the time...It does not effect the
operation of EBR-II.
|>
|> Oh, but John, this is only THEORETICAL fuel, it Never fails in
|> an unexpected way after slightly out of spec fabrication... or
|> unanticipated behaviours in changed scale or changed technology
|> commercialized plant...
This fuel has been tested in every condition with every concievable
fabrication variable tested well beyond any reasonable specification.
|>
|> >>And what the consequences of a Na/H2O explosion
|> >>involving Na laden with fission products will be.
|>
|> Hmmm... Wonder what it would take for a determined squad of terrorists
|> with, say, Stingers from Afganistan and HK-47s from the middle east,
|> and a cement truck full of urea-nitrate to get to the HX ... Nah,
|> not a credible scenario. Terrorists would NEVER attack a major
|> facility in the US with a stupid truck bomb... not even one with
|> a 'mud pump' and a long pipe...
Like we have said before, the sodium to water HX is not part of the
reactor loop, and is not near the reactor. Please, it's a funny
story, but it's not grounded in reality.
|>
|> It isn't his 'rendition'of the plant, John is giving you a reasonable
|> rendition of the quesitons the nutral to anti-nukes are going to ask.
|> Like he said, if you can't answer them when they are 'friendly fire',
|> you don't stand a chance of convincing the anti's.
Questions they would have if they didn't have a clue as to the design of the
plant.
|>
|> >There will never be a Na-H20 reaction WITHIN the core. THis is a
|> >complete sodium system save the turbine side!
|>
|> So? Say the fuel bundles are damaged (poor fabrication? botched
|> fuel loading? whatever) and the pool is contaminated. Just then
contaminated with what?
|> a major quake happens (like, oh, a 9) and it is found that the
|> pipes from the pool to the HX aren't as strong as thought, and the
|> H2 explosion from the Na/steam reaction manages to put a tinsy little
|> leak into the pool... What then? Not credible? WHY not?
where is this steam explosion occuring? It was stated earlier that the
HX is not in the reactor building. A crack in the sodium to sodium heat
exchanger would result in sodium mixing.
.
|>
|> What a neat idea for a demo! You could have the fire and smoke
|> blasting out a vent hole in the top of the containment dome and
|> add some materials so that the 'deposits' were permanent stains
|> and make the smoke red or orange and talk about 25,000 years of
|> contamination downwind (a nice desk fan would assure rapid
|> 'contamination' of everyone at the demo!). I like it!
You still don't seem to get the design. Hopefully you do now.
P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550
>
>>|> Why the hell not? Are you claiming there is some great veil of secrecy
>>|> on the details of the IFR design or is some more of that "trust us, we're
>>|> the experts"? I've just about had enough of this type BS from you two.
>
>>The obvious reasons are that EBR-II is not an IFR. The research at this time
>>is on fuel and fuel studies only. Some experiments were done on EBR-II to
>>demonstrate the passive cooling cabability of this "type" of reactor. IFR
>>is a fuel system at this point with EBR-II acting as a testing site for it.
>>In light of the possibility of any statements being misconstrued, it is
>>important not to discuss the details of a 30 year old reactor
>>experimental reactor when talking about an advanced reactor concept.
>
>OK, so you are saying that IFR is just a brand new concept that
>is starting the testing phase. I can accept that. Give it about 30
>more years of development, then about 20 in demonstation and prototype
>plants and we can start worring about commercialization...
>
Actually, the IFR is a culmination of 30 years of fast reactor technology.
The IFR as a project is over 10 years old. To state that the IFR is
some new concept just starting is also erroneous. You should refer to
the Fistedis book (1986 SHRT tests) for a time-line. The technology and
experience gained over the past few decades have demonstrated that a
solution such that the IFR gives is the next logical step
>In that case, I withdraw my complaint about showing why the Na
>won't ever be frozen, since it is obviouse from your statements
>that the EBR-II design is not pertinent and any future design of
>an IFR will be Brand New and need complete scrutiny then.
>
FINALLY, do you see the inane nature of your <<complaint>>. You kept
baiting and insisting,," but what if what if"" This had as much credulity
as "what if cows can fly" Do you see where someone who is imersed in this
technology on a daily basis, can be dumbfounded by your assertions.
>>|> inevitable failed fuel. And what the consequences of a Na/H2O explosion
>>|> involving Na laden with fission products will be. You'd better be able
>>
>>It is important to point out here that the use of an intermediate,
>>sodium to sodium heat exchanger is for the purpose of keeping the reactor
>>loop separate from the secondary loop which is used in the sodium to water
>>HX. These statements are therefore misleading..and again, I don't know why
>>you would do this.
>
>I think that John is positing a contaminated pool AND a breach of
>the secondary sodium loop into that pool as part of the Na/water
>reaction/explosion. I.e. the secondary loop gets contaminated by
>the primary due to some unforseen event, like an explosion. This
>one should be a 'soft ball' for you to field. Show the likely
>distances between loops and approximate magnitude of explosion
>required to breach primary and secondary loops and that that
>magnitude of explosion cannot be attained with a Na/water mix of
>any size at the HX. Piece of cake. Just do it. None of this
>'trust us we know better and that is a stupid question' stuff, OK?
>
Look. The secondary and primary are separated by a physical barrier of
about 300 feet. The secondary starts OUTSIDE containment. Therefore there
is no scenario where H20 could ever get into the containment. The inter-
mediate loop was designed for this purpose. You simply cannot entrain
low pressure into high pressure. It should be a piece of cake for you
to understand this concept.
Why do you insist on debating in this sytle. It serves no purpose. What is
this some great proving ground to take on your real anti-nukes? I put it
to you for you to disprove on technical grounds, the 700$M allready invested
and million man-years developing the technology aswering the very questions
and more that you field. No body is stating "trust us we know better", this
is a straw man, that just flopped for you. Because if they said "trust us",
the level of detail in preparing the design,analysis,test procedures,PRA,
operational validation, the answering DOE Tiger teams concerns (do you
know what a Tiger Team is? this is a soft-ball for you, you should know
this one- and please dont avoid the question) would all be moot!
>>Secondly, a complete loss of this secondary sodium
>>would not compromise the sodium in the pool. This would be similar to the loss
>>of heat sink accident simulated at EBR-II. Adequate cooling was provided
>>in this scenario.
>
>I don't think John was talking about a loss of cooling, rather a
>breakage of pipes and fuel bundles due to explosive intrusion of
>steam/H2 due to steam/Na mixing...
I read this as the same thing. I think he was envisioning a scenario for
clad breach via external intrusion of water, and this is physically impossible
for reasons I have highlighted.
>
>>|> Lead brings a bunch of good properties to the table including
>>|> low vapor pressure, high density which absorbs gammas and converts
>>|> them to heat and shields the structures from same, good neutronics,
>>|> reasonable melting point, high boiling point and very low chemical
>>|> reactivity. I think it deserves more than just a paper study before
>>|> summary dismissal.
>
>Hmmm... maybe a Lead/Na Hx ... but you would have to choose the
>reduced reactivity with water OR the advantages in the core...
>
This would not work for two reasons; 1) There is no heat exchanger presently
designed to handle the thermal and mechanical stresses of this situation
2) Just because lead absorbs gammas, this would not necessarily mean the
the coolant and fuel type are compatible. Can you tell me why? I can only
state it has something to do with the electrchemistry. Na and stainless steel
are compatible, but I don't know about Pb at that temp and pressure. Also,
electrorefining would be different , and need to be adressed in many tests
to numerous to bother. Jus tgo with what works, and it works fine!
Once again "reactivity with water " is not an issue, so why bring it up.
It has been studied and dismissed as not impacting the current plant design/
operation
>
>E. Michael Smith e...@apple.COM
>
>'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has
> genius, power and magic in it.' - Goethe
>
>I am not responsible nor is anyone else. Everything is disclaimed.
BTW I am not against John using his Ham radio handle, or telling of his
place of employment, but you must admit, he uses VERBS like "send" in his
sig file. Its one thing to inform where you are coming from, but a sig
should not be a calling card for action which may lead to subsequent action.
Note his use of "free" and SASE. You have to buy the stamp, so it isn't free.
This is a common tactic to "generate" business. Its called enticement. I
see no advertising in my sig, it is merely a handle which states..."Yes I
am directly affiliated with this project...yet can only divulge public info.
There was no diversion or ditch, or attempt to skirt an issue. I'm sure if
someone on the net asked you for Apple's inner workings or detailed tech
knowledge which can be used by competitors and adversaries, you'd be out of
work. Please answer that, its a <<soft-ball>>. The reason I am not allowed
to tell you of specific operational details is that International (Japan)
interests are also served by this information. Please refer to general
questions.
If you truly respected the net you would not question the methods for
disemination of the knowledge. E-mail me directly and I'll go further,
and in more detail to your likeing. Else, this is just a public farce and
sham perpretrated by you and John, to <<test the debating waters>>. If you
want to debate, make it on a level playing field, I would gladly engage
you, if you think you are up to it. If not, play the net game and get nowhere
T Orth FP/207/ 8505
|> OK, so you are saying that IFR is just a brand new concept that
|> is starting the testing phase. I can accept that. Give it about 30
|> more years of development, then about 20 in demonstation and prototype
|> plants and we can start worring about commercialization...
Well, not brand new..but EBR-II is not a prototype for an IFR reactor.
|>
|> In that case, I withdraw my complaint about showing why the Na
|> won't ever be frozen, since it is obviouse from your statements
|> that the EBR-II design is not pertinent and any future design of
|> an IFR will be Brand New and need complete scrutiny then.
Many of its aspects are pertinant, but you're right, the over all IFR design
would be totally new.
|>
|> >|> inevitable failed fuel. And what the consequences of a Na/H2O explosion
|> >|> involving Na laden with fission products will be. You'd better be able
|> >
|> >It is important to point out here that the use of an intermediate,
|> >sodium to sodium heat exchanger is for the purpose of keeping the reactor
|> >loop separate from the secondary loop which is used in the sodium to water
|> >HX. These statements are therefore misleading..and again, I don't know why
|> >you would do this.
|>
|> I think that John is positing a contaminated pool AND a breach of
|> the secondary sodium loop into that pool as part of the Na/water
Again, contaminated with what? Fuel failures are done on purpose to study the
fuel/sodium reaction product, and the delayed neutron/fission gas signal
resulting. Fuel it turns out is not soluble in sodium.
|> reaction/explosion. I.e. the secondary loop gets contaminated by
|> the primary due to some unforseen event, like an explosion. This
OK, primary and secondary can mean different things in EBR-II do to the
extra loop. Since fuel is not soluble in sodium, so contamination of the
secondary loop would be a trick.
|> one should be a 'soft ball' for you to field. Show the likely
|> distances between loops and approximate magnitude of explosion
|> required to breach primary and secondary loops and that that
|> magnitude of explosion cannot be attained with a Na/water mix of
There is a paper in the 1990 Fast Reactor Safety meeting, actually several,
dealing with this issue. Some were French, Some Japanese, and others were
from INEL. If I have time, I will look up the details. Most that I have
read dealt with codes for simulating it, and some done with pressure plates.
|>
|> I don't think John was talking about a loss of cooling, rather a
|> breakage of pipes and fuel bundles due to explosive intrusion of
|> steam/H2 due to steam/Na mixing...
With that interface in another building, I don't see how steam could enter
the pool. In the event of a explosion of the type you are describing, the
HX would be blown apart, thus destroying the pathway for water to enter the
secondary loop. The worst case would then be total loss of sodium in the
secondary loop, and hence external heat removal from the pool. This is the
experiment simulated.
Tom Orth
Nuclear Engineer
Argonn National Laboratory
Speaking for myself
or...@flicker.fp.anl.gov
E. Michael Smith
>In article <1993Aug16....@michael.apple.com> e...@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>>In article <745513...@flash.ra.anl.gov> b41...@flash.ra.anl.gov (P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550) writes:
>>>In article <rkp...@dixie.com> j...@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>>>>b41...@flash.ra.anl.gov (P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550) writes:
>>>>>>Are you saying that there are no failure modes which would cause heat to be
>>>>>>withdrawn from the sodium?
>>
>>>>>I don't think any initiating event to my knowledge has been identified
>>>>>as significant. Having read the 2-volume PRA, I have to conclude that it
>>>>>is not credible.
>>
>>Um, what is to prevent an administrative whacko from simply issuing
>>an executive order stating 'SHUT IT DOWN FOR TWO YEARS WHILE WE STUDY IT.'
>>and, by the time you get it through their head that this is 'Not A
>>Good Thing', it is two years later and you have a solid chunk of Na...
>This sets the tone for your totally incredlous and stupid response. To think
>that 800 people are just going to walk out this gate shows your moronic grasp
>of the technology. You aren't even worth engaging in debate. Clod.
Gee. Talk about 'setting the tone'. Another personal attack. Look,
since we both score high enough to be Mensa members, you can drop terms
like 'clod' (at least, I presume your degree speaks to a level of
capability). If you don't like the facts, state why. Personal invective
is pointless.
What, prey tell, would your 800 folks do if The Prez DID issue an
executive order that said 'shut it down'? Civil disobedience?
>Firts, in the worst case scenario, the Clinton administration has a three
>year operationg contingency to decommission the 30 yr reactor. Second, Na
There may well be other presidents with other agenda's. Clinton
won't be in there for ever...
So you duck, dodge and weave again. Fine. I see your pattern.
Ignore the issue, go for personal attack, and say the problem doesn't
exist because you know better...
>would never solidify under the conditions you proposed since to do so
>would require 1) opening the core 2) purging the argon covergas, 3) violation
>of the Tec Specs. You see, as long as there is coolant in the pool, there
>must be operations staff on duty. There is no asleep at the wheel, or
>walk away scenario.
Ah, at last, a factoid. So if a terrorist organization comes in and
puts Nasty Glop all over the place, you will have SuperOperators who
never never leave their post?... Well, one thing is clear. You at
least made the statement that there is no 'walk away scenario'.
As long as that premise stands, then we know that there must be
extraordinary measure taken to prevent any armed incursions, any
site contamination (accidental or otherwise), and legal barriers
errected to prevent politico's from doing something stupid. What,
prey tell, are those extensive measures?
>>>>Ya, and before 1979, who would have ever suspected a stuck PORV
>>>>coincident with loss of condenser vacuum, loss of condensate polishing,
>>>>a stuck pressurizer level indicator, an ancient plant computer and
>>>>improperly trained operators would result in a destroyed core at TMI?
>>>>
>>>This is a reach John. Both you and I know the sequence of events at TMI, but
>>>you forgot one critical point: THe operators TURNED OFF safety injection when
>>>faulty pressurizer level indication told them the core was covered.
>>
>>So? The fact is that something un-anticipated happened and caused a mess.
>
>Yeah, and I suppose you can predict every man-made disaster to date.
Nope. But you must be able to show that any credible disaster has
been taken into account. So far you've provided squat.
>>The essence of what you've said is 'The Na can't solidify because we
>>thought of everything.' John has said "That's what the other guy
>>thought too." You have said, but what went wrong involved operator
>>screwups too. I say, So What! The essence remains. What happens if
>No the essence of what I said is Na solidification is about as remote
>as the Cubs and the Redsox in the world series together. Never will happen.
>(Ludicrous example)
But you have provided no supportive evidence. Just 'I said so'
and 'it takes too long to cool' and now "People would stay there to
make sure it didn't happen." How, why, and how much are significantly
absent...
[long list of prior questions and scenarios, still unanswered, deleted.]
>>The question stands: What do you do if the Na freezes?
>>
>>All your side has said is: 1) Trust me, it can't happen. 2) We don't
>>have to worry about it because the plant won't do it. 3) I can't tell
>>you why because, um, it's a secret.
>>
>>Bull pucky. Near as I can tell, from what you've said so far, no one
>>has considered the issue of what to do if the thing freezes or how
>>to prevent it (other than keeping it running in a normal mode.).
>>
>>Time to 'put up or shut up'. WHY, specifically, is it IMPOSSIBLE for
>>the plant to have the Na freeze? Include magnitudes, even if only
>>order of magnitude magnitudes ;-) such as 'takes decades for decay
>>heat to leak out'. If somehow it DID freeze up, what would be done?
>>Mothball it? External reheat? Core heat? Add water and stir ;-)
...
>>>>Or the effects of having to let the Na pool
>>>>solidify for some reason or the other.
>>
>>From what I've seen so far, the plan is to hope it doesn't and, if it
>>does, admire the new public art work/sculpture. Great plan...
...
>>It isn't his 'rendition'of the plant, John is giving you a reasonable
>>rendition of the quesitons the nutral to anti-nukes are going to ask.
>>Like he said, if you can't answer them when they are 'friendly fire',
>>you don't stand a chance of convincing the anti's.
>
>IF JOHN AND YOU ARE FRIENDLY FIRE< THE INDUSTRY DOESNT NEED YOUR
>BLATANT INCOMPETENCE>>>>> STUDY THE ISSUES AS THEY ARE!!!!
Well, we _are_ 'friendly fire'. Hell, half the questions I posed to
you *I* could refute, and I'm not in 'THE INDUSTRY'. As for
blatant incompetence, there you go with those personal attacks again...
That is a dead give away that your ego is dented or that you don't
know how to answer the questions. Ok, you don't want 'to play'.
Fine. I'm happy to write you off as a half baked Phd type who
has an ego problem and thinks 'Holyer than Thou' is the right way
to behave in public. I'd rather that you would take a reasonable
position and actually provide some information to support your
assertions. I won't write off the IFR just because you failed to
defend it, but please don't spout off your assertions to others here
if you are not willing to stand behind them with facts, proof, data, etc.
To do otherwise is to just alienate the voters...
>How can you sit there and say,...Your plant is constructed this way...
Never did say 'your plant is constructed this way', I *asked* why
a scenario was not possible. All you had to say was 'the plant is
constructed in this way which prevents that from happening in this manner'.
>when you know nothing of its design. Sit down..clod.
Gee, I've rated another 'clod'. Must have REALLY gotten under the skin.
Score another one for me!
>>>There will never be a Na-H20 reaction WITHIN the core. THis is a
>Not credible because 1) the system is not designed as you describe. The
I presume the 'you' here is John? Since I didn't decribe any designs,
only asked questions.
>argon inert atmosphere is present in the Argon cell (you know what that
>is mr. ) 2) Fuel handling takes place within the pool.
>>>Also, there is no consequence of a Na leak causing explosions in the pool!
>>>Probably for the simple reason there is an argon cover gas in the pool and
>>>there is no, I repeat NO oxygen.
>>
>>And can there NEVER be? No level of flooding can put water (with
>>oxygen in it) over the core? No Na/steam explosion can possibly
>>put steam on the core? No terrorist threat can ever put enough
>>high explosives in the place to break it?
>>
>Yes. There could NEVER be. No. No. No. (In that order)
It would be nice if you described how the mechanism keeps flood
water out, how the Na/steam (potential) interaction site is
isolated so as to keep any (postulated) explosion contained, and
what counter terrorist measures (in broad terms) are in place
to prevent it. 'No. No. No.' sounds a lot like 'Trust me'...
I would postulate the use of large quantities of re-inforced
concrete between sections and between terrorists and the pool,
but it would be oh so much nicer if you would just say 'meters and
meters of concrete and steel'...
>>Hold off, let us amatures have a crack at it first. Don't take all
>>our fun away!!
>>>>I'd damn sure rather the
>>>>criticism come from our side than to have Dan Rather do a somber lead-in
...
>>>With that bit of crap you just posted, its a wonder your an industry
>>>throw-away. Hey, you have about as much crediblity on IFR as a dung beetle.
>>Golly, more personal attacks. Must have hit close to home, John.
>You and JOhn belong together. Maybe you morons can have little morons.
>Geez!
Back to the personal attacks... Well, fist off, 'moron' has a
particular IQ number associated with it. I know that mine is not
in that range (Mensa qualified per SAT, GMAT, etc.) and would
speculate from John's demonstrated skill level that he is closer
to 'Genius' (in the classical sense, not common usage) than to 'Moron'.
If you can't accept that, for better or worse, we are all of similar
intelectual capacity here, you have some major social skills issues
to work out... The simple fact that we are all professionals in
our fields, all college educated, and all technically skilled, gives
the lie to your assertion of 'moron'.
Look, get a grip, OK? This is debate, not Rape 101. We are not
here just to make your life miserable (though the thought does have
a certain appeal to it...). So you are a little short on debating
skills, that's OK, John and I will be easy with you while you come up
to speed. Though given that you ducked all the 'softballs' tossed
your way, I'm not sure exactly how light to make the questions so
that you'll take a swing...
>>Heck, I've spent 10 to 20 hours at times researching something I KNEW
>>was true, so that I could prove it. If you can't stand the heat...
>
> Unlike you, I have a paycheck to collect and cannot engage mindless
>dilletantes like yourself. Saysomething substantitive, ....
Uh, don't know how to break this to you, but I have a paycheck too.
And manage a group of about 15 folks in a Supercomputer site here.
All I'm seeing from you is personal attack. If that is your entire
debate pallet, this is gonna get old quick.
>I feel no heat from you. Remember, you must DISPROVE me. You went first.
Huh? You asserted 'It can not happen'. We are still waiting for
the proof. Don't see how you get that I have to disprove your
assertion? By that logic I can just assert 'You are wrong', and
you have to disprove me...
>>John is about as pro-nuclear as you can get.
>
>Yeah right. I can state from his posts, he's never been faced with the
>tough operations/decisions. Else why is he doing his rag?
I'll let John speak for himself. Just note: In a decade of postings
I've never seen anyone as doggedly pro-nuke.
>>John was posting 'simplistic arguements' so they would be easy for you
>>to refute. You botched it. When the coach lobs an easy ball to you
>>and you muff it, time to hang up the racket...
>
>Hey I am not some eager beaver waiting to be blessed by his assholiness.
>I am not even sure what you are
>Pardon me, with a coach like that, might as well go home. YOu are the
>most clueless ass**** I have read.
Oh boy! More personal attacks...
>BULLSHIT JOHN AND YOU ARE STUPID FUCKS WHO LIKE BAITING OTHERS. I'D GLADLY
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Well, really going for the intellectual hardballs now, arn't we.
Look, it was easy bait. If you can't take the easy ones, hang it up.
You don't want 'to play', fine, go home.
>PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION. BUT THIS IS NOT SOME GAME YOU STUPID JACKASS.
Not, not a game, a very serious debate. Which you have failed at.
>YOU ARE MORE ANTI_NUKE THAN YODAIKEN. JOHN KNOWS SHIT ABOUT NUCLEAR, ELSE
Hardly. In fact, I'm a positive advocate of nuclear process heat
for methanol synthesis and a neutral on advanced design electric nukes.
Slight anti on old style LWRs, though.
>HE'D STILL BE GAINLULLY EMPLOYED. YOUR ARROGANCE IS AMAZING
Arrogance, eh? Asked some questions you couldn't answer, so now I'm
arrogant? Interesting view of the universe you have there...
Look, take a cold shower, have some nice soothing tea, and come back
when you feel better and can engage in debate without resorting to
four letter words and personal attack. Otherwise, you will not
convince anyone of anything.
Michael Moroney
so keeping it from freezing takes only a little effort. But if you really
wanted to keep it from freezing you could use a sodium-potassium alloy, which
is liquid at room temperature.
"But what about winter?" I don't know the freezing point of the Na-K
eutectic.
Also there may be some undesirable nuclear characteristics of K for the stuff
in the pool, I don't know.
-Mike
T Orth FP/207/ 8505
|> For whatever it's worth, sodium melts at less than the boiling point of water
|> so keeping it from freezing takes only a little effort. But if you really
Pete has made this point already. In any event, this isn't a nuclear accident
in the sense that most are thinking.
|> wanted to keep it from freezing you could use a sodium-potassium alloy, which
|> is liquid at room temperature.
|>
|> "But what about winter?" I don't know the freezing point of the Na-K
|> eutectic.
|>
|> Also there may be some undesirable nuclear characteristics of K for the stuff
|> in the pool, I don't know.
|>
|> -Mike
Actually, it's refered to as a salt in nuclear engineering circles.
There was a prototype molten salt breeder reactor built at Oak Ridge, and it
had the fuel dissolved in the salt. Thus, in the long thing piping to the heat
exchangers, it was subcritical, and only became critical in the vessel er..
core. Not a very conventional beast. Corrosivity and crapped up HX
(means radioactivly contaminated stuff) were its downfall. It did operate
reliably and they even developed a special alloy, I forget the name right now
for dealing with the corrosivity problems. Japan is interested somewhat in
this design, although not too seriously. `
An advantage of this design could be continuous reprocessing/fueling. Reactivity
would be controlled by diluting the salt. I've always kinda like the design
for aesthetic reasons, although operationally it might be a bear.
To go for standard fuel rods in a salt would bring up some nasty corrosivity
problems also, so they went with the dissolved fuel in the oak ridge reactor.
That's about all I know off the top of my head.
Kenneth Ng
:coincident with loss of condenser vacuum, loss of condensate polishing,
:a stuck pressurizer level indicator, an ancient plant computer and
:improperly trained operators would result in a destroyed core at TMI?
John, WASH-1400 found this problem in the 1970's. They even added an event
to the event tree for B&W reactors. Its a shame no one important noticed
back then.
:>In so far as lead as a coolant, this was a paper study. I don't believe any
:>reactors that I know of employs this method. Remember, Pb is much dense than
:>Na. Also, the Na drives an EM pump. I am not certain how Pb could be pumped.
:There have been no other test reactors because of DOE's 20 year infactuation
:with Sodium. Lead brings a bunch of good properties to the table including
:low vapor pressure, high density which absorbs gammas and converts
:them to heat and shields the structures from same, good neutronics,
:reasonable melting point, high boiling point and very low chemical
:reactivity. I think it deserves more than just a paper study before
:summary dismissal.
I've done some literature searches back when Dietz mentioned lead cooled
reactors, but have not been able to find much. About the only work that
I have seen is work that compares them to sodium cooled reactors. They
say that the electromagnetic pump and pipe corrison problems are similar.
--
Kenneth Ng
Please reply to k...@blue.njit.edu for now.
"All this might be an elaborate simulation running in a little device sitting
on someone's table" -- J.L. Picard: ST:TNG
John De Armond
>|> improperly trained operators would result in a destroyed core at TMI?
>All of the reactors on duty at TMI had extensive experience...probably too
>much experience, with both navy and commercial reactors.
That was the problem. All were navy nukes trained to follow orders and
procedures without question. Jokingly refered around the plant to the
Rickhover Effect. Not just my opinion either. Being friends with most
of these fellows, I got it directly from them but if you need official
support, consult Kemeny.
John De Armond
[me]
>>Ya, and before 1979, who would have ever suspected a stuck PORV
>>coincident with loss of condenser vacuum, loss of condensate polishing,
>>a stuck pressurizer level indicator, an ancient plant computer and
>>improperly trained operators would result in a destroyed core at TMI?
>>
>This is a reach John. Both you and I know the sequence of events at TMI, but
>you forgot one critical point: THe operators TURNED OFF safety injection when
>faulty pressurizer level indication told them the core was covered. BTW, 2/3
>pzr logic was OR and post-TMI backfit of similar plants (B&W)
>corrected it to AND. Note: recall the Davis-Besse incident,
>then get back to me.
You missed my point entirely. Prior to TMI, small break LOCAs were
thought to be of no consequence by most nukes (I'm proud to have been one of
the nay-sayer. :-) TMI demonstrated that a whole series
of rather innocuous events when taken individually, collectively
can result in broken equipment. In other words, it taught us that
things considered highly unlikely but still physically possible must not be
dismissed out of hand. IFF such physically possible events have been
analyzed and shown to be vanishingly probable, then say so. Don't just
flippantly say "I've analyzed the data and XXX is impossible."
That's the guaranteed way of getting to watch your credibility dissipation
factor go to infinity.
>>I suggest that if you want your opinions to be credible, you'd better
>>tell us WHY something that, to a layman is not only possible but reasonable
>>(the cooling of the Na pit), can't happen.
>>
>For the mere fact that the volume of Na is large enough that the energy
>can't
>be lost fast enough. Basic heat transfer and thermodynamics. I think with
>30 years operating experience, EBR-II (not IFR BTW) has demonstrated from
>fuel cycle to fuel cycle (I think the number of startups and extended shutdowns
>range in the hundreds) that sufficient safeguards exist to keep such a
>fantastical scenario from happening. I can understand your lack of information
>on plant design, just as I cant comment on how you run your magazine on
>a day-to-day basis. Be advised, I don't want to tread on my employer wrt
>to information NOT in the public domain. Somethings are better left proprietary
>for obvious reasons (national security).
You again are missing my point. >I< maybe can be convinced with
little argument that the cooling pool turning into a great big Na icicle
is very, extremely unlikely but I'm not the one you have to convince.
(I'll be fighting further funding on strictly economic grounds :-)
You have to convince the people who are moderately well educated but
are not nuclear engineers who have watched the government in action
over the past few years and who frankly consider anything that
comes from the government to be a lie unless proven otherwise.
I've been through this crap before. I've made presentations before the
NRC, I've been on panels and I've debated nuclear power in public forums.
There is nothing in this world that will kill your side quicker than
to put on that "trust us, we're the experts" air and flippantly
deflect irritating questions. Oh, one thing even quicker. Saying
"That's classified" in response to questions of details.
>>>The IHX is connected by a Z-pipe which is also in the pool. The shell side
>>>of the IHX goes to another HX connected to the plant secondary system.
>>I really cant get into the specifics of the plant design, for obvious reasons,
>>>however I will state that this reactor is 30 years old. I also bellieve I
>>>had a typo, its 750 deg F.
>>
>>Why the hell not? Are you claiming there is some great veil of secrecy
>>on the details of the IFR design or is some more of that "trust us, we're
>>the experts"? I've just about had enough of this type BS from you two.
>>I watched the same tactics, employed then because of rank inocence,
>>destroy the LWR industry. This round I suspect your motives are less
>>innocent and more involved with groveling for funding.
>>
>NO!!! This is what I mean. You obviously do not appreciate the position as
>a netter you place me in. I don't have the right to compromise security and
>inform you of anything not in the public domain. You see, you are grossly
>defensive for all the wrong reasons, and I feel I have been more than
>accomidating. If you can't handle it, then its a wonder you left the industry
>disgruntled and frustrated. You see, I don't care if you believe the
>letter of the law, but this is an OPEN forum, but its a fact of life that
>somethings are not meant for public disclosure by someone not acting in an
>official capacity. You should know better than to interpret any otherway!
I know exactly the position you're in. I've held a Q clearance for
weapons-related work and the result is I don't talk at all about the things
I worked on, something that annoys me greatly when I read utter BS
regarding The Bomb. I also know what kind of utter bullshit got
classified labels slapped on ONLY for political reasons in order
to keep the public from finding out how their tax money is being
boondogled away.
This is different. You've already stated that a whole litany of
foreign governments are involved with or interested in the IFR. Since
there is no longer the Red Army to hide behind, there can be no
rational reason to classify details of this reactor other than to
keep John Q. Citizen from seeing how his taxes are being spent.
No, I'm not advocating you violate security protocol. What I AM suggesting
is if you want any public support at all for this thing, you (speaking
collectively now) had better realize that slapping the classified
label on things is exactly the wrong thing to do. It's my damn tax
money that is paying for this stuff and since it doesn't involve anything
that kills people or breaks things, I will NOT accept National Security
as an excuse for hiding the details.
>BTW, there is no self-promotion/funding jockeying going on, I just like
>to get facts straight. One of the downfalls of this forum is that people
>assume anything they want even if it is not ground in reality. Its as
>simple as you cant tell me the weather outside my door this instant (its
>raining). You cant comment on things you have absolutely no clue on. You
>may have DOE/LWR experience, but not currently. You cant even tell me the state
>of current affairs, or detailed ops, not even at the places you have
>worked (Vogle?), because I'm sure they have changed since you last was there.
Couple of points. a) I can be up to speed on this stuff enough to be
your worst nightmare faster than a heartbeat if the need arises, and b) it
is not me you have to convince. *I* think the sodium cooled concept is
insane as a concept plus I oppose ANY government funding of scientific
research (Pesky Federalist/libertarian that I am.) And I think the
last thing this country needs is to have Big Science bequeath another
Last Great Solution on us as Rickhover & company did LWRs. But I'm only
one person, allbeit a noisy one.
>If you spent 1 month working here, you would realize what crap you just
>posted. Why do you constantly stipulate your rendition of the EBR-II plant
>design. There will never be a Na-H20 reaction WITHIN the core. THis is a
>complete sodium system save the turbine side!
You still don't get it, do you?
>Also, there is no consequence of a Na leak causing explosions in the pool!
>Probably for the simple reason there is an argon cover gas in the pool and
>there is no, I repeat NO oxygen. Sounds like basic chemistry. There is not
>H20 within the boundaries of containment. The IHX has sodium on BOTH
>sides. But then you would know this if you had detailed knoledge of the
>plant. So before you spout off like an ignoramus, you better know what you
>are talking about.
You ever actually seen a large scale sodium water reaction? Or even
a medium-sized one? Stop by my office sometime and I'll tie a brick
around a 500 gram ingot of sodium and toss it in my pond. You might
be impressed by what happens BEFORE the sodium contacts air.
>With that bit of crap you just posted, its a wonder your an industry
>throw-away. Hey, you have about as much crediblity on IFR as a dung beetle.
>Please take the time to educate yourself. Read the literature. Study the
>technical details as presented in the ANS Transactions/Fistedis book. Look
>at the public documents. Read the popular literature. OMNI magazine did
>a nice piece on IFR in the late 80's. Your attacks are not credible because
>you simply are not informed. There are other avenues for you to obtain info.
>I have better things to do, especially MY JOB, than to babysit your paranoia.
>I guarentee that if you are pro-nuclear, you will be posting a million apoligies
>for the simplistic argument you just posted, ONCE you become informed!!
You STILL don't get it. I am very much aware of the general details of
the design (at least those not classified) such as the dual loop cooling
system. I also know that some of the questions I posed are premised on
false assumptions. I did it to make a point. I very accurately predicted
how to make an example of you. I merely touched your hot-button and
you obligingly went off on a flaming, name calling tangent. How to
win friends and influence funding. Those questions are typical of
what you should expect to hear and be prepared to answer. I suggest
you learn a few basics if you expect to be taken seriously:
* Just because someone challenges you does not make them anti-nuclear.
* Just because someone challenges you does not make them ignorant.
* That someone thinks government funding for your project is
wrong does not make them anti-nuclear.
* All anti-nukes aren't as ignorant as yackadamn; some know as much as
you do and will eat your cake.
>>I see the results of Rickhover cramming LWRs down our throats; I'm not
>>going to stand bye and do nothing to prevent it from happening again.
>Are you going to single handedly stop Westighouse's AP600, GE's ABWR,
>CE's advanced LWR? I think LWR is here to stay, irreguardless of ALMR.
>There's way too much ifrastructure to think otherwise.
Of course it is here now and it works. Indeed I would much rather see
many more LWRs built with the money being thrown down the alkali metal
breeder black hole. Other things will probably work better. I'm a fan
of gas-cooled technology but because few Great Engineering Problems
Addressable Only By Big Science remain, it gets little attention.
Government distortions of the market work that way.
>BTW, if you want to advertise your product on the net, better be prepared
>to pay for the promotion. One of the tenets of this forum is not for
>personal profit!!!
Wrong. *Sigh* New to the net too, I see.
John De Armond
>The essence of what you've said is 'The Na can't solidify because we
>thought of everything.' John has said "That's what the other guy
>thought too." You have said, but what went wrong involved operator
>screwups too. I say, So What! The essence remains. What happens if
>the UNLIKELY does happen, and the Na solidifies? You have NOT thought
>of everything and something really odd happens, like that executive
>order or an operator who panics in an earthquake and turns off the heat
>or ... What then?
(He kicks back in his chair, rubs his old gray beard [woops, shaved it off]
goes into story-telling mode.)
Maybe I'm just a crusty old fart but I've seen this old "we've thought
of everything" once too many times not to side with you, Mike. For
example, the Great IceCapades at Sequoyah.
Waaaaay back, just after Edison invented the lightbulb, we were starting
up Sequoyah in Chattanooga and I found myself with the assignment of
starting up the Ice Condenser. This thing was a great annular cavity inside
the containment filled with boron-loaded ice (5 million pounds' worth,
give or take a gram) that was designed to melt and condense all the steam
from a LOCA. Let 'em build a low pressure containment. The ice is
in flake form contained in perforated metal tubes about 8" in diameter
and about a hundred feet long. Above this huge snowcone are banks of
air handlers that use chilled glycol to keep the air in the compartments
at a balmy 12 degrees or thereabouts. My job was to oversee the
initial filling of the baskets and the startup of the air handlers and
supporting equipment (chillers, etc).
In reviewing the system design, I noted that there was no provision
for on-site ice making. Indeed, the initial ice was made in a huge
ice plant mounted on a tractor-trailer. The FSAR (Final Safety
Analysis Report) and the preliminary Tech Specs confidently parroted
Westinghouse's words in proclaiming the ice charge would last the life
of the plant. "But but but but" I said, "Ice in air at 12 degrees
and 50% RH sublimes at (matchbook scratchings) XXX rate which means it
couldn't possibly last the life of the plant." "We're the experts,
We know the answeres" came the reply from On High, Headquarters Design in
Knoxville. (on the right hand of God, of course.)
Soooo.. I started the system up without an ice maker. Come first outage,
one of the jobs was to weigh the ice baskets and measure the loss.
Guess what? I wasn't far off. Guess what? Next outage an ice plant
was backfitted. Moral: The experts don't always have the answers.
Next time: The story of the backward reactor building.
BTW, this was NOT a safety issue, as the ice remaining was well within
the tech specs. Just an expensive little FUP.
John De Armond
>Hmmm... maybe a Lead/Na Hx ... but you would have to choose the
>reduced reactivity with water OR the advantages in the core...
>What about a lead pool, Na primary loop (where most of the pumping
>is going on, and then a short lead secondary loop?
>It would have great PR value... "The reactor is completely blanketed
>with XXXX Tons of Lead at all times"...
Actually having lead in the core is a benefit because it greatly restricts
the range of gamma radiation. Gamma heating of core internals is a
significant concern plus gammas that escape the coolant represent wasted
heat. Lead's high density also means the inevitable fission product
contamination presents much less of a radiation hazard to workers
than the same contamination in sodium. Lead should pump reasonably
well, particularly after as much money has been spent on it as sodium.
BTW, I got some Email after the previous round pointing out that
whichever one of these national lab fellows that said lead had been
paper-studied was wrong. Seems the Russians have done a lot of work
with lead coolant. One paper this message mentioned is:
Comparative Neutronic Analysis of Pb- versus Na-cooled LMR Cores,
J. R. Liaw, E. K. Fujita, and D. C. Wade, 1992 Topical Meeting on
Advances in Reactor Physics, Charleston, S.C. (1992).
On my next trip to Ga Tech, I'll see if I can dig it up. Sounds
interesting.
P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550
>In article <745533...@pepper.ra.anl.gov> b41...@pepper.ra.anl.gov (P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550) writes:
>>In article <1993Aug16....@michael.apple.com> e...@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>>>In article <745513...@flash.ra.anl.gov> b41...@flash.ra.anl.gov (P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550) writes:
>>>>In article <rkp...@dixie.com> j...@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>>>>>b41...@flash.ra.anl.gov (P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550) writes:
>
>>>>>>>Are you saying that there are no failure modes which would cause heat to be
>>>>>>>withdrawn from the sodium?
>>>
>>>>>>I don't think any initiating event to my knowledge has been identified
>>>>>>as significant. Having read the 2-volume PRA, I have to conclude that it
>>>>>>is not credible.
>>>
>>>Um, what is to prevent an administrative whacko from simply issuing
>>>an executive order stating 'SHUT IT DOWN FOR TWO YEARS WHILE WE STUDY IT.'
>>>and, by the time you get it through their head that this is 'Not A
>>>Good Thing', it is two years later and you have a solid chunk of Na...
>
>>This sets the tone for your totally incredlous and stupid response. To think
>>that 800 people are just going to walk out this gate shows your moronic grasp
>>of the technology. You aren't even worth engaging in debate. Clod.
>
>Gee. Talk about 'setting the tone'. Another personal attack. Look,
>since we both score high enough to be Mensa members, you can drop terms
>like 'clod' (at least, I presume your degree speaks to a level of
>capability). If you don't like the facts, state why. Personal invective
>is pointless.
I am going to give you the definitions and parameters from which to work
from :
1) IFR Technical Memorandum: ("red-backs")
Results reported in the IFR-TM series of memoranda frequently are preliminary
and subject to revision. Consequently, they should not be quoted or
referended
An example is "The Passive Response of a Metal Fueled Pool Type Reactor..."
There are a couple hundred of these reports
2) Applied Technology: (AT)
Any further distribution by any holder of this document or data therin to third
parties representing foreign interests, foreign governments, foreign companies,
and foreign subsidaries or foreign divisions of US companies shall be approved
by the Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Reactor Systems, Development,
and Technology, U.S. Department of energy. Further, foreign party release may
require DOE approval pursuant to Federal Regulation 10CFR Part 810 and/or
may be subject to Section 127 of the Atomic Energy Act.
Translation:
I can only discuss specific figures that have been made public through open
meetings, literature submissions, and general public information. This is
not a skirt, its the letter of the law. Note: many IFR Technical Memorandum
or "red-backs" as we call them, do get turned into papers/publications
AFTER, the information poses no compromise of AT.
Also note: Anyone knowingly RECEIVING information is also subject to the
law, thus I am protecting YOU Mike, from inadvertantly violating federal
codes and regulations.
>
>What, prey tell, would your 800 folks do if The Prez DID issue an
>executive order that said 'shut it down'? Civil disobedience?
>
This is not a credible scenario, as 1)Clinton has come out in favor of IFR
and an additional 25$M has been made available to study weapons grade plut
burning. We have a very strong Congressional delegation representing Eastern
Idaho and the INEL. THe INEL is a vital component of this economy. You may
not be aware of this, but Idaho Falls (pop 50K) has the highest concentration
of Phds per capita than any other town of its size. The people are intellegent
conservative, and fiercely independent. Clinton finished a dismal third in
the general election, but people here are living as a civilized society. Sure
any layoff affecting an area is felt (military base closings for example), how-
ever, this community will survive. The IFR effort represents only 10% of the
INEL workforce/budget.
Also, if you think this
is similar to padlocking the gates at a GM or IBM plant, then you are sadly
mistaken. Like I said, it takes an act of Congress (literally) to shut down
a DOE Class A reactor, and currently, the Senate has introduced a bill which
would ensure IFR operations for at least 3 years. At that time, hopefully,
the political winds will have shifted. In any event no one here is worried.
>>Firts, in the worst case scenario, the Clinton administration has a three
>>year operationg contingency to decommission the 30 yr reactor. Second, Na
>
>There may well be other presidents with other agenda's. Clinton
>won't be in there for ever...
>
Lets hope not. It cant get any worse. People here were around when Carter
cut Clinch River, and the general consensus is that this is the most
challenging administration because of Gore and greenies. Note: by the time
the Clinton administrations first term is over (hopefully last) two things
will have happened 1) THe IFR will have demonstrated full metal fuel recycling
2) The general consensus for long term actinide dispostion will swing from
buriel to utilization/burning.
>So you duck, dodge and weave again. Fine. I see your pattern.
>Ignore the issue, go for personal attack, and say the problem doesn't
>exist because you know better...
>
Wrong! See the discussion on AT. If you want to break the law, thats your
preogative.
>>would never solidify under the conditions you proposed since to do so
>>would require 1) opening the core 2) purging the argon covergas, 3) violation
>>of the Tec Specs. You see, as long as there is coolant in the pool, there
>>must be operations staff on duty. There is no asleep at the wheel, or
>>walk away scenario.
>
>Ah, at last, a factoid. So if a terrorist organization comes in and
>puts Nasty Glop all over the place, you will have SuperOperators who
>never never leave their post?... Well, one thing is clear. You at
>least made the statement that there is no 'walk away scenario'.
There isnt any walk away scenario because in our industry, that is irresponsible
Do you see pilots leaving the cockpit at landing/takeoff? How ludacrous. You
see, I am only pointing out the fact that simple things we take for granted,
like having trained operators and a CONDUCT or CODE of Operations for all 800
here, get overlooked by outsiders. There are things which you may not
understand or grasp, but I would think having someone minding the store is
common sense.
>As long as that premise stands, then we know that there must be
>extraordinary measure taken to prevent any armed incursions, any
>site contamination (accidental or otherwise), and legal barriers
>errected to prevent politico's from doing something stupid. What,
>prey tell, are those extensive measures?
>
Without violating the site safety plan, I can state it is your standard
garden variety DOE facility. NO one gets in without clearance. Nothing
enters/leaves without someone knowing. If you spent any time around military
installations, multiply that by 1000. Comercial utility security doesn't
even come close. (I know that to be a fact)
>>>>>Ya, and before 1979, who would have ever suspected a stuck PORV
>>>>>coincident with loss of condenser vacuum, loss of condensate polishing,
>>>>>a stuck pressurizer level indicator, an ancient plant computer and
>>>>>improperly trained operators would result in a destroyed core at TMI?
>>>>>
>>>>This is a reach John. Both you and I know the sequence of events at TMI, but
>>>>you forgot one critical point: THe operators TURNED OFF safety injection when
>>>>faulty pressurizer level indication told them the core was covered.
>>>
>>>So? The fact is that something un-anticipated happened and caused a mess.
>>
>>Yeah, and I suppose you can predict every man-made disaster to date.
>
>Nope. But you must be able to show that any credible disaster has
>been taken into account. So far you've provided squat.
>
>>>The essence of what you've said is 'The Na can't solidify because we
>>>thought of everything.' John has said "That's what the other guy
>>>thought too." You have said, but what went wrong involved operator
>>>screwups too. I say, So What! The essence remains. What happens if
>
>>No the essence of what I said is Na solidification is about as remote
>>as the Cubs and the Redsox in the world series together. Never will happen.
>>(Ludicrous example)
>
>But you have provided no supportive evidence. Just 'I said so'
>and 'it takes too long to cool' and now "People would stay there to
>make sure it didn't happen." How, why, and how much are significantly
>absent...
>
>
This is a reach.Period.If the core solidified, it would pose no safety
significance. Radiologically or neutronically. I don't know why coolant
solidification would ever be a concern because in the worst case, the
core is less neutronically reactive (reactivity = delta k/k) and there is
a concept called "Shutdown Margin" (refer to John for a definition).
Note: minimum operating temperatures are also a stiipulation of the
Technical Specs, so any scenario you pose is just not credible.
>[long list of prior questions and scenarios, still unanswered
, deleted.]
I think I answered the relevant and pertainent questions. If you are not
satisfied, then I suggest you write the DOE to obtain a release for AT.
I can only provide you with information I have which is of a "general
audience" nature. Since you have no nuclear engineering background, I
would hope that this suffices. If you were a collegue, that would be a
differnt story.
Then if you could refute them, why come across in a baiting attitite, this
is not some mental exercise and game for your amusement. If you want to
learn about the IFR and its potential, I can help you. If you want to
antagonize, as your posts have demonstrated, I can go into the gutter, as
I have demostrated. Your arrogance wrt "coaching" is way off base. I would
think some fundamental knowledge of the technology is a prerequesite. You
have demonstrated neither a fundalmental knowledge nor fundamental understanding
of the technical issues under the guise of <<pretending to be a greenie>>.
Like I said, it seems like you and John are prepretrating a sham just to see
who will take the bait. Sorry, no sale.
This whole thread on Na freezing is a non-issue. Where were you 30 years
ago, when EBR-II came on line. For that matter, 45 years ago when EBR-I
provided the first electricity from atomic power, also NA cooled. So you
see, you have absolutely no grounds for comment. I say the mere fact that
you think Na freezing is a factor in the operation shows a very superficial
understanding of the basic operational parameters necessary to
>That is a dead give away that your ego is dented or that you don't
>know how to answer the questions. Ok, you don't want 'to play'.
>Fine. I'm happy to write you off as a half baked Phd type who
>has an ego problem and thinks 'Holyer than Thou' is the right way
>to behave in public. I'd rather that you would take a reasonable
>position and actually provide some information to support your
>assertions.
Another wrong assertion. I have demonstrated that I can answer questions,
provided the questions are relavent to the discussion. The onus lies on you
to ask pertainent questions, and not bait the issue of <<what if cows can
fly>>, ala NA freezing. In so far as egos are concerned, I am very happy
with my station in life, and proud of my accomplishments, as are you of
yours. However, recall, I do not put on airs. Where is it stated that "I am
a Phd....(an engineering PhD works for a living) I put more credence on the
fact that I had my hands on the controls of a large PWR,synching the gen to to
the grid, taking the reactor critical, etc..doing hands on work. that is
what I am about. Not some comp. sci. programmer/neophyte who never got
his hands dirts. You know absolutely nothing about me.
I won't write off the IFR just because you failed to
>defend it, but please don't spout off your assertions to others here
If I <<failed to defend it >> to your liking, then that is your problem. I
think the technology is strong enough to defend itself. If you feel you have
been skirted, email me and I will gladly anwer your assertions. Bear in mind
I am very busy and don't have time for 20 hrs of research to answer a
question in 1 sentence.
>if you are not willing to stand behind them with facts, proof, data, etc.
>To do otherwise is to just alienate the voters...
>
I think I have made myself clear with the Fistedis book, and the published
literature. Remember, my hands are tied with AT.
>>How can you sit there and say,...Your plant is constructed this way...
>
>Never did say 'your plant is constructed this way', I *asked* why
>a scenario was not possible. All you had to say was 'the plant is
Its not possible because the plant is not constructed in the way in which
makes your scenario possible. Thus that why I answered in that fashion, because
you came across as knowing what is beyond the gates, when you know that if
you had knowledge of a basic pool type reactor,not just this one,
you would never have asked that question, and dismissed the scenario.
>constructed in this way which prevents that from happening in this manner'.
>>when you know nothing of its design. Sit down..clod.
>
>Gee, I've rated another 'clod'. Must have REALLY gotten under the skin.
>Score another one for me!
>
It irritated me that you would come across as omni-knowing of a specific
plant design, just like it would irritate you if I delved into the Apple
hardware and told you a blatant non-truth. I expected a little more from you.
You disappointed me. If this is an indication of your companies personell,
its a wonder apple is getting stomped in the PC market.
>>>>There will never be a Na-H20 reaction WITHIN the core. THis is a
>>Not credible because 1) the system is not designed as you describe. The
>
>I presume the 'you' here is John? Since I didn't decribe any designs,
>only asked questions.
>
Your assertion of a basic scenario must assume a design by which the scenario
is made possible. If you pose a scenario such as LOCA, you must assume that
a coolant mechanism as part of your design, either piping, large pool, etc.
As an engineer, it is basic to understand the parameters/control boundaries
to assert a scenario.
>>argon inert atmosphere is present in the Argon cell (you know what that
>>is mr. ) 2) Fuel handling takes place within the pool.
>
>>>>Also, there is no consequence of a Na leak causing explosions in the pool!
>>>>Probably for the simple reason there is an argon cover gas in the pool and
>>>>there is no, I repeat NO oxygen.
>>>
>>>And can there NEVER be? No level of flooding can put water (with
>>>oxygen in it) over the core? No Na/steam explosion can possibly
>>>put steam on the core? No terrorist threat can ever put enough
>>>high explosives in the place to break it?
>>>
>>Yes. There could NEVER be. No. No. No. (In that order)
>
>It would be nice if you described how the mechanism keeps flood
>water out, how the Na/steam (potential) interaction site is
>isolated so as to keep any (postulated) explosion contained, and
>what counter terrorist measures (in broad terms) are in place
>to prevent it. 'No. No. No.' sounds a lot like 'Trust me'...
>
Refer to the volumes of system design descriptions.You have access to
them. Sufficient isolation exists. Hundreds of penetrations have isolation
capability. The list goes on..
No. "No.No.No." was an answer to the 3 questions you posed. Simple.
>I would postulate the use of large quantities of re-inforced
>concrete between sections and between terrorists and the pool,
>but it would be oh so much nicer if you would just say 'meters and
>meters of concrete and steel'...
We are not on the metric system. The containment is about 4 feet thick.
Satisfied?
>
>>>Hold off, let us amatures have a crack at it first. Don't take all
>>>our fun away!!
>
>>>>>I'd damn sure rather the
>>>>>criticism come from our side than to have Dan Rather do a somber lead-in
>...
>>>>With that bit of crap you just posted, its a wonder your an industry
>>>>throw-away. Hey, you have about as much crediblity on IFR as a dung beetle.
>
>>>Golly, more personal attacks. Must have hit close to home, John.
>
>>You and JOhn belong together. Maybe you morons can have little morons.
>>Geez!
>
>Back to the personal attacks... Well, fist off, 'moron' has a
>particular IQ number associated with it. I know that mine is not
>in that range (Mensa qualified per SAT, GMAT, etc.) and would
>speculate from John's demonstrated skill level that he is closer
>to 'Genius' (in the classical sense, not common usage) than to 'Moron'.
>
A genius doesn't have to justify genius.Nor proclaim it. It would be self-
evident. Now what does Mensa have to do with anything? Try the 3-sigma club
if you want to impress someone. BTW I like personal attacks because it adds
nothing to debate, and the recipient allways counters with "So another
personal attack...you loose" when the whole intent is to spin you up.
Personal attacks are effective when the recipient takes them personally.
(Decipher that one SFB)
>If you can't accept that, for better or worse, we are all of similar
>intelectual capacity here, you have some major social skills issues
>to work out... The simple fact that we are all professionals in
>our fields, all college educated, and all technically skilled, gives
>the lie to your assertion of 'moron'.
Hey, I do fine socially. BTW college educated doesn't qualify for any great
beatification/cannonization of intellectual sainthood. It just means you
took a bunch of classes, paid for them, and got a piece of paper. what you
do with your life and life experiences is another story. I'm sure if I
walked into your place of work, and asked similar questions as you have posed,
the word "moron" would be most kind.
>
>Look, get a grip, OK? This is debate, not Rape 101. We are not
>here just to make your life miserable (though the thought does have
>a certain appeal to it...). So you are a little short on debating
>skills, that's OK, John and I will be easy with you while you come up
>to speed. Though given that you ducked all the 'softballs' tossed
>your way, I'm not sure exactly how light to make the questions so
>that you'll take a swing...
>
Hey pal, I have held my own. It is you who are lacking on skills. It is
you who will not accept a simple answer. Your fundamental misunderstanding
of the technology is your own undoing. Basic chemistry. Basic physics.
You never threw softballs, because you never threw. You just spouted.
I have a suggestion: Please phrase your question in the form of a question.
Not some half-baked scenario which is convoluted in opinion. BTW, I am
not impressed with John. He dissapoints me.
>>>Heck, I've spent 10 to 20 hours at times researching something I KNEW
>>>was true, so that I could prove it. If you can't stand the heat...
>>
>> Unlike you, I have a paycheck to collect and cannot engage mindless
>>dilletantes like yourself. Saysomething substantitive, ....
>
>Uh, don't know how to break this to you, but I have a paycheck too.
>And manage a group of about 15 folks in a Supercomputer site here.
>All I'm seeing from you is personal attack. If that is your entire
>debate pallet, this is gonna get old quick.
>
Who is getting personal. I am simply stating get a life. If you want to
debate, fine. State your position, your premise, your supporting facts for
me to debate. Do not spout off the Rule of Engagement, the terms of debate
from your prerspective. Ask the question, briefly. Get to the point. I'm
sure that if you treated the 15 folks at the Sc in the manner you treated
me (rudely, arrogant) you would never get out of the mailroom. (BTW why are
you so easily offended?)
>>I feel no heat from you. Remember, you must DISPROVE me. You went first.
>
>Huh? You asserted 'It can not happen'. We are still waiting for
>the proof. Don't see how you get that I have to disprove your
>assertion? By that logic I can just assert 'You are wrong', and
>you have to disprove me...
The proof is in the fact that the plant design is not as you described in
which a scenario like that would take place. You said "It can happen"
I want you to tell me how. Because just simply stating it can happen, without
knowing how, is specious. Remember you said first, that it can happen. I am
still waiting on the mechanism which makes this true. You have supplied no
supporting facts. Decay heat coorelations, plant specific parameters.
You painted yourself into a corner and are trying to shift the onus on me.
Please back up your assertions. Simply stating a scenario without understanding
the phenomena is like stating "Hell can freeze over" without knowing the
temperature of the place.
>
>>>John is about as pro-nuclear as you can get.
>>
>>Yeah right. I can state from his posts, he's never been faced with the
>>tough operations/decisions. Else why is he doing his rag?
>
>I'll let John speak for himself. Just note: In a decade of postings
>I've never seen anyone as doggedly pro-nuke.
>
If so then why did he leave the industry? Was he a key operations personel,
or just some lackey? Was he a security guard like Bruce Willis, or was his
actions directly influencing day to day ops (as someone I know who will be
nameless)
>>>John was posting 'simplistic arguements' so they would be easy for you
>>>to refute. You botched it. When the coach lobs an easy ball to you
>>>and you muff it, time to hang up the racket...
>>
No, I reject the premise that you pose simplistic arguments. If they were
simplistic, you would allready have the answer. What you are engaging is
baiting, and I have no time for it.
>>Hey I am not some eager beaver waiting to be blessed by his assholiness.
>>I am not even sure what you are
>>Pardon me, with a coach like that, might as well go home. YOu are the
>>most clueless ass**** I have read.
>
>Oh boy! More personal attacks...
>
Why is it that personal attacks are maligned? I
>>BULLSHIT JOHN AND YOU ARE STUPID FUCKS WHO LIKE BAITING OTHERS. I'D GLADLY
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Well, really going for the intellectual hardballs now, arn't we.
>Look, it was easy bait. If you can't take the easy ones, hang it up.
>You don't want 'to play', fine, go home.
>
>>PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION. BUT THIS IS NOT SOME GAME YOU STUPID JACKASS.
>
>Not, not a game, a very serious debate. Which you have failed at.
>
>>YOU ARE MORE ANTI_NUKE THAN YODAIKEN. JOHN KNOWS SHIT ABOUT NUCLEAR, ELSE
>
>Hardly. In fact, I'm a positive advocate of nuclear process heat
>for methanol synthesis and a neutral on advanced design electric nukes.
>Slight anti on old style LWRs, though.
>
>>HE'D STILL BE GAINLULLY EMPLOYED. YOUR ARROGANCE IS AMAZING
>
>Arrogance, eh? Asked some questions you couldn't answer, so now I'm
>arrogant? Interesting view of the universe you have there...
>
I answered all relavent questions. Get to the point. What is it you want?
I am waiting for you to pose a decent question/
>Look, take a cold shower, have some nice soothing tea, and come back
>when you feel better and can engage in debate without resorting to
>four letter words and personal attack. Otherwise, you will not
>convince anyone of anything.
>
>--
I am not trying to convince you of anything. People like you should be shot.
>
>E. Michael Smith e...@apple.COM
>
>'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has
> genius, power and magic in it.' - Goethe
>
>I am not responsible nor is anyone else. Everything is disclaimed.
____________________________________________________________________
P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550
>For whatever it's worth, sodium melts at less than the boiling point of water
>so keeping it from freezing takes only a little effort. But if you really
>wanted to keep it from freezing you could use a sodium-potassium alloy, which
>is liquid at room temperature.
>
be a concern? Why would you even concern youself with this?Think of the
real-world now. Why would anyone design a system where this would be
a concern.
>"But what about winter?" I don't know the freezing point of the Na-K
>eutectic.
>
Stating this is very misleading. Are you actually thinking the weather has
an effect on plant design in a controlled environment? Why would winter
be a problem? Are you designing something with ambient environment? How will
you get the proper heat transfer? This is what I mean Mike. Do you know
what your statement says?
It says "I know absolutely nothing of real world conditions" or does it
say, "I know this statement is wrong, you tell me why" . I am inclined to
believe the first.
>Also there may be some undesirable nuclear characteristics of K for the stuff
>in the pool, I don't know.
If you dont know, then dont state "may". State "Could there be..." In this
way you are asking for help, and not stating a scenario.
What undesirable nuclear characteristics? What is undesirable? What nuclear
characteristics do you mean?
>
>-Mike
P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550
>In article <CBvHE...@mcs.anl.gov> or...@salt.ra.anl.gov (T Orth FP/207/ 8505) writes:
>>
>>|>
>>|> Um, what is to prevent an administrative whacko from simply issuing
>>|> an executive order stating 'SHUT IT DOWN FOR TWO YEARS WHILE WE STUDY IT.'
>>|> and, by the time you get it through their head that this is 'Not A
>>|> Good Thing', it is two years later and you have a solid chunk of Na...
>>
>>You aren't trying to equate this with a radiological accident are you?
>>If the fuel is so cold that the sodium solidfies, it sure isn't dangerous.
>
>investment, and if the sodium solidifies, you may lose the investment.
>
Why would this cause a loss in investment? If sodium solidifies, then couldnt itbe liquified? What radiological impact does this pose? What core integrity
questions are asked? You tell me why you would even consider this. Decay heat
in the fuel is sufficient from keeping Na from freezing. If you didnt have
fuel, then you just have a tank of Na w/o fuel. What is so dangerous about
that?
>I would surmise from what you said above that the way to liquify the sodium
>is to put real fuel in the reactor. :-)
>
Keep circulation going via pumps is the prefered method. Pump energy and
decay heat is sufficient.
>BTW, could you tell me what the bootstrap procedure for the reactor is, i.e.
>how you initially liquify the sodium when you fire up the plant for the first
>time?
Since the plant was first fired up 30 yrs ago, and I was 4, well I have
no direct experience. From what I read, the Na was heated up and piped
in to the pool at 750 deg. Then after thermal conditions, fuel was loaded.
Refer to the EBR-II story..American Nuclear Society
>
>>|> Um, pardon me, but a few fuel cycles of an R&D plant don't mean squat
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I said a couple hundred, over 30 years, what is it that is not understood?
>>|> in the Real World of production... Yeah, you can keep the pot warm
>>|> in a nice R&D site without {terrorists, bad operators, earthquakes,...}.
>>|> Again, so what? What do you do when the unthinkable DOES happen and
>>|> the Na is hard as a brick?
>>
>>|> Excuse me, but 'proprietary' and 'national security' are orthogonal reasons.
>>|> If it is an 'national security' issue, then the Gov't owns it and you do
>>|> not have any remaining proprietary claims. I smell a dodge...
>>
>>No, it isn't a dodge. I don't think you have the foggiest notion of what it
>>means to work in a national lab.
>
>I certainly don't, never having done it myself. Could you explain, please,
>some of the reasons that some of the design information necessary to explain
>some of your statements is not available to the public? I thought that,
>being a national lab, information would either be classified as a national
>security issue or would be publicly available. "Proprietary" implies a
>loyalty to some commercial entity. That might be the case here (I can
>envision a commercial entity hiring a national lab to do some research or
>design work), but I wouldn't think this would be the case for the IFR.
>Unless, of course, someone contracted you to design it...
>
THe definition of Applied Technology and the laws restricting its disemination
have been delineate in previous posts.
o>>|> for an example. Where Taylor is talking about how to build an H bomb,
>>|> and gives broad hints that don't violate national security, but do
>>|> give you an idea that he clearly knows his stuff.
>>
Yes, but everyone knows you need a shock tube and a critical mass, and
geometry. But have him give specific design details, and you will see
the FBI come down..
BTW, the design of the bomb is not classified, else Rhodes would never
have published.
>>First of all, national security issues are only a subset of the issues...
>>proprietory are other reasons.
>
>This poses a problem, and puts you in a rather nasty predicament. You see,
>the informed skeptics are going to have a hard enough time accepting the
>IFR as it is, and they're going to be *for* the basic idea. The general
>public is going to be even harder to convince, and they're the ones that
>you must eventually convince. I realize that IFR may be so good that
>nobody in their right mind would reject it, but:
>
Boeing need not diseminate the plans for the 747 for people to fly in it.
Electric utilities make design and operation available to the public
through FSAR, Tec Specs, etc.. I think the same can be said for IFR.
> (a) rejection or acceptance requires an evaluation that depends on
> information. When that information is lacking, no good evaluation
> can result, and the default in that case is usually to reject the
> proposal.
>
> (b) the public is not necessarily in its right mind.
>
>I easily sympathize if you can't reveal the information needed to answer the
>pointed questions asked, but you must realize that failure to provide that
>information may ultimately place the project at great risk of termination.
No. The only thing at risk of termination is my job. Respect it and move on
to a more salient point. I think enough technical information will be made
public to satisfy critics.
>For something like this, I think it's in the best interests of everyone (or,
>at least, most everyone) for the information in question to be made
>available.
>
When has information not been made public? I think that all non-AT publications
have been made available
>>|> Look, if you can't stand the truth, at least don't slander other folks
>>|> for saying it. The fact is, John is right.
>>
>>Actually, he knows enough to be dangerous.
>
>But you must realize that the reason he doesn't know more is that you're
>not willing to tell him more! That's what this is about.
>
No! He has all the information available to make an inforormed desision
>>|> All your side has said is: 1) Trust me, it can't happen. 2) We don't
>>|> have to worry about it because the plant won't do it. 3) I can't tell
>>|> you why because, um, it's a secret.
1) What cant happen ? Na freezing? I think I stated that fuel decay heat
takes care of it
2) What is the consequence? Nothing I know of.
>>
>>It ain't a radiological event silly.
>
>Radiological events, while very important to the public, are not the only
>events that are important to the public...
>
>In any case, as you well know, there are many non-radiological events that
>can cause radiological events, at least in conventional reactors. Is IFR
>different in this respect?
>
Yes it is. Fuel integrity is not compromised. Recall the SHRT tests.
o>>|> >>tell people, many of whom have seen explosive sodium/water reactions in
>>|> >>chemistry class, why a sodium-water mix through a HX leak won't result
>>|> >>in an explosion. And you'd better be able to explain how a massive
>>|> >>Na/H2O reaction won't overwhelm the inerting blanket with hydrogen.
>>|>
>>|> I don't think he can. I'd guess that the H2 is safe due to a lack of
>>|> oxygen, but the question about the inerting blanket is an interesting
>>|> one...
>>|>
>>|> >>And how the coolant will stay non-radioactive as you claim in the face of
>>|> >>inevitable failed fuel.
>>
If the HX is Na-Na where is the water? I think there was GREAT CONFUSION
because the scenario assumed Na-H20. This is only for a SECONDARY HX to
the turbine OUTSIDE containment. Not the IHX, which is Na-Na.
>>failed fuel tests are run on purpose all of the time...It does not effect the
>>operation of EBR-II.
>
>>|> Hmmm... Wonder what it would take for a determined squad of terrorists
>>|> with, say, Stingers from Afganistan and HK-47s from the middle east,
>>|> and a cement truck full of urea-nitrate to get to the HX ... Nah,
>>|> not a credible scenario. Terrorists would NEVER attack a major
>>|> facility in the US with a stupid truck bomb... not even one with
>>|> a 'mud pump' and a long pipe...
>>
>>Like we have said before, the sodium to water HX is not part of the
>>reactor loop, and is not near the reactor. Please, it's a funny
>>story, but it's not grounded in reality.
>
>This makes sense. The secondary sodium loop probably emerges through a
>rather thick wall, too, I would imagine...
>
The Intermediate sodium loop emerges from containment. Enough said ?
>>|> It isn't his 'rendition'of the plant, John is giving you a reasonable
>>|> rendition of the quesitons the nutral to anti-nukes are going to ask.
>>|> Like he said, if you can't answer them when they are 'friendly fire',
>>|> you don't stand a chance of convincing the anti's.
>>
>>Questions they would have if they didn't have a clue as to the design of the
>>plant.
>
>*Correct*!! Right on target. But you claim that, for proprietary and/or
>security reasons, you can't reveal some of this design information. Why,
>then, are you surprised that the questions get asked?
>
The design information which makes the question ludicrous is available.
The infromationtion which makes electrorefining fuel behavior etc, is not
and is AT.
>>|> a major quake happens (like, oh, a 9) and it is found that the
>>|> pipes from the pool to the HX aren't as strong as thought, and the
>>|> H2 explosion from the Na/steam reaction manages to put a tinsy little
>>|> leak into the pool... What then? Not credible? WHY not?
>>
>>where is this steam explosion occuring? It was stated earlier that the
>>HX is not in the reactor building. A crack in the sodium to sodium heat
>>exchanger would result in sodium mixing.
>
>I guess I missed that. That makes the thing even safer than I expected.
>
>I assume that the reactor building is designed to withstand the force of
>impact from whatever flying debris that may result from an explosion in the
>secondary heat exchanger building...
>
>>|> What a neat idea for a demo! You could have the fire and smoke
>>|> blasting out a vent hole in the top of the containment dome and
>>|> add some materials so that the 'deposits' were permanent stains
>>|> and make the smoke red or orange and talk about 25,000 years of
>>|> contamination downwind (a nice desk fan would assure rapid
>>|> 'contamination' of everyone at the demo!). I like it!
>
>Unfortunately, they will probably end up doing this kind of thing anyway,
>regardless of how much is actually known about the plant and regardless of
>how safe it is generally regarded. There are some people in the general
>public who seem unable to listen to reason.
>
>>You still don't seem to get the design. Hopefully you do now.
>
>Better, anyway. :-)
>
>>Tom Orth
>>Nuclear Engineer
>>Argonne National Laboratory
>>Speaking for myself
>>or...@flicker.fp.anl.gov
>
>I must commend you, Dr. Orth. Your response was much more civil than Dr.
>Angelo's. While I can understand Dr. Angelo's frustration, the way he
>expressed it didn't help him to make his case very well...
>
>
Hey, think of this. Both Tom and I have had private conversations to
inform the net that EBR-II is not IFR. I only got frustrated because I
was disapointed in the baiting tactics of Mike when he knew damn well
to debate is one thing, to antagonize is another.
>
>--
>Kevin Brown ke...@frobozz.sccsi.com
>This is your .signature virus: < begin 644 .signature (9V]T8VAA(0K0z end >
> This is your .signature virus on drugs: <>
> Any questions?
____________________________________________________________________
Peter L. Angelo EBR-II Reactor Physics
P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550
>b41...@flash.ra.anl.gov (P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550) writes:
>
>[me]
>>>Ya, and before 1979, who would have ever suspected a stuck PORV
>>>coincident with loss of condenser vacuum, loss of condensate polishing,
>>>a stuck pressurizer level indicator, an ancient plant computer and
>>>improperly trained operators would result in a destroyed core at TMI?
>>>
>>This is a reach John. Both you and I know the sequence of events at TMI, but
>>you forgot one critical point: THe operators TURNED OFF safety injection when
>>faulty pressurizer level indication told them the core was covered. BTW, 2/3
>>pzr logic was OR and post-TMI backfit of similar plants (B&W)
>>corrected it to AND. Note: recall the Davis-Besse incident,
>>then get back to me.
>
>You missed my point entirely. Prior to TMI, small break LOCAs were
>thought to be of no consequence by most nukes (I'm proud to have been one of
>the nay-sayer. :-) TMI demonstrated that a whole series
>of rather innocuous events when taken individually, collectively
>can result in broken equipment. In other words, it taught us that
>things considered highly unlikely but still physically possible must not be
I agree with that, but that is not what you said originally, and it
does not answer the question
>dismissed out of hand. IFF such physically possible events have been
>analyzed and shown to be vanishingly probable, then say so. Don't just
>flippantly say "I've analyzed the data and XXX is impossible."
>That's the guaranteed way of getting to watch your credibility dissipation
>factor go to infinity.
>
My credibility is fine thanks, I'm not the publisher
Hey this all started because you tried to make Na freezing an issue.
I will put it to bed finally:
1) Na freezing is a non-issue because the fuel decay heat is sufficient
to keep the temp at above freezing coupled with design of the pool and pump
service, makes Na freezing moot.
2) If the Na did freeze, what consequence would this pose. It has been
analyzed as inconsequential
>You again are missing my point. >I< maybe can be convinced with
>little argument that the cooling pool turning into a great big Na icicle
>is very, extremely unlikely but I'm not the one you have to convince.
Then dont bring it up if you know its a non issue. this is Baiting. Not
debating. I would gladly debate with you, but our time is too valuable
to engage in hypothetical greenie engagements. I only am disappointed in
your motivation/methods. If you dont understand something fine, but if
you are engaged in some sort of coaching, exercise then no thanks.
>(I'll be fighting further funding on strictly economic grounds :-)
>You have to convince the people who are moderately well educated but
>are not nuclear engineers who have watched the government in action
>over the past few years and who frankly consider anything that
>comes from the government to be a lie unless proven otherwise.
>I've been through this crap before. I've made presentations before the
>NRC, I've been on panels and I've debated nuclear power in public forums.
>There is nothing in this world that will kill your side quicker than
>to put on that "trust us, we're the experts" air and flippantly
>deflect irritating questions. Oh, one thing even quicker. Saying
John you sorely miss the point. All information is provided to the public.
What is not provided is DEVELOPMENTAL information or Applied Technology, which
there are FEDERAL LAWS regulating its dissemination. You know better than
to ask the question and then label the standard boilerplate "Trust us....
>"That's classified" in response to questions of details.
>
Why do you solicit information illegal to diseminate. Wait for the journal
articles then it wont be illegal. remember if Japan can get this info off the
net, then why give us the $$ (45M ) to develop it for them.
There are interests that fall under 10CFR810 and Sec 127 of the Atomic
Energy Act. I have a Q clearance, and I want to keep it.
>No, I'm not advocating you violate security protocol. What I AM suggesting
>is if you want any public support at all for this thing, you (speaking
>collectively now) had better realize that slapping the classified
>label on things is exactly the wrong thing to do. It's my damn tax
>money that is paying for this stuff and since it doesn't involve anything
>that kills people or breaks things, I will NOT accept National Security
>as an excuse for hiding the details.
>
This is not a National Security issue for now (not until weapons plut is
processed). It is a <<Proprietary Issue>> similarly why IBM doesnt make
its product available to Apple (Mike you listening?)
>>BTW, there is no self-promotion/funding jockeying going on, I just like
>>to get facts straight. One of the downfalls of this forum is that people
>>assume anything they want even if it is not ground in reality. Its as
>>simple as you cant tell me the weather outside my door this instant (its
>>raining). You cant comment on things you have absolutely no clue on. You
>>may have DOE/LWR experience, but not currently. You cant even tell me the state
>>of current affairs, or detailed ops, not even at the places you have
>>worked (Vogle?), because I'm sure they have changed since you last was there.
>
>Couple of points. a) I can be up to speed on this stuff enough to be
>your worst nightmare faster than a heartbeat if the need arises, and b) it
>is not me you have to convince. *I* think the sodium cooled concept is
>insane as a concept plus I oppose ANY government funding of scientific
>research (Pesky Federalist/libertarian that I am.) And I think the
>last thing this country needs is to have Big Science bequeath another
>Last Great Solution on us as Rickhover & company did LWRs. But I'm only
>one person, allbeit a noisy one.
>
a) My worst nightmare is singing the National Anthem Naked at the 7th Game
of the World Series. If you are trying to intimidate, its not working. I
am not impressed nor afraid nor concerned what you can do.
b) If I dont have to convince you then you have no argument with me. Kapish?
One person can make a difference. Rickover did.
>>If you spent 1 month working here, you would realize what crap you just
>>posted. Why do you constantly stipulate your rendition of the EBR-II plant
>>design. There will never be a Na-H20 reaction WITHIN the core. THis is a
>>complete sodium system save the turbine side!
>
>You still don't get it, do you?
>
All I get is some guy telling me what my plant looks like, and telling me
some unfounded hypothetical scenario and baiting me for information (AT)
I cant divulge. I can send you the info pack, but the requests outstrip
the supply and you will have to wait.
I see some guy who was disgruntled to be making a living off the Federal
tit that he had to go out and start a business and then cry why the gvt
wont fund his new business, when it gives countless $$ to I(HIS)Op, isnt
worth it.
I see some guy who sees himself as a grand old sage of debade and pro
nuclear advocacy who feels he needs to mentally whip these young turks
into shape if they ever want to sell their product and convince the
public nuclear is worth a lick
Sorry John, I didnt mean to tread on your sacred ground oh wise and
wonderful sage....
BTW you dont have a monopoly on nuclear advocacy. Nor a monopoly on the
voice of reason.
>>Also, there is no consequence of a Na leak causing explosions in the pool!
>>Probably for the simple reason there is an argon cover gas in the pool and
>>there is no, I repeat NO oxygen. Sounds like basic chemistry. There is not
>>H20 within the boundaries of containment. The IHX has sodium on BOTH
>>sides. But then you would know this if you had detailed knoledge of the
>>plant. So before you spout off like an ignoramus, you better know what you
>>are talking about.
>
>You ever actually seen a large scale sodium water reaction? Or even
>a medium-sized one? Stop by my office sometime and I'll tie a brick
>around a 500 gram ingot of sodium and toss it in my pond. You might
>be impressed by what happens BEFORE the sodium contacts air.
Yeah, it flames. thats why its in kerosene in the container. To provide
a non-oxygen, inert atmosphere. I saw my 8th grade sci teacher do this
about 20 yrs ago. BTW throwing Na in an open pond is a violation of
EPA laws. You know better than to offer up that one
>
1) Why would you stipulate a Na-H20 reaction would occur if BOTH
the shell and tube sides are Na??? Where is the water? Where does it
come from, moisture entrainment?
2) I've flushed Na geletin capsules down a toilet once, you need not
lecture me.
See above, you have no credibility when you approach the exercise as some
great Bear Bryant. I personally dont care for your brand of debate. If it
is a point to make, then make it. You know better. I am greatly disapointed
at you. And who says personal attacks are off limits. I like them, it spun
you up. I would never EVER personally attack a credible adversary. Just stick
to the facts and move on. You are a substandard adversary.
>many more LWRs built with the money being thrown down the alkali metal
>breeder black hole. Other things will probably work better. I'm a fan
>of gas-cooled technology but because few Great Engineering Problems
>Addressable Only By Big Science remain, it gets little attention.
>Government distortions of the market work that way.
>
What? Is this a conspiracy? Read Morone's account of the nuclear industry.
As for Gas-cooled tech, yeah its an ok concept, but why hasnt the Blue's
got off their butts and made a nother one. And what about Ft St Vrain ? What
was that all about?
>>BTW, if you want to advertise your product on the net, better be prepared
>>to pay for the promotion. One of the tenets of this forum is not for
>>personal profit!!!
>
>Wrong. *Sigh* New to the net too, I see.
>
"For a free sample......" Sounds like a pitch to me to get more readers. I
sent for your rag and was not impressed.
>John
>--
>John De Armond, WD4OQC | For a free sample magazine, send
>Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | a digest-size 52 cent SASE
>Marietta, Ga "Hotrods'n'computers" | (Domestic) to PO Box 669728
>j...@dixie.com "What could be better?" | Marietta, GA 30066
____________________________________________________________________
Geoffrey Sherwood
: >
: >I think the reason he was asking is that the plant would represent quite an
: >investment, and if the sodium solidifies, you may lose the investment.
: >
: Why would this cause a loss in investment? If sodium solidifies, then couldnt itbe liquified? What radiological impact does this pose? What core integrity
: questions are asked? You tell me why you would even consider this. Decay heat
: in the fuel is sufficient from keeping Na from freezing. If you didnt have
: fuel, then you just have a tank of Na w/o fuel. What is so dangerous about
: that?
Amazing, after pages and pages of verbiage, a simple answer. When I asked the
question about the sodium freezing in the pipes that is all that I was asking.
If this unlikely event were to occur, could you restart, reliquify the sodium,
and continue. I never said, nor intimated in any way that a 'radiological
impact' would occur. Simple answers work better than tirades. Sorry if my
questions do not meet your expectations, but they're the only ones I have.
The vitriol you spew does not serve your cause well. It almost makes me want
to side with Yackadamn (now there is a repulsive thought). I realize you don't
care what I think, and frankly the feeling is mutual. As near as I can tell
you post merely to puff your ego. Whatever works for you.
Besides, the show is amusing.
geoff sherwood
P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550
>e...@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>
>>Hmmm... maybe a Lead/Na Hx ... but you would have to choose the
>>reduced reactivity with water OR the advantages in the core...
>
>>What about a lead pool, Na primary loop (where most of the pumping
>>is going on, and then a short lead secondary loop?
>
>>It would have great PR value... "The reactor is completely blanketed
>>with XXXX Tons of Lead at all times"...
>
>Actually having lead in the core is a benefit because it greatly restricts
>the range of gamma radiation. Gamma heating of core internals is a
>significant concern plus gammas that escape the coolant represent wasted
>heat. Lead's high density also means the inevitable fission product
>contamination presents much less of a radiation hazard to workers
>than the same contamination in sodium. Lead should pump reasonably
>well, particularly after as much money has been spent on it as sodium.
>
>BTW, I got some Email after the previous round pointing out that
>whichever one of these national lab fellows that said lead had been
>paper-studied was wrong. Seems the Russians have done a lot of work
>with lead coolant. One paper this message mentioned is:
>
Get ready folks....
>Comparative Neutronic Analysis of Pb- versus Na-cooled LMR Cores,
>J. R. Liaw, E. K. Fujita, and D. C. Wade, 1992 Topical Meeting on
>Advances in Reactor Physics, Charleston, S.C. (1992).
John, it will suprise you where these guys work......Sounds like a
paper study to me
I know the Russians had experience in Pb cooled space reactors, but
I think thats the extent of it. Nothing on the commercial level.
>
>On my next trip to Ga Tech, I'll see if I can dig it up. Sounds
>interesting.
>
>John
>--
>John De Armond, WD4OQC | For a free sample magazine, send
>Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | a digest-size 52 cent SASE
>Marietta, Ga "Hotrods'n'computers" | (Domestic) to PO Box 669728
>j...@dixie.com "What could be better?" | Marietta, GA 30066
____________________________________________________________________
P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550
>e...@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>
>>The essence of what you've said is 'The Na can't solidify because we
>>thought of everything.' John has said "That's what the other guy
>>thought too." You have said, but what went wrong involved operator
>>screwups too. I say, So What! The essence remains. What happens if
>>the UNLIKELY does happen, and the Na solidifies? You have NOT thought
>>of everything and something really odd happens, like that executive
>>order or an operator who panics in an earthquake and turns off the heat
>>or ... What then?
>
>(He kicks back in his chair, rubs his old gray beard [woops, shaved it off]
>goes into story-telling mode.)
>
>Maybe I'm just a crusty old fart but I've seen this old "we've thought
>of everything" once too many times not to side with you, Mike. For
>example, the Great IceCapades at Sequoyah.
>
you know how cold it gets up there.
[nostalgic bullshit deleted]
>was backfitted. Moral: The experts don't always have the answers.
>Next time: The story of the backward reactor building.
>
Not that old Diablo Canyon story I hope..
how pathetic..
>BTW, this was NOT a safety issue, as the ice remaining was well within
>the tech specs. Just an expensive little FUP.
>
>John
>
>--
>John De Armond, WD4OQC | For a free sample magazine, send
>Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | a digest-size 52 cent SASE
>Marietta, Ga "Hotrods'n'computers" | (Domestic) to PO Box 669728
>j...@dixie.com "What could be better?" | Marietta, GA 30066
____________________________________________________________________
Peter L. Angelo EBR-II Reactor Physics
P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550
>P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550 (b41...@flash.ra.anl.gov) wrote:
>: >
>: >I think the reason he was asking is that the plant would represent quite an
>: >investment, and if the sodium solidifies, you may lose the investment.
>: >
>
>: Why would this cause a loss in investment? If sodium solidifies, then couldnt itbe liquified? What radiological impact does this pose? What core integrity
>: questions are asked? You tell me why you would even consider this. Decay heat
>: in the fuel is sufficient from keeping Na from freezing. If you didnt have
>: fuel, then you just have a tank of Na w/o fuel. What is so dangerous about
>: that?
>
>
>Amazing, after pages and pages of verbiage, a simple answer. When I asked the
BTW, I answered this BEFORE the pages of verbiage, the tangent was in the
inane Na coolant/specific plant/dissemination of Applied Technology ddebate
I have no patience for a <<what if cows flew>> argument
>question about the sodium freezing in the pipes that is all that I was asking.
>If this unlikely event were to occur, could you restart, reliquify the sodium,
I said in the 30 years of operating, it never has solidified simmply because
the Tec Specs stipulate a mechamism for min temperature shall be maintained
as long as there was fuel in the core, which was since day 1.
>and continue. I never said, nor intimated in any way that a 'radiological
>impact' would occur. Simple answers work better than tirades. Sorry if my
>questions do not meet your expectations, but they're the only ones I have.
>
Hey, go chastise the other party, they started it and I ended it. They think
this is some great training ground to hone a debate, but I guess I went
alittle overboard. It pisses me off to see people who know what the answer
is , bait people to the point of frustration. That being the case, who needs
Yackadam, we can self destruct on our own.
My mistake was taking their ignorance on face value. I have yet to be proved
otherwise.
>The vitriol you spew does not serve your cause well. It almost makes me want
>to side with Yackadamn (now there is a repulsive thought). I realize you don't
>care what I think, and frankly the feeling is mutual. As near as I can tell
>you post merely to puff your ego. Whatever works for you.
>
This is wrong. I care very deeply what you think. It is important to get
to hear another point of view. Courtesy helps also.
One of the difficulties the net cannot discern is who is real and who is
fake. Deception is no way to prove a point.
>Besides, the show is amusing.
Thats all it was. A show. A sham. I am embarrassed to be on the same side
as people who feel it is necessary to throw out a mean-spirited debate under
the guise of "This will happen to you....so prepare your argument.."
After all, we are in this profession for a reason. Some are not in this
profession, for their reasons, whatever it may be.
>
>geoff sherwood
Geoffrey Sherwood
: BTW, I answered this BEFORE the pages of verbiage, the tangent was in the
: inane Na coolant/specific plant/dissemination of Applied Technology ddebate
: I have no patience for a <<what if cows flew>> argument
Yeah, I can tell. Perhaps I missed something, but the only answer I saw was
'it can't happen'. I just wondered if the impossible happened, and the pipes
did freeze, would that be catastrophic, or no big deal. Maybe a pointless
what-if, but it piqued my interest so I asked. Didn't really expect the
resulting bru-ha-ha.
: My mistake was taking their ignorance on face value. I have yet to be proved
: otherwise.
: >The vitriol you spew does not serve your cause well. It almost makes me want
: >to side with Yackadamn (now there is a repulsive thought). I realize you don't
: >care what I think, and frankly the feeling is mutual. As near as I can tell
: >you post merely to puff your ego. Whatever works for you.
: >
: This is wrong. I care very deeply what you think. It is important to get
: to hear another point of view. Courtesy helps also.
I probably do owe you an apology here. Should cool off before posting and all
that. 'People like you should be shot' does tend to push my hot button, though,
even if it is not directed at me.
: One of the difficulties the net cannot discern is who is real and who is
: fake. Deception is no way to prove a point.
I don't think anyone in this thread has been practicing deception. I've
seen De Armond and Smith post for a lot of years and they seemed pretty true
to form to me. If they are practicing deception they are damned consistent.
I don't post much so I don't have their track records, but I was asking a
straightforward question.
: Thats all it was. A show. A sham. I am embarrassed to be on the same side
: as people who feel it is necessary to throw out a mean-spirited debate under
: the guise of "This will happen to you....so prepare your argument.."
: After all, we are in this profession for a reason. Some are not in this
: profession, for their reasons, whatever it may be.
Well, a lot of tempers got rattled this time around. You are undoubtedly
devoted to your work, and you may think that anyone who could be doing it
would be, thus dismissing De Armond as someone who couldn't hack it. There
are a lot of other reasons for changing professions. I was in the Coast Guard
for 4 years, and I certainly did not leave because I couldn't do the work....
Personally, for the most part I don't think John was baiting you (a bit on the
second go round, to be sure). Those are the kind of questions *I* hear people
ask who know a little, but not much. If you respond to *them* like that, you
will make enemies for both yourself and your profession. Even if John does
know the answers, they are not necessarily pointless -- I don't know them, and
I would like to. There are a lot of people who read but don't post -- John
and Mike are not the only audience.
geoff sherwood
E. Michael Smith
>|> Um, what is to prevent an administrative whacko from simply issuing
>|> an executive order stating 'SHUT IT DOWN FOR TWO YEARS WHILE WE STUDY IT.'
>You aren't trying to equate this with a radiological accident are you?
>If the fuel is so cold that the sodium solidfies, it sure isn't dangerous.
No, I'm not. I'm equating it with a physical problem. My _guess_ is
that, even if the Na pool somehow solidified, all you would have to do
is apply heat to it anywhere and Na metal, being a good conductor, will
heat up everywhere. The only issues would be what source of heat,
where applied, and how fast. However, real world engineering could
make that a non-option for a variety of subtile reasons (such as Challenger
displayed with seals and temperature limits), so my surmise is not
a reasonable basis for aserting what is truth.
Near as I can tell, there is no contingency plan for a frozen pot.
If there is, no one has said so here. In fact, there was a posting
one or two back that specifically said that was not an option.
It would be 'nice' if someone would just say 'we designed for it',
but that hasn't been said...
>|> The essence of what you've said is 'The Na can't solidify because we
>|> thought of everything.' John has said "That's what the other guy
>|> thought too." You have said, but what went wrong involved operator
>|> screwups too. I say, So What! The essence remains. What happens if
>|> the UNLIKELY does happen, and the Na solidifies? You have NOT thought
>|> of everything and something really odd happens, like that executive
>|> order or an operator who panics in an earthquake and turns off the heat
>|> or ... What then?
>What do you think will happen? This would be an operational problem, not
>a radiological one.
It is still a problem. What *I* think is that the plant would take a
few years to cool (depending on how much residual heat is generated
by the core and the passive heat loss rates) and that it would then
solidify. Someone would have to heat it up to melt the sodium and
get things working again and that could take either a long time or
a very short time depending on the details (i.e. if you can re-start
the core in a solid Na pool) and might or might not require a massive
study depending on who thought to include the contingency in the
original design or not. I'd hope that there was at least a contingency
to drain the Na into tank cars before it froze...
In other words: If it was a design contingency it is likely a non-event;
if it was specifically decided to design with the presumption that it
would never happen, but did, you would have a long long study before
anyone could do anything to restart it.
Losing the economic value of a plant is still a hell of a loss, even
if there is not radiological event.
In the real world, I'd expect any 'Shut it down' executive order
to give the latitude to the plant operator to do it correctly and
pump the Na to where ever it belongs. But that just brings up the
issue of de-commisioning regimin. Has IT been thought through?
I hope so, but not much is made of hope...
For an example of 'unlikely political scenarios' just look at what
has been going on in the {Middle East, Asia, Eastern Europe}
>|> Excuse me, but 'proprietary' and 'national security' are orthogonal reasons.
>|> If it is an 'national security' issue, then the Gov't owns it and you do
>|> not have any remaining proprietary claims. I smell a dodge...
>
>No, it isn't a dodge. I don't think you have the foggiest notion of what it
>means to work in a national lab.
Well, other than going to parties with 'Labies' from LLL and having an
old roomate who is a Phd. Physics there working on bomb testing and an
employee who worked at LLL for a few years and dating the daughter of
the Director of LLL while I was in school and ... not much ;-)
Yeah, you can have some things that are security issues and some that
are proprietary, but from what I've seen the intersection is nil. If
the Gov't classifies it, they own it. Maybe I'm over reacting to the
use of an 'and' when an 'or' belonged...
>|> for an example. Where Taylor is talking about how to build an H bomb,
>|> and gives broad hints that don't violate national security, but do
>|> give you an idea that he clearly knows his stuff.
>
>First of all, national security issues are only a subset of the issues...
>proprietory are other reasons.
I can accept an 'or' between the two sets.
>|> The question stands: What do you do if the Na freezes?
>|>
>|> All your side has said is: 1) Trust me, it can't happen. 2) We don't
>|> have to worry about it because the plant won't do it. 3) I can't tell
>|> you why because, um, it's a secret.
>
>It ain't a radiological event silly.
Never said it was a radiologial even. And is isn't silly. If I've
sunk a few billion into a production scale power plant and it turns
into a nice piece of modern art, that isn't a 'silly' event at all;
radiological or not.
>failed fuel tests are run on purpose all of the time...It does not effect the
>operation of EBR-II.
>
>|>
>|> Oh, but John, this is only THEORETICAL fuel, it Never fails in
>|> an unexpected way after slightly out of spec fabrication... or
>|> unanticipated behaviours in changed scale or changed technology
>|> commercialized plant...
>
>This fuel has been tested in every condition with every concievable
>fabrication variable tested well beyond any reasonable specification.
Great! Why didn't you say so a few dozen posts ago?
>|> >>And what the consequences of a Na/H2O explosion
>|> >>involving Na laden with fission products will be.
>|>
>|> Hmmm... Wonder what it would take for a determined squad of terrorists
>|> with, say, Stingers from Afganistan and HK-47s from the middle east,
>|> and a cement truck full of urea-nitrate to get to the HX ... Nah,
>|> not a credible scenario. Terrorists would NEVER attack a major
>|> facility in the US with a stupid truck bomb... not even one with
>|> a 'mud pump' and a long pipe...
>Like we have said before, the sodium to water HX is not part of the
>reactor loop, and is not near the reactor. Please, it's a funny
>story, but it's not grounded in reality.
Look *I* believe that, but where are your facts? In private email,
Peter stated that it was 300 feet from HX to loop. All one needs
to say is 'It is several hundred feet from the water/Na HX to
and other part of the plant and there is a very thick concrete
divider. No explosion scenario short of an A-bomb is a threat.'
Would that be so hard?
>|> >There will never be a Na-H20 reaction WITHIN the core. THis is a
>|> >complete sodium system save the turbine side!
>|>
>|> So? Say the fuel bundles are damaged (poor fabrication? botched
>|> fuel loading? whatever) and the pool is contaminated. Just then
>
>contaminated with what?
Fuel particles.
>|> a major quake happens (like, oh, a 9) and it is found that the
>|> pipes from the pool to the HX aren't as strong as thought, and the
>|> H2 explosion from the Na/steam reaction manages to put a tinsy little
>|> leak into the pool... What then? Not credible? WHY not?
>
>where is this steam explosion occuring? It was stated earlier that the
>HX is not in the reactor building. A crack in the sodium to sodium heat
>exchanger would result in sodium mixing.
The hypothetical scenario was broken fuel bundles contaminating the
pool, a steam/Na explosion at the HX, and this explosion sending
{shockwave, particles, pressure transient, whatever} upstream to
crack the Na/Na HX. Unlikely, yes. Maybe even impossible.
The answer is: The water/Na HX is so far removed from the Na/Na HX
that any event would be isolated by distance and concrete. Any
even violent enough to break all parts would also stop the flow
of coolent and leave any contaminants in the pot. A pot leak would
be held within the containment structure, as designed.
>|> What a neat idea for a demo! You could have the fire and smoke
>|> blasting out a vent hole in the top of the containment dome and
>|> add some materials so that the 'deposits' were permanent stains
>|> and make the smoke red or orange and talk about 25,000 years of
>|> contamination downwind (a nice desk fan would assure rapid
>|> 'contamination' of everyone at the demo!). I like it!
>
>You still don't seem to get the design. Hopefully you do now.
I do get the design. You don't seem to grasp the psychology of
the 'simple demo' and how it can be used in propaganda, even if
not technically correct. Remember the movie China Syndrome and
all the technical faults in it, then ask how many people got to
the point of asking about the technical issues...
E. Michael Smith
Not sure if this was intended to be a private exchange or not.
I'll be brief.
In article <745539...@flash.ra.anl.gov> b41...@flash.ra.anl.gov (P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550) writes:
>In article <1993Aug16....@michael.apple.com> e...@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>>In article <CBv79...@mcs.anl.gov> or...@salt.ra.anl.gov (T Orth FP/207/ 8505) writes:
>>>The obvious reasons are that EBR-II is not an IFR. The research at this time
>>>is on fuel and fuel studies only. Some experiments were done on EBR-II to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>demonstrate the passive cooling cabability of this "type" of reactor. IFR
>>>is a fuel system at this point with EBR-II acting as a testing site for it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>In light of the possibility of any statements being misconstrued, it is
>>>important not to discuss the details of a 30 year old reactor
>>>experimental reactor when talking about an advanced reactor concept.
>>
>>OK, so you are saying that IFR is just a brand new concept that
>>is starting the testing phase. I can accept that. Give it about 30
>>more years of development, then about 20 in demonstation and prototype
>>plants and we can start worring about commercialization...
>Actually, the IFR is a culmination of 30 years of fast reactor technology.
>The IFR as a project is over 10 years old. To state that the IFR is
>some new concept just starting is also erroneous.
Hey, I'm just 'reflecting' what you posted.
>>In that case, I withdraw my complaint about showing why the Na
>>won't ever be frozen, since it is obviouse from your statements
>>that the EBR-II design is not pertinent and any future design of
>>an IFR will be Brand New and need complete scrutiny then.
>>
>FINALLY, do you see the inane nature of your <<complaint>>.
Nope. All I've heard so far is 'it can not freeze' and now maybe
the additional "it isn't a real reactor yet so the real design
doesn't exist yet so the problem can't exist yet".
I've yet to see any statement of WHY the Na can not freeze or what
would be done if it did.
>You kept
>baiting and insisting,," but what if what if"" This had as much credulity
>as "what if cows can fly" Do you see where someone who is imersed in this
>technology on a daily basis, can be dumbfounded by your assertions.
Nope. Should be easy questions to answer, and ones that must be
answered before the technology can go beyond research reactor scale.
If it is so simple an answer and you are so 'imersed in this technology'
why don't you just state it? Heck, I'll even given a list of
a half dozen options. (Core keeps it hot, thermal loss rate is so
low it would take decades, the Na would be drained to tank cars,
auxiliary heaters are used, the pumps keep it molten and if they
were shut off an auxiliary heat system is used, doesn't matter if
it solidifies since it can be remelted in situ.)
That fact that it should be an easy question to answer does not mean
it is an irrelevent question to answer.
>>I think that John is positing a contaminated pool AND a breach of
>>the secondary sodium loop into that pool as part of the Na/water
>>reaction/explosion. I.e. the secondary loop gets contaminated by
>>the primary due to some unforseen event, like an explosion. This
>>one should be a 'soft ball' for you to field. Show the likely
>>distances between loops and approximate magnitude of explosion
>>required to breach primary and secondary loops and that that
>>magnitude of explosion cannot be attained with a Na/water mix of
>>any size at the HX. Piece of cake. Just do it. None of this
>>'trust us we know better and that is a stupid question' stuff, OK?
>>
>Look. The secondary and primary are separated by a physical barrier of
>about 300 feet. The secondary starts OUTSIDE containment. Therefore there
>is no scenario where H20 could ever get into the containment. The inter-
>mediate loop was designed for this purpose.
At last, a decent answer. That wasn't so hard, now was it?
>You simply cannot entrain
>low pressure into high pressure. It should be a piece of cake for you
>to understand this concept.
Yes, it is. Though it seems rather hard for you to state it.
>Why do you insist on debating in this sytle. It serves no purpose.
In that hope that you will quickly learn to post direct effective
rebuttals so I can have fewer flame wars to wade through over the
coming years.
>What is
>this some great proving ground to take on your real anti-nukes?
Nope. It is a public forum with strongly held sides. I'm just in
the rather odd position of being in transition from the anti side
to the pro side... maybe that is what threw you.
>I put it
>to you for you to disprove on technical grounds, the 700$M allready invested
>and million man-years developing the technology aswering the very questions
>and more that you field. No body is stating "trust us we know better", this
>is a straw man, that just flopped for you. Because if they said "trust us",
Not a 'straw man'. I never said that 'they' said 'trust me' I said
that your posting said 'trust me'. And it did. In large measure
your postings have said that.
>the level of detail in preparing the design,analysis,test procedures,PRA,
>operational validation, the answering DOE Tiger teams concerns (do you
>know what a Tiger Team is? this is a soft-ball for you, you should know
>this one- and please dont avoid the question) would all be moot!
I manage tigre teams. We put part of our staff on the security task,
the other part on attacking it. Then we switch sides.
>>>|> Lead brings a bunch of good properties to the table including
>>>|> low vapor pressure, high density which absorbs gammas and converts
>>>|> them to heat and shields the structures from same, good neutronics,
>>>|> reasonable melting point, high boiling point and very low chemical
>>>|> reactivity. I think it deserves more than just a paper study before
>>>|> summary dismissal.
>>
>>Hmmm... maybe a Lead/Na Hx ... but you would have to choose the
>>reduced reactivity with water OR the advantages in the core...
>This would not work for two reasons; 1) There is no heat exchanger presently
>designed to handle the thermal and mechanical stresses of this situation
It would take a new HX design to handle the different densities, but
should be doable.
>2) Just because lead absorbs gammas, this would not necessarily mean the
>the coolant and fuel type are compatible. Can you tell me why? I can only
I'd expect that one would have to worry about disolving the fuel into
the lead, rather like my soldering gun used to do... ;-) or the Zn
anodes on my sailboat rudder. This would be complicated by the
radiological environment...
One would also have to worry about the coolant getting into the fuel
and changing the reaction rates and changing the neutron speed and
all those other things you guys worry about. At that point, I'm out
of my depth and will differ to John.
>state it has something to do with the electrchemistry. Na and stainless steel
>are compatible, but I don't know about Pb at that temp and pressure. Also,
>electrorefining would be different , and need to be adressed in many tests
>to numerous to bother. Jus tgo with what works, and it works fine!
Spoken like a true researcher...
>Once again "reactivity with water " is not an issue, so why bring it up.
>It has been studied and dismissed as not impacting the current plant design/
>operation
Because it is exactly what the typical citizen will think off when
they are told the plant has Na and water in it. They will remember
their high school chemistry demo. The question will not just go away
because you have 'dismissed' it. It will only go away when you can
explain WHY it isn't an issue. Say, by stating 100 meters of pipe and
3 meters of concrete sepparate the neaclear part from the steam plant...
Is that so hard to say?
>There was no diversion or ditch, or attempt to skirt an issue. I'm sure if
>someone on the net asked you for Apple's inner workings or detailed tech
>knowledge which can be used by competitors and adversaries, you'd be out of
>work. Please answer that, its a <<soft-ball>>. The reason I am not allowed
It is also true that many Apple engineers post to comp news groups and
DO post non-detailed info that can't be used by competitors.
>to tell you of specific operational details is that International (Japan)
>interests are also served by this information. Please refer to general
>questions.
Gee, I'm sure the Japaneese are just dying to know how many meters of
concrete are used between containment and HX ... Or do you think they
will just measure it from the SPOT photos?
>If you truly respected the net you would not question the methods for
>disemination of the knowledge. E-mail me directly and I'll go further,
>and in more detail to your likeing. Else, this is just a public farce and
>sham perpretrated by you and John, to <<test the debating waters>>. If you
>want to debate, make it on a level playing field, I would gladly engage
>you, if you think you are up to it. If not, play the net game and get nowhere
Look, you posted here that something was not a problem. If you want
it to be so secret, don't post about it. If you post about it,
expect to be challenged to support your position. No, you can't have
it both ways (post what you want but never have to show evidence or
facts) without challenge.
I've got no interest in debate for debates sake (I've got a family at
home and a job to do, too). I DO have an interest in keeping this
forum as free of flame wars as possible, and that include getting
newbies up to speed on what to expect.
If you really can't say why you believe a position to be true, don't
bother to post it. All you will do is create a time sink.
--
E. Michael Smith
In article <CBvI0...@mcs.anl.gov> or...@salt.ra.anl.gov (T Orth FP/207/ 8505) writes:
>Well, not brand new..but EBR-II is not a prototype for an IFR reactor.
...
>Many of its aspects are pertinant, but you're right, the over all IFR design
>would be totally new.
...
>OK, primary and secondary can mean different things in EBR-II do to the
>extra loop. Since fuel is not soluble in sodium, so contamination of the
>secondary loop would be a trick.
...
>|> one should be a 'soft ball' for you to field. Show the likely
>|> distances between loops and approximate magnitude of explosion
>|> required to breach primary and secondary loops and that that
>|> magnitude of explosion cannot be attained with a Na/water mix of
...
>With that interface in another building, I don't see how steam could enter
>the pool. In the event of a explosion of the type you are describing, the
>HX would be blown apart, thus destroying the pathway for water to enter the
>secondary loop. The worst case would then be total loss of sodium in the
>secondary loop, and hence external heat removal from the pool. This is the
>experiment simulated.
E. Michael Smith
the exchange with him. Until then, I find this dull. Don't know if
anyone else read his whole posting, but it was kind of sick...
In article <745601...@flash.ra.anl.gov> b41...@flash.ra.anl.gov (P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550) writes:
>>Look, take a cold shower, have some nice soothing tea, and come back
>>when you feel better and can engage in debate without resorting to
>>four letter words and personal attack. Otherwise, you will not
>>convince anyone of anything.
>I am not trying to convince you of anything. People like you should be shot.
>____________________________________________________________________
>Peter L. Angelo EBR-II Reactor Physics
Great example of professional style and skill, death threats and all...
Wonder what the law is on gov't employees advocating murder over
state lines...
--
E. Michael Smith
>In article <yar...@dixie.com> j...@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>>b41...@flash.ra.anl.gov (P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550) writes:
>It is a <<Proprietary Issue>> similarly why IBM doesnt make
>its product available to Apple (Mike you listening?)
I'm only half listening to you these days. I've already caught on to
what you have to say (not much) and your style (personal invective with
self aggrandizement). Not much reason to listen...
BTW, IBM and Apple have this joint development product, called
the Power PC, a result of Apple and IBM making their product
plans available to each other... See 'Taligent' for the software
analog. Your example is flawed by it's falsity. Not that what
Apple and IBM are doing are of any importance to the issue.
Also, BTW, I'm not 'spun up' by personal attack. (It's been a long
time since I got 'spun up' by anything in print. Don't flatter yourself.)
It just looks cheap and tawdry and is rather boring.
E. Michael Smith
>In article <CBvv...@frobozz.sccsi.com> ke...@frobozz.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>>In article <CBvHE...@mcs.anl.gov> or...@salt.ra.anl.gov (T Orth FP/207/ 8505) writes:
>Since the plant was first fired up 30 yrs ago, and I was 4, well I have
Ah, a 26 year old young pup wet behind the ears. That explains a lot...
>>I must commend you, Dr. Orth. Your response was much more civil than Dr.
>>Angelo's. While I can understand Dr. Angelo's frustration, the way he
>>expressed it didn't help him to make his case very well...
>Hey, think of this. Both Tom and I have had private conversations to
>inform the net that EBR-II is not IFR. I only got frustrated because I
>was disapointed in the baiting tactics of Mike when he knew damn well
>to debate is one thing, to antagonize is another.
Off the mark. By a mile. Part of debate IS to antagonize, but I was
not trying to antagonize at all. We got nowhere near deliberate
antagonizing before you blew your top. You have a wonderful self
oppinion, I don't think I've seen one quite so large in a long long time...
P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550
>Ah, but it was the PRIOR statement that asserted that IFR was just 'a
>fuel system at this point' and that talking about EBR-II was not proper
>since it was an experimental reactor and IFR was a 'concept'. All I
>did was to repackage those statements into a form that illustrates
>their flaws. Yes, I know that IFR has been around as a technology for
^^^^^
>many decades. Yes, I know that it is quite far along, as a reactor
^^^^^^^^^^^^
No! Please refrain from what you know and dont know, its what started
this whole mess
>technology. But I was using a debating tactic to point out that the
>prior statement was founded on a denial of those facts.
The IFR as a concept is only 10 years old.The EBR-II reactor ISNOT the IFR,
just the test bed for the IFR type fuel, which is experimental.
I can understand your use of <<debating tactics>> to cloud the understanding
level, but I cant understand your reducing the truth to semantic arguments.
Look, plain and simple, you misunderstood EVERYTHING. I told you everything
I could, up to the limits of the FEDERAL LAW. Why do you insist I hide
behind the law. Is it proper for Apple to divulge "trade secrets?"
I overestimated your intelligence and thought you geninely wanted info.
Not to see if I can cross the line with Applied Technology (AT)
>I hope to God that it doesn't take us another 30 years to get IFR into
>production, but calling it a 'concept' and denial of the value of
>EBR-II as a proving grounds for technology just plays into the hands
>of the anti-nukes by providing them reasons to stall IFR for a long
Why?? You need a reactor to test the fuel burnup! Basic Nuclear Engineering.
Why be confused EBR-II IS NOT IFR!!!!
>time. I was, indirectly, pointing out this problem with that line
>of reasoning.
Why? 1) You need a reactor to demonstrate the IFR technology. You have
2 options available- the first and most devisive is to build a reactor and
fuel concept from scratch, costing billions and billions of dollars. The
second is to use a suitable platform which provides the necessary reactor
configuration at a fraction of the cost. You WANT to buy into the first,
but this is to state inortder to develop the next generation SC language
(higher than Unicos), you need to build the hardware. You can tell me
otherwise, and I can tell you you are wasting money.
> >You should refer to
> the Fistedis book (1986 SHRT tests) for a time-line. The technology and
> experience gained over the past few decades have demonstrated that a
> solution such that the IFR gives is the next logical step
>And I agree. Like I said, this is 'friendly fire'. My interest was
>in helping you to see where your statements would be turned against
>you (and the IFR) and how to better package them.
My statements are turned against me in a mean spirited fashion Mike. This is
not some mental exercise you and John can concoct just to test the waters.
I know my argument. I have sucessfully communicated this. You were first
very flustered because YOU thought I meant "Here take this....and dont ask
me why because I wont tell you.....
You erronously MISINTERPRETERD my unwillingness to divulge Applied Technology.
I gave you the letter of the law. It should be good enough for you. I cannot
understand why this would not suffice. If you want me to break the law, I
will not. If I get arrested for violating 10CFR810, I need a recipient. thant
would be you. Its called being an accomplice. Note: I did not volunteeer
any info not available to you publically.
> >In that case, I withdraw my complaint about showing why the Na
> >won't ever be frozen, since it is obviouse from your statements
> >that the EBR-II design is not pertinent and any future design of
> >an IFR will be Brand New and need complete scrutiny then.
> >
> FINALLY, do you see the inane nature of your <<complaint>>. You kept
> baiting and insisting,," but what if what if"" This had as much credulity
> as "what if cows can fly" Do you see where someone who is imersed in this
> technology on a daily basis, can be dumbfounded by your assertions.
>They are exactly the kind of assertions that you will be confronted
>with from J.Q.Public at public political meetings. Better that you
>be dumbfounded now, and get some practice at politely disposing of
>the simple/stupid scenarios, than blow up at a licencing hearing...
Oh come on, give me a break. You expect me to beleive this whole charage
was staged. You forget. THIS IS CYBERSPACE. Two people face to face have
the benefit of understanding each other more clearly. I dont appreciate the
staging, nor the <<need for practice>>, because I think you are wrong
for engaging in this line of tactic if and if you are sincere. I dont believe
you knew the implications of your actions. I do believe you tried to insult
my intellegence and bredth of knowledge of the subject area. You do not
make your living as I do, so you need not be defensive.
>Like I said, these were 'softballs'. You should have been able to
>deal with them very easily. You reply in this letter is an ideal
>example. Poised, well phrased. Simple facts that distroy the
>counter argument. If you can do that in public, you will be an
>effective advocate of the IFR.
I feel as do others that I am an effective messenger. The product (IFR)
sells itself to a certain degree, and being behind the gate gives me an
advantage. Look. I only questioned 1) your ability to technically grasp
the EBR-II core. 2)Your interpretation of skirting the release of AT
> >any size at the HX. Piece of cake. Just do it. None of this
> >'trust us we know better and that is a stupid question' stuff, OK?
> >
> Look. The secondary and primary are separated by a physical barrier of
> about 300 feet. The secondary starts OUTSIDE containment. Therefore there
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> is no scenario where H20 could ever get into the containment. The inter-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> mediate loop was designed for this purpose. You simply cannot entrain
> low pressure into high pressure. It should be a piece of cake for you
> to understand this concept.
>And I do. You've done a very good job here. Why didn't you just post
>that paragraph a few 'rounds' ago?
Because a few rounds ago, I thought I was dealing with a REAL LIVE CLUELESS
IDIOT!! And you cant state that this is not entirely my fault.
You came across as the "I know your plant and this COULD happen".
I said it could not and I also said that you were wrong in ASSUMING
EBR-II collant could solidify. I treated your reponse with disdain because
you came across as knowing my plant, and misintrepreting the design.
I personally attacked you because I felt you were NOT GETTING THE
OBVIOUS.
I DID post the
fact that the HX is Na/Na. That the intermed loop is OUTSIDE containment.
But you returned with a <<what is containment?>> type of argmument.
> Why do you insist on debating in this sytle. It serves no purpose. What is
> this some great proving ground to take on your real anti-nukes?
>Why? Because I saw someone who was a new poster ('newbie') who was
>making some clasical posting mistakes (appeal to authority, 'trust me',
>"Don't waste my valuable time", and FLAMING, to name a few) and damaging
>his cause in the process.
I dont feel I damaged "my cause". After all what was your agenda?
>Because I felt it was better for you to get
What you think is good for me is not of your concern. Stick with the issue.
You decieved the net. And you destroyed your crediblity amongst nuclear
proponents. Johns credibility is damaged also as I am flooded with E-mail
stating if you two are for real!!!
>through this experience quickly, and with someone who would not take
>it personally, before you alienated too many other folks and damaged
>your credibility in the process.
>There are literally thousands of folks reading the debate who never post
>('lurkers'). Every time you post, you can be alienating some number of
>them. I care enough about the IFR ( and GCR !) to take the time to
>help reduce the degree of alienation you may cause.
You dont care 1/100th of the amount of those of us who have a stake in this!
Mike, I have been posting over 1 year now. I have NEVER EVER taken up
the "Trust me attitude" Go through every thread I posted over a monthes
time. Go back to when I had Yodaiken crawling back to his hole. I NEVER
EVER adopted the trust me attidude. It was how you interpreted my
reluctance to break the law!!!!
>'Great proving ground'? Not really. The debate flares up and dies
>down. Right now it is quiet, mostly due to the efforts of John and
>a few of his friends to completely subdue the anti-nukes. You stand
>a pretty good chance of re-awakening it, though, with the 'trust me'
>approach. Yeah, it is somewhat strange to be debating from a position
>that I no longer believe in. But I also know that there are a great
>many who DO still believe it. I was hoping that you would take the
>easy scenarios and distroy them with calm logic, facts and reason.
The last exchange was the most heated I ever got. BTW where is it said
that I was a PhD? You pin that label on me yourself.
BTW I had allready destroyed those <<softballs>> and grew sick and dired
of wasting my time with someone who thoutht they knew the EBR-II design.
You should know that the Anti-nukes arent as stupid or moronic as you
posted. Now I have lurked your posts prior and no indication was given
from your posts that you were rational.
BTW, you cannot monopolize the Devils Advocate. Please in the future be
forthewright and straitforward
>I put it
> to you for you to disprove on technical grounds, the 700$M allready invested
> and million man-years developing the technology aswering the very questions
> and more that you field. No body is stating "trust us we know better", this
> is a straw man, that just flopped for you. Because if they said "trust us",
> the level of detail in preparing the design,analysis,test procedures,PRA,
> operational validation, the answering DOE Tiger teams concerns (do you
> know what a Tiger Team is? this is a soft-ball for you, you should know
> this one- and please dont avoid the question) would all be moot!
>Your postings, like it or not, had a strong flavor of 'trust me' to
>them. Re-read them in a month or so and see what you think then.
Consider the source. How would you interpret blatant lies!!!!!
NOT INTENDED TO SKIRT!!!!!!!PLEASE DONT MISINTERPRET AGAIN. I CANT DIVULGE A.T.!!!
wHAT IS "TRUST ME....." ABOUT THAT!!!!!!
Read your posts 1 month later, starting with the "I know the specific EBR-II
plant design and this could happen. No anti-nuke would even attempt to
misinterpret what you did.
>And all it would have taken was for you to say 'There are 300 feet and "N"
>meters of concrete between water HX and primary/secondary HX. No possible
>steam/Na explosion can breach that.' Instead you said something more
I DID AT FIRST, AND ALLWAYS SAID IT COULD NOT HAPPEN BECAUSE IT CAN NOT
HAPPEN FOR OBVIOUJS REASONS (Plant physical layout! I thought I made this
clear!!!!!!)
>like 'it can not happen'. Which is heard as 'trust me'...
NO!!!PLEASE DO NOT CONFUSE IT CANT HAPPEN WITH TRUST ME....
No ! It can't happen because it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. What is "trust
me about that"
You know what I meant, so why bait?? I thought It was self explainatory!!!!
I would presume that the chemical interactions of molten metal with
the fuel alloy would be problematic. (I've slowly disolved enough
soldering iron tips into a workpiece in my youth to have an intuitive
grasp of the process... I've also replaced enough Zn anodes on my
sailboat to be familiar with that effect...
Not correct. Lead wont work in an IFR because U/Pu/PB is chemically incompatile
MIKE......SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE VERY CONDESCENDING OF THE METHOD OF THE
MESSAGE. YOU CANT STATE THAT WHAT I SAID OVER THE NET WILLBE MISINTERPRETED
THE WAY YOU DID IN REAL LIFE!!!! THIS IS CYBERSPACE....SOMETHING GOT
LOST IN THE TRANSLATION.....
But you need to be able to show to the electorate that it works fine
> Once again "reactivity with water " is not an issue, so why bring it up.
> It has been studied and dismissed as not impacting the current plant design/
> operation
>Because it is what springs to mind first for all the anti's who took
>high school chemistry and did the Na/water demo. You will be refuting
>that point for the rest of your career, so you ought to get a handle
>on a quick effective explaination.
But I told you that the plant design prevents such an event and you
said I tried to skirt the issue. Enough allready.
A quick effective explaination is what I gave, and you twisted it until
I raged...
> BTW I am not against John using his Ham radio handle, or telling of his
> place of employment, but you must admit, he uses VERBS like "send" in his
> sig file. Its one thing to inform where you are coming from, but a sig
> should not be a calling card for action which may lead to subsequent action.
> Note his use of "free" and SASE. You have to buy the stamp, so it isn't free.
>
> This is a common tactic to "generate" business. Its called enticement. I
> see no advertising in my sig, it is merely a handle which states..."Yes I
> am directly affiliated with this project...yet can only divulge public info.
>Hmmm... well... good point.
> There was no diversion or ditch, or attempt to skirt an issue. I'm sure if
> someone on the net asked you for Apple's inner workings or detailed tech
> knowledge which can be used by competitors and adversaries, you'd be out of
> work. Please answer that, its a <<soft-ball>>.
>But I can talk, in broad terms, about non-secure information. See all
>the postings in the comp.apple groups by apple folks...
BUT WHAT YOU WANTED WASNT BROAD TERMS, BUT VERY DETAILED FACTS WHICH COULD
BE A BREACH OF A.T.
>The reason I am not allowed
> to tell you of specific operational details is that International (Japan)
> interests are also served by this information. Please refer to general
> questions.
>
> If you truly respected the net you would not question the methods for
> disemination of the knowledge. E-mail me directly and I'll go further,
> and in more detail to your likeing. Else, this is just a public farce and
> sham perpretrated by you and John, to <<test the debating waters>>. If you
> want to debate, make it on a level playing field, I would gladly engage
> you, if you think you are up to it. If not, play the net game and get nowhere
>Basically, you made some postings saying "it can't do that" and "I can't
>tell you why". If you are not prepared to show your defense in a public
>forum, don't make the assertion in a public forum.
THE ONLY THING I ASSERTED WAS THE PLANT DESIGN AND OPERATING LIMITS
PREVENTED AN NA COOLING AND WHY WOULD THIS BE A CONCERN?
SEE ABOVE!!!!
I told you why. I said originally the IHX was isolated from H20. I could not
tell you of the AT the IFR tests and you did not like it
NOPE!!!!! I told you why and you did not like it. Applied technology doesnt
allow me to divulge "red-backs" IF you thought I was engaging in deception,
it is your problem.
I'm not interested in debate for debate sake, only in 'debate' as a tool
to get the truth aired quickly and cleanly.
THEN WHY THE CHARADE, HOWABOUT A SIMPLE POST IF YOU WEWE CONFUSED? THIS
WHOLE EXERCISE WAS UNNECESSARY BECAUSE YOU CAME ACROSS AS ARROGANT, PIUS<
AND A BAFOON. I COULD NOT HELP MYSELF TO PERSONAL ATTACKS BECAUSE IT WAS THE
ONLY WAY TO GET THROUGH THE THICK HEADED MORON YOU PLAYED ON THE NET>
NO ONE IS THAT STUPID IN REAL LIFE, NOT EVEN ANTI NUKES
> Mike
T Orth FP/207/ 8505
|> I would surmise from what you said above that the way to liquify the sodium
|> is to put real fuel in the reactor. :-)
How did you get that out of what I said?????!!!! If the fuel in the core is
so cold, that the sodium solidifies, than you certainly aren't worried about
a radiological event. The only problems would be in small tubes in some other
part of the plant that might be difficult to heat. However, as has been stated
many times before, Na conducts heat soooooo well, that it is almost as fast
as piping the Na there directly.
|>
|> BTW, could you tell me what the bootstrap procedure for the reactor is, i.e.
|> how you initially liquify the sodium when you fire up the plant for the first
|> time?
The pool is heated with electric coils embedded in the SS walls.
|> >No, it isn't a dodge. I don't think you have the foggiest notion of what it
|> >means to work in a national lab.
|>
|> I certainly don't, never having done it myself. Could you explain, please,
|> some of the reasons that some of the design information necessary to explain
|> some of your statements is not available to the public? I thought that,
|> being a national lab, information would either be classified as a national
|> security issue or would be publicly available. "Proprietary" implies a
|> loyalty to some commercial entity. That might be the case here (I can
|> envision a commercial entity hiring a national lab to do some research or
|> design work), but I wouldn't think this would be the case for the IFR.
|> Unless, of course, someone contracted you to design it...
How can I explain this....R&D projects like this one create a lot of new
technology. Whether I give a dang or not if anybody finds out about it is
irrelevant. That's the way the law is that we work under. The results of
our experiments are published internally and marked s.t. it cannot be
referenced outside of the lab. etcetera.... Any inferences or imaginations that
you may have about working here don't have anything to do with the actual laws.
I don't even understand all of the reasons. Students who come here from
different places around the world each have a different set of rules of what
they can see, what they can't etcetera.
|>
|> >|> for an example. Where Taylor is talking about how to build an H bomb,
|> >|> and gives broad hints that don't violate national security, but do
|> >|> give you an idea that he clearly knows his stuff.
If this guy seriously thinks that you can make an Hbomb from Talor's book,
he is truly deluded. Sure, you can get a qualitative understanding of how
they work...but to go into how to REALLY make one, even if you have all
the right materials, would take volumes.
|> >
|> >First of all, national security issues are only a subset of the issues...
|> >proprietory are other reasons.
|>
|> This poses a problem, and puts you in a rather nasty predicament. You see,
|> the informed skeptics are going to have a hard enough time accepting the
|> IFR as it is, and they're going to be *for* the basic idea. The general
I have no idea what you are talking about here.
|> public is going to be even harder to convince, and they're the ones that
|> you must eventually convince. I realize that IFR may be so good that
|> nobody in their right mind would reject it, but:
|>
|> (a) rejection or acceptance requires an evaluation that depends on
|> information. When that information is lacking, no good evaluation
|> can result, and the default in that case is usually to reject the
|> proposal.
I have explained in detail the responses to the questions asked.
|>
|> (b) the public is not necessarily in its right mind.
no comment.
|>
|> I easily sympathize if you can't reveal the information needed to answer the
|> pointed questions asked, but you must realize that failure to provide that
|> information may ultimately place the project at great risk of termination.
|> For something like this, I think it's in the best interests of everyone (or,
|> at least, most everyone) for the information in question to be made
|> available.
Like I said, I think I answered the questions well.
|> In any case, as you well know, there are many non-radiological events that
|> can cause radiological events, at least in conventional reactors. Is IFR
|> different in this respect?
Communication gap. We are talking about events that lead to radiological ones.
Where did we lose you? We're simply saying that a steam explosion in the
SG would not lead to a radiological event.
|> This makes sense. The secondary sodium loop probably emerges through a
|> rather thick wall, too, I would imagine...
yeah, it's the containment. Ok, the SG has rupture disks that are designed to
rupture if a steam explosion occurs. It's like engine block plugs that are
designed to blow out if your engine overheats, rather than cracking the block.
This directs the force away from the intermediate Na loop, thus, there is
a mechanism in place for preventing a shock wave being sent up to the HX in
the reactor pool.
|> >where is this steam explosion occuring? It was stated earlier that the
|> >HX is not in the reactor building. A crack in the sodium to sodium heat
|> >exchanger would result in sodium mixing.
|>
|> I guess I missed that. That makes the thing even safer than I expected.
|>
|> I assume that the reactor building is designed to withstand the force of
|> impact from whatever flying debris that may result from an explosion in the
|> secondary heat exchanger building...
correct, which is a ways away. Furthermore, there isn't a rule stating that we
have to put any of this above ground.
|>
|> >Tom Orth
|> >Nuclear Engineer
|> >Argonne National Laboratory
|> >Speaking for myself
|> >or...@flicker.fp.anl.gov
|>
|> I must commend you, Dr. Orth. Your response was much more civil than Dr.
|> Angelo's. While I can understand Dr. Angelo's frustration, the way he
|> expressed it didn't help him to make his case very well...
|>
He's under more stress than I am
|
|> --
|> Kevin Brown ke...@frobozz.sccsi.com
|> This is your .signature virus: < begin 644 .signature (9V]T8VAA(0K0z end >
|> This is your .signature virus on drugs: <>
|> Any questions?
Tom Orth
Michael K Richmann
>In article <745603...@flash.ra.anl.gov> b41...@flash.ra.anl.gov (P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550) writes:
>>In article <CBvv...@frobozz.sccsi.com> ke...@frobozz.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>>>In article <CBvHE...@mcs.anl.gov> or...@salt.ra.anl.gov (T Orth FP/207/ 8505) writes:
>>Since the plant was first fired up 30 yrs ago, and I was 4, well I have
>Ah, a 26 year old young pup wet behind the ears. That explains a lot...
What's 30 + 4? It sure isn't 26....
>>>I must commend you, Dr. Orth. Your response was much more civil than Dr.
>>>Angelo's. While I can understand Dr. Angelo's frustration, the way he
>>>expressed it didn't help him to make his case very well...
>>Hey, think of this. Both Tom and I have had private conversations to
>>inform the net that EBR-II is not IFR. I only got frustrated because I
>>was disapointed in the baiting tactics of Mike when he knew damn well
>>to debate is one thing, to antagonize is another.
>Off the mark. By a mile. Part of debate IS to antagonize, but I was
>not trying to antagonize at all. We got nowhere near deliberate
>antagonizing before you blew your top. You have a wonderful self
>oppinion, I don't think I've seen one quite so large in a long long time...
After reading this entire debate (or smearfest depending on how you look
at it), I would have to say that's certainly the pot calling the
kettle black.
T Orth FP/207/ 8505
|>
|> >'Great proving ground'? Not really. The debate flares up and dies
|> >down. Right now it is quiet, mostly due to the efforts of John and
|> >a few of his friends to completely subdue the anti-nukes. You stand
|> >a pretty good chance of re-awakening it, though, with the 'trust me'
|> >approach. Yeah, it is somewhat strange to be debating from a position
|> >that I no longer believe in. But I also know that there are a great
|> >many who DO still believe it. I was hoping that you would take the
|> >easy scenarios and distroy them with calm logic, facts and reason.
Look, I don't know who you are, or what your agenda is. You sat there at
your terminal and made up scenarios based on a design that doesn't exist,
pretending later that you knew they were false, and you were just waiting for
one of us to point that out? Like Pete said, give me a break. All this does
is give the impression that these are legitimate issues.
1) who cares if Na solidified...if it could.
2) the reactor pool to intermediate loop is Na to Na.
3) The SG is outside containment, in a different building.
4) SG is made with "plates" designed to break in a certain direction to
release pressure against the intermediate Na loop, mitigating any shock waves
that might be sent back to the in reactor HX.
5) water, no longer under pressure would flash to steam and NOT travel up
sodium filled piping to the pool.
6) if all sodium were to be lost from the intermediate loop, this would be
the accident condition called "loss of heat sink" which was done at EBR-II
in 1986 without scram demonstrating that "passive" heat removal was
sufficient to remove heat.
John implied earlier that this was similar to LWR's. It is important to note
here that natural circulation of water in a pressure vessel of any currently
operating commercial LWR is NOT sufficient to remove decay heat.
Michael Moroney
>In article <CBvwH...@world.std.com> mor...@world.std.com (Michael Moroney) writes:
>>For whatever it's worth, sodium melts at less than the boiling point of water
>>so keeping it from freezing takes only a little effort. But if you really
>>wanted to keep it from freezing you could use a sodium-potassium alloy, which
>>is liquid at room temperature.
>>
>Why would you want the liquid at room temperature? Why would Na freezing
>be a concern? Why would you even concern youself with this?Think of the
>real-world now. Why would anyone design a system where this would be
>a concern.
I was only addressing the many posts that were addressing the "problem" of
"what if the sodium freezes?" I missed the posts where this was first
asked and many replies so I do not know if it is even a real problem or not.
>>"But what about winter?" I don't know the freezing point of the Na-K
>>eutectic.
>>
>Stating this is very misleading. Are you actually thinking the weather has
>an effect on plant design in a controlled environment? Why would winter
>be a problem? Are you designing something with ambient environment? How will
>you get the proper heat transfer? This is what I mean Mike. Do you know
>what your statement says?
I know that many anti-nuke activists (and many cautious neutral and pro-nuke
types) try to address every possibility, no matter how ridiculous in some
cases. I forsaw the possibility that if solidification of Na is a problem
(apparently it is not from later posts) the Na-K coolant solution would
bring up the question "what if it got colder", perhaps if all the workers
got bored, shut everything off including the heat, went home and winter set
in.
>It says "I know absolutely nothing of real world conditions" or does it
>say, "I know this statement is wrong, you tell me why" . I am inclined to
>believe the first.
No, see above, just forsaw some more "what if's".
>>Also there may be some undesirable nuclear characteristics of K for the stuff
>>in the pool, I don't know.
>
>If you dont know, then dont state "may". State "Could there be..." In this
>way you are asking for help, and not stating a scenario.
>What undesirable nuclear characteristics? What is undesirable? What nuclear
>characteristics do you mean?
Potassium might be a neutron-eater, or it could be activated to some nasty
radioactive isotope that might cause problems. A neutron eater will interfere
with the chain reaction, and activated K or its decay products would result
in a pool of stuff that was itself dangerously radioactive, not simply
contaminated with radioactive stuff from the fuel. If I had a CRC handy
I would have just looked it up.
-Mike
E. Michael Smith
Synopisis: Peter goes open loop and has a tantrum, unfortunately he
does it by posting private email. Since Peter either a) doesn't know
how to work his software to keep email apart from news postings or
b) is so tacky as to post private email (plus flamage) Mike decides
to write him off, take a couple of 'parting shots', and stop responding
to him until he grows up. It should be good for a couple of chuckles
for the veteran posters ( I try to keep it entertaining) but is
sadly lacking in technical content (though it is a pretty good
example of how a thread degenerates one one party goes open loop...)
It is a bit long, though...
In article <7456192...@flash.ra.anl.gov> b41...@flash.ra.anl.gov (P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550) writes:
>Mike at apple.com wrote...
>Look, plain and simple, you misunderstood EVERYTHING.
Yeah, right. As soon as someone starts using absolutes you can
usually figure they are out of touch with reality. Very few things
in human behaviour as absolute.
>I told you everything
>I could, up to the limits of the FEDERAL LAW. Why do you insist I hide
>behind the law.
Because, quite simply, you do.
>I overestimated your intelligence and thought you geninely wanted info.
No, you just didn't provide any. Look, on the one hand you say you
provided info, on the other you say you couldn't provide any info
because to do so would be illegal. Right...
>>And I agree. Like I said, this is 'friendly fire'. My interest was
>>in helping you to see where your statements would be turned against
>>you (and the IFR) and how to better package them.
>
>My statements are turned against me in a mean spirited fashion Mike. This is
Nothing mean about it. You make assertions about my mental state
that it is not possible for you to know, and which are clearly wrong.
What I have said was my 'spirit' is exactly true. I saw you make
some sophimoric blunders of public presentation and wanted to get
you past them as painlessly as possible. I see now that you've gone
open loop and will have to learn your lessons on your own, slow, schedule.
>not some mental exercise you and John can concoct just to test the waters.
No, not to test the waters, to test you. And you have been found wanting.
>I know my argument. I have sucessfully communicated this.
Yeah, right. 90% of what you 'communicated' was that you were pissed.
The other 10% was that you couldn't communicate...
>You were first
>very flustered
You flatter yourself too much. I've not felt flustered yet.
A little pitty for you, maybe, and some sympathy for someone who
was out of control in a public place, but no fluster.
>because YOU thought I meant "Here take this....and dont ask
>me why because I wont tell you.....
>You erronously MISINTERPRETERD my unwillingness to divulge Applied Technology.
Maybe right there. Didn't know how paranoid you were then and presumed
that you really understood how to state facts without stepping beyond
your leash.
>I gave you the letter of the law. It should be good enough for you. I cannot
>understand why this would not suffice.
Because I've seen folks, similarly constrained, who didn't feel
compelled to hide behind it and knew how to state simple examples to
prove their points without violation of the law.
>>They are exactly the kind of assertions that you will be confronted
>>with from J.Q.Public at public political meetings. Better that you
>>be dumbfounded now, and get some practice at politely disposing of
>>the simple/stupid scenarios, than blow up at a licencing hearing...
>
>Oh come on, give me a break. You expect me to beleive this whole charage
>was staged.
Don't know what a 'charage' is. Charade? Up front I stated that this
was a set of posed questions from someone who was moderately pro-nuke.
No charade. Maybe some pretense, but the pretense has been stated
up-front all the way through.
>You forget. THIS IS CYBERSPACE.
Nope. Haven't forgotten it for a minute. I've been in 'cyberspace'
for, well, let's just say it's a 2 didgit number of years, I don't
want to feel TOO old ;-)
>I dont appreciate the >staging, nor the <<need for practice>>,
Clearly you don't appreciate the need for practice, even though that
need, on your part, is glaring.
>because I think you are wrong
>for engaging in this line of tactic if and if you are sincere.
I'm quite sincere.
>I dont believe
>you knew the implications of your actions.
After a decade plus in this one news group, I'm quite aware of the
implications of my actions, AND that they are taking place in front
of an audience of ?thousands, AND that some of them may be future
employers.
>I do believe you tried to insult
>my intellegence and bredth of knowledge of the subject area.
Nope, you've done a dandy job of that yourself. All I had to do was
ask a couple of easy questions and you ran with the rope.
>You do not
>make your living as I do, so you need not be defensive.
Don't know how to take that one. I make my living showing up at
work each day just like the next guy, I presume you do the same.
I'm not defensive. A little bored with this thread, sorry that
you turned out to be such a lousy contributor, thinking about
how best to truncate any future interaction with you (due to
the low return on investment of time), but not defensive.
>>Like I said, these were 'softballs'. You should have been able to
>>deal with them very easily. You reply in this letter is an ideal
>>example. Poised, well phrased. Simple facts that distroy the
>>counter argument. If you can do that in public, you will be an
>>effective advocate of the IFR.
>
>I feel as do others that I am an effective messenger.
Not from what I've seen in public. And given that this 'letter'
seems to be both public and private now, I'm not sure what to
make of your technical or social skills.
>> >any size at the HX. Piece of cake. Just do it. None of this
>> >'trust us we know better and that is a stupid question' stuff, OK?
>> >
>> Look. The secondary and primary are separated by a physical barrier of
>> about 300 feet. The secondary starts OUTSIDE containment. Therefore there
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> is no scenario where H20 could ever get into the containment. The inter-
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> mediate loop was designed for this purpose. You simply cannot entrain
>> low pressure into high pressure. It should be a piece of cake for you
>> to understand this concept.
>
>>And I do. You've done a very good job here. Why didn't you just post
>>that paragraph a few 'rounds' ago?
>
>Because a few rounds ago, I thought I was dealing with a REAL LIVE CLUELESS
>IDIOT!! And you cant state that this is not entirely my fault.
Yes, it is entirely your fault. Jumping to conclusions is always
the fault of the person doing the jumping. As is being tactless
and impolite in public always the fault of the person misbehaving.
>You came across as the "I know your plant and this COULD happen".
>I said it could not and I also said that you were wrong in ASSUMING
>EBR-II collant could solidify.
Translated: Peter got defensive and said it can't happen because Peter
knows better.
>I treated your reponse with disdain because
>you came across as knowing my plant, and misintrepreting the design.
>I personally attacked you because I felt you were NOT GETTING THE
>OBVIOUS.
Gee, great set of moral values. "I thought you were not 'getting'
things I thought were obvious so I decided a personal attack was
just the ticket". Please take a 'Basic Social Skills' class soon.
With that attitude it will end up in your next job review for sure.
"Interpersonal Relations for Individual Contributors" is what I
run most of my problem people through. I'm sure you'll be told
what the local title is at your site.
>> Why do you insist on debating in this sytle. It serves no purpose. What is
>> this some great proving ground to take on your real anti-nukes?
>
>>Why? Because I saw someone who was a new poster ('newbie') who was
>>making some clasical posting mistakes (appeal to authority, 'trust me',
>>"Don't waste my valuable time", and FLAMING, to name a few) and damaging
>>his cause in the process.
>
>I dont feel I damaged "my cause". After all what was your agenda?
Oh, you've damaged it all right.
My agenda? I've stated it so many times. Oh well, whats one more...
To give you some easy sample questions of the type that WILL be asked
by the anti-nuke crowd so that you could learn how to deliver polite,
succinct rebuttals without sounding so alienating, and do so with
someone who was (tentatively) on the pro-nuke side and would not get
hot under the collar while you learned some posting skills.
Said so up front. Right after you flamed John. Remember the
scruffy cats metaphore?
>What you think is good for me is not of your concern. Stick with the issue.
>You decieved the net.
Nope. I've not decieved anyone. Learned a long time ago to be as
up front as possible at all times. Easier to keep track of what you've
said that way.
>And you destroyed your crediblity amongst nuclear
>proponents.
Somehow I doubt it very much.
>Johns credibility is damaged also as I am flooded with E-mail
>stating if you two are for real!!!
Real as they come. Flesh and blood and all that stuff.
>>through this experience quickly, and with someone who would not take
>>it personally, before you alienated too many other folks and damaged
>>your credibility in the process.
>>There are literally thousands of folks reading the debate who never post
>>('lurkers'). Every time you post, you can be alienating some number of
>>them. I care enough about the IFR ( and GCR !) to take the time to
>>help reduce the degree of alienation you may cause.
>
>You dont care 1/100th of the amount of those of us who have a stake in this!
Most likely true, but I do still care.
>Mike, I have been posting over 1 year now.
Golly, a Whole Year!
>I have NEVER EVER taken up
>the "Trust me attitude" Go through every thread I posted over a monthes
>time.
Pardon me, but you will find your prior posts in this thread just
dripping with 'I know and I can not tell you why' which does come
across as 'trust me'. That you can't see it is why John started
this thread...
>It was how you interpreted my reluctance to break the law!!!!
No, it was how your behaviour manifested your legal paranoia.
>>'Great proving ground'? Not really. The debate flares up and dies
>>down. Right now it is quiet, mostly due to the efforts of John and
>>a few of his friends to completely subdue the anti-nukes. You stand
>>a pretty good chance of re-awakening it, though, with the 'trust me'
>>approach. Yeah, it is somewhat strange to be debating from a position
>>that I no longer believe in. But I also know that there are a great
>>many who DO still believe it. I was hoping that you would take the
>>easy scenarios and distroy them with calm logic, facts and reason.
>
>The last exchange was the most heated I ever got. BTW where is it said
>that I was a PhD? You pin that label on me yourself.
A few back John did the pinning... As did Tom, I believe. You didn't
rebut it, so I presume that it is true.
>BTW I had allready destroyed those <<softballs>> and grew sick and dired
In your own mind, perhaps...
>of wasting my time with someone who thoutht they knew the EBR-II design.
>You should know that the Anti-nukes arent as stupid or moronic as you
>posted.
Wanna bet? ;-)
>Now I have lurked your posts prior and no indication was given
>from your posts that you were rational.
Hmm. The verb 'to lurk'. Not sure how to decipher that one...
I am quite rational. (Heck, I even have the MMPI and psychiatric
interviews for NASA to prove it! For better or worse, every
shuttle astronaut has been selected partly based on my personality
type... It's a long story about being in a NASA study...)
That you can not recognize rational posts when you see them (and
when they are explained to you) is your problem.
>BTW, you cannot monopolize the Devils Advocate. Please in the future be
>forthewright and straitforward
I have no intention of monopolizing it, I expect it to be widely used
by many. Heck, I've even shared the role with John this time.
Expect lots more of it in the rest of your life.
>>I put it
>> to you for you to disprove on technical grounds, the 700$M allready invested
>> and million man-years developing the technology aswering the very questions
>> and more that you field. No body is stating "trust us we know better", this
>> is a straw man, that just flopped for you. Because if they said "trust us",
>> the level of detail in preparing the design,analysis,test procedures,PRA,
>> operational validation, the answering DOE Tiger teams concerns (do you
>> know what a Tiger Team is? this is a soft-ball for you, you should know
>> this one- and please dont avoid the question) would all be moot!
>
>>Your postings, like it or not, had a strong flavor of 'trust me' to
>>them. Re-read them in a month or so and see what you think then.
>
>Consider the source.
Your postings?
>How would you interpret blatant lies!!!!!
Well, I wouldn't go so far as to characterize your postings as blatant
lies... Half truths mixed with legal paranoia and too much emotion
maybe, but not lies.
>NOT INTENDED TO SKIRT!!!!!!!PLEASE DONT MISINTERPRET AGAIN. I CANT DIVULGE A.T.!!!
>wHAT IS "TRUST ME....." ABOUT THAT!!!!!!
Can't interpret this line one way or another. Guess that's one way
to avoid misinterpretation, post random words all in caps...
>>And all it would have taken was for you to say 'There are 300 feet and "N"
>>meters of concrete between water HX and primary/secondary HX. No possible
>>steam/Na explosion can breach that.' Instead you said something more
>
>I DID AT FIRST, AND ALLWAYS SAID IT COULD NOT HAPPEN BECAUSE IT CAN NOT
>HAPPEN FOR OBVIOUJS REASONS (Plant physical layout! I thought I made this
>clear!!!!!!)
Well, you didn't. Don't blame your lack of clarity on the audience.
>>like 'it can not happen'. Which is heard as 'trust me'...
>
>NO!!!PLEASE DO NOT CONFUSE IT CANT HAPPEN WITH TRUST ME....
Sorry, but that is how it is taken. If you can't state a why or
a how, then "it can't" without support is equivalent to 'trust me'.
>No ! It can't happen because it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. What is "trust
>me about that"
The complete lack of objective suporting evidence. Such as distance,
or materials. i.e. 'it is physically impossible due to the HX
being hundreds of feet from the containment which is several feet
of concrete thick' all of which can be said without 'breaking the law'.
>You know what I meant, so why bait?? I thought It was self explainatory!!!!
It wasn't. 'Why bait' should be painfully obvious from the nature of
your responses. That you can't see how you blew up and lost it is sad.
>I would presume that the chemical interactions of molten metal with
>the fuel alloy would be problematic. (I've slowly disolved enough
>soldering iron tips into a workpiece in my youth to have an intuitive
>grasp of the process... I've also replaced enough Zn anodes on my
>sailboat to be familiar with that effect...
>
>Not correct. Lead wont work in an IFR because U/Pu/PB is chemically incompatile
Oh well, it was only a guess anyway. Said so up front. 'presume'.
No skin off my nose. I've not claimed to be a fuels expert.
I'm glad to see that I did guess the 'chemical interactions'... 'would
be problematic' right, even if the exact mechanism is still a mystery
to me.
>MIKE......SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE VERY CONDESCENDING OF THE METHOD OF THE
>MESSAGE.
"Method of the message". Wonder what that means...
>YOU CANT STATE THAT WHAT I SAID OVER THE NET WILLBE MISINTERPRETED
>THE WAY YOU DID IN REAL LIFE!!!!
Sorry, but we havn't met 'IN REAL LIFE!!!!' (presuming that you mean
'not in cyberspace') so I don't see how you can say that I misinterpreted
anything 'IN REAL LIFE!!!!'.
This sentence, too, seems to be a zero content sentence... Do I detect
a trend?
>THIS IS CYBERSPACE....SOMETHING GOT
>LOST IN THE TRANSLATION.....
I'll say...
>But you need to be able to show to the electorate that it works fine
>> Once again "reactivity with water " is not an issue, so why bring it up.
>> It has been studied and dismissed as not impacting the current plant design/
>> operation
>
>>Because it is what springs to mind first for all the anti's who took
>>high school chemistry and did the Na/water demo. You will be refuting
>>that point for the rest of your career, so you ought to get a handle
>>on a quick effective explaination.
>
>But I told you that the plant design prevents such an event and you
>said I tried to skirt the issue. Enough allready.
"The design prevents it" without an inkling of how becomes 'trust me'...
>A quick effective explaination is what I gave, and you twisted it until
>I raged...
Yes, you raged. And it would seem to be a state you are familiar with...
Somehow, though, I've missed that 'effective explaination'. Did see
the 'quick' part, though... Look up 'fast' in German...
>>But I can talk, in broad terms, about non-secure information. See all
>>the postings in the comp.apple groups by apple folks...
>
>BUT WHAT YOU WANTED WASNT BROAD TERMS, BUT VERY DETAILED FACTS WHICH COULD
>BE A BREACH OF A.T.
No, all I wanted was broad terms. I doubt very very much if it is a
breach of anything to state 'lots of concrete and distance are used
to assure safety' or 'Na is kept molten by external heat inputs and,
if solidified, would simply be remelted in situ.' If it is, the
program is in far worse shape than one would hope...
>>Basically, you made some postings saying "it can't do that" and "I can't
>>tell you why". If you are not prepared to show your defense in a public
>>forum, don't make the assertion in a public forum.
>
>THE ONLY THING I ASSERTED WAS THE PLANT DESIGN AND OPERATING LIMITS
>PREVENTED AN NA COOLING AND WHY WOULD THIS BE A CONCERN?
>SEE ABOVE!!!!
Yup, that is what you asserted, and it is not adequate. The addition
of a trivial degree of real objective fact about the design would
turn this assertion into an effective arguement... but that was lacking.
>I told you why. I said originally the IHX was isolated from H20. I could not
>tell you of the AT the IFR tests and you did not like it
>NOPE!!!!! I told you why and you did not like it. Applied technology doesnt
>allow me to divulge "red-backs" IF you thought I was engaging in deception,
>it is your problem.
I don't think you are engaging in deception, I think you just don't
know how to talk about what you can, and keep quiet about what you
can't and are paranoid about where the line is between secret and non.
>I'm not interested in debate for debate sake, only in 'debate' as a tool
>to get the truth aired quickly and cleanly.
>
>THEN WHY THE CHARADE,
I have not indulged in charades. I have clearly stated ( far too often,
IMHO. Meta discussions about the discussion are rather dull...) that I
was posing model questions as they would come from the anti's and that
I was not a True Believer of that type (any more).
>HOWABOUT A SIMPLE POST IF YOU WEWE CONFUSED?
Because I was never confused.
>THIS WHOLE EXERCISE WAS UNNECESSARY
No, unfortunately, it was very necessary. Your lack of tact in this
very posting demonstrates why it was necessary. A few years more of
this kind of experience and you may even get a clue about how to
defend the IFR effectively.
>BECAUSE YOU CAME ACROSS AS ARROGANT,
Maybe. Experience often has a way of doing that, even when the
person does not truely have an overly high opinion of their self
importance. I'm something of a Buddhist at heart, working toward
the extinction of any sense of self or self worth. Hardly an
arrogant ideal. How you interpreted things, though, is beyond
my control.
PIUS<
I presume you meant 'pious', I'm not a dead Pope yet!
Why, thank you! 'Having or exhibiting reverence and earnest
compliance in the observance or religion, devout.' I try to
be devout, reverant, and earnest in my persuit of things.
>AND A BAFOON.
Maybe you meant 'BUFFOON'? No, I leave that role to you.
I'm just the straight man here...
>I COULD NOT HELP MYSELF TO PERSONAL ATTACKS BECAUSE IT WAS THE
Au Contrair! You helped yourself to many personal attacks...
ineffective and alienating though they may be.
>ONLY WAY TO GET THROUGH THE THICK HEADED MORON YOU PLAYED ON THE NET>
>NO ONE IS THAT STUPID IN REAL LIFE, NOT EVEN ANTI NUKES
Gee, real sweety pie arn't we. Love to kick stupid folks. Golly,
what a saint.
Well, this has been fun. You turned out to be far less skilled
than I'd hoped, and about as poor as I'd feared. I'll not be
bothering to respond to any more of this thread (though I may toss
in a few zingers if something looks fun) since, well, I've done
what I set out to do (and the thread has suffered a decay about as
low as they get).
Please learn to distinguish private Email from public postings,
it will help you greatly in the future...
--
E. Michael Smith e...@apple.COM
'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has
E. Michael Smith
>|> >|> for an example. Where Taylor is talking about how to build an H bomb,
>|> >|> and gives broad hints that don't violate national security, but do
>|> >|> give you an idea that he clearly knows his stuff.
>
>If this guy seriously thinks that you can make an Hbomb from Talor's book,
No, this guy does not. The example does not illustrate how to make
a bomb, it illustrates how to show that someone (Taylor) DOES know
how to make such a bomb WITHOUT actually showing how to do it or
violating any laws. If one could make a bomb from what Taylor was
quoted as saying, then it would have violated the law, and been
useless to me as an example of effective circumspect speach. BTW,
the book was about Taylor, and written by another chap. MacPhee?
>he is truly deluded. Sure, you can get a qualitative understanding of how
>they work...
That is exactly what I asserted it showed.
>but to go into how to REALLY make one, even if you have all
>the right materials, would take volumes.
Yup. Unless one is as gifted as Taylor was at bomb design by
the seat of the pants. But then again, he was truely gifted...
>|> This makes sense. The secondary sodium loop probably emerges through a
>|> rather thick wall, too, I would imagine...
>
>yeah, it's the containment. Ok, the SG has rupture disks that are designed to
>rupture if a steam explosion occurs. It's like engine block plugs that are
>designed to blow out if your engine overheats, rather than cracking the block.
>This directs the force away from the intermediate Na loop, thus, there is
>a mechanism in place for preventing a shock wave being sent up to the HX in
>the reactor pool.
Gee, you seem much less worried about legal beagles than Peter. This
is a beautiful example of a circumspect qualitative description of
a safety system. Very effective. Thanks!
>|> I must commend you, Dr. Orth. Your response was much more civil than Dr.
>|> Angelo's. While I can understand Dr. Angelo's frustration, the way he
>|> expressed it didn't help him to make his case very well...
>|>
>
>He's under more stress than I am
Maybe you could talk to him ...
E. Michael Smith
>|> >'Great proving ground'? Not really. The debate flares up and dies
>|> >down. Right now it is quiet, mostly due to the efforts of John and
>|> >a few of his friends to completely subdue the anti-nukes. You stand
>|> >a pretty good chance of re-awakening it, though, with the 'trust me'
>|> >approach. Yeah, it is somewhat strange to be debating from a position
>|> >that I no longer believe in. But I also know that there are a great
>|> >many who DO still believe it. I was hoping that you would take the
>|> >easy scenarios and distroy them with calm logic, facts and reason.
>
>Look, I don't know who you are, or what your agenda is.
Please note that the above paragraph was from private email to Peter
that he, inadvertenty or otherwise, posted. It was not posted by me.
>You sat there at
>your terminal and made up scenarios based on a design that doesn't exist,
Minor nit: John made up the basic scenarios. I followed his lead
a little on them and added some to them in a second round.
>pretending later that you knew they were false, and you were just waiting for
No pretending. I knew that they were false. (Except maybe the
terrorist scenario. I think there may in fact be a viable threat
scenario in that one. Stingers and cement truck of explosive slurry
with a mud pump in the hands of a squad or two of terrorists ought
to be able to make one heck of a mess of any plant, though I
don't think it could lead to a radiological accident).
>one of us to point that out? Like Pete said, give me a break.
Yup. Said so all along.
>All this does
>is give the impression that these are legitimate issues.
They will be raised as issues, legitimate or not.
Other good info deleted.
John De Armond
>BULLSHIT JOHN AND YOU ARE STUPID FUCKS WHO LIKE BAITING OTHERS. I'D GLADLY
>PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION. BUT THIS IS NOT SOME GAME YOU STUPID JACKASS.
>YOU ARE MORE ANTI_NUKE THAN YODAIKEN. JOHN KNOWS SHIT ABOUT NUCLEAR, ELSE
>HE'D STILL BE GAINLULLY EMPLOYED. YOUR ARROGANCE IS AMAZING
Gee, Mike, I think we have him slobbering on himself. Oh, but to have been
a fly on the wall when he was hammering in THIS post with one hand while
batting away the snot'n'spit with the other. BTW, Peter, I've already earned
more out of our industry than you will ever hope to make. Now I'm
having fun. Don't you wish you could say the same?
You've done a couple of things here, Peter. First, your mindless
ranting has made DOE and the IFR project a whole BUNCH of enemies.
(How DID you pass your psych test?) Secondly, you've made
ME very much an enemy of the program. While before I was mildly
opposed to the project because of government funding of said project,
now I will actively fight it because I must assume that with bozos
like you involved, it MUST be a boondogle. I've already FAXed my
opposition to further funding to the usual people in my congresscritters'
offices and I've sent a note down my fax tree, the one I normally
use to alert associates of anti-firearms actions. Do I matter?
Who knows? But I bet I'd bet on it.
BTW, folks, Peter is NOT your normal nuke. Please overlook him.
The next Minnesota Multiphasic psych test will most likely cull him out.
John De Armond
>FINALLY, do you see the inane nature of your <<complaint>>. You kept
>baiting and insisting,," but what if what if"" This had as much credulity
>as "what if cows can fly" Do you see where someone who is imersed in this
>technology on a daily basis, can be dumbfounded by your assertions.
Do you see where some "ignorant clod" who asks innocent questions and
then gets dumped on by the resident PhD of Nuclear Engineering MIGHT
just get pissed off enough to call his congresscritter and respectfully
ask that your paycheck not be written in the future? If you're going
to come out into the real world, you'd better learn a few things
about interpersonal relations.
>There was no diversion or ditch, or attempt to skirt an issue. I'm sure if
>someone on the net asked you for Apple's inner workings or detailed tech
>knowledge which can be used by competitors and adversaries, you'd be out of
>work. Please answer that, its a <<soft-ball>>. The reason I am not allowed
>to tell you of specific operational details is that International (Japan)
>interests are also served by this information. Please refer to general
>questions.
But I bet if someone asked Mike to describe how the Mac's video subsystem
works, he'd do his best to describe it or find someone who could. I'll
bet he'd even give you a list of bios calls (or whatever Crapple calls
'em) for that video system. No, he probably would not give you the
models they've probably built to simulate various video architectures
in order to pick the best one but that's not germane to being able to impart
a basic knowledge and answer simple questions without going tilt.
What you've said so far is equivalent to Mike's saying "There is a
picture tube and some electronics. Everything else is classified."
John De Armond
>>>John is about as pro-nuclear as you can get.
>>
>>Yeah right. I can state from his posts, he's never been faced with the
>>tough operations/decisions. Else why is he doing his rag?
>I'll let John speak for himself. Just note: In a decade of postings
>I've never seen anyone as doggedly pro-nuke.
Thanks Mike, I think I will. Tough Decisions, eh, Dr. Angelo?
You mean like whether or not to hold up the restart of TMI-1 for a month
while we redo some questionable calibration data on the post accident
radiation monitors? That the kind of tough operations decisions you have in
mind? Well guilty as charged.
Why I'm doing PE Magazine. This is probably an alien concept to you but
I'm having fun. I've retired. I'm one of those greedy bastards who
made a killing in the 80s from my consulting company. I had a couple
dozen people similar to you working for me. Well, sorta similar. Took
me awhile to learn to toss any resume with PhD on it. Much too hard to
get any work out of the species. They seem to think I'm gonna pay 'em
just to be there. One day I figured out I was no longer having fun so I
took the money and ran, selling out to my partner. I now publish this
magazine on high tech hotrodding and I work with my wife in her glass
arts studio. I'm learning how to do two things I've always wanted to do -
blow glass and do Neon. And play with the academes on the net, of course.
Fun, Dr. Angelo, that's what this life is all about. Try it sometime.
John De Armond
>>As long as that premise stands, then we know that there must be
>>extraordinary measure taken to prevent any armed incursions, any
>>site contamination (accidental or otherwise), and legal barriers
>>errected to prevent politico's from doing something stupid. What,
>>prey tell, are those extensive measures?
>>
>Without violating the site safety plan, I can state it is your standard
>garden variety DOE facility. NO one gets in without clearance. Nothing
>enters/leaves without someone knowing. If you spent any time around military
>installations, multiply that by 1000. Comercial utility security doesn't
>even come close. (I know that to be a fact)
Oops, BS alarm at full chat. Let's see. Take, ferinstance, the
plutonium research facility operated by Battelle/Columbus stuck
waay out in the middle of a corn field. Plut lab on one side being
converted into a nerve gas disposal research lab. On the other side
where I worked is the reactor building and hot cells and plut safe.
Around it is your standard, government-issued pair of concentric chain link
fences topped by garden variety barbed wire (not concertina wire)
and the usual motion detectors. And this whole facility was guarded by
(drum roll) TWO guards armed with riot guns. Or consider Y-12 at Oak Ridge
where I worked as a contractor. Single fence. Normal day
condition: guard inside the gatehouse, gate open, no obstruction. After
I'd been there a couple of times and got my vehicle pass, I drove in
and out without so much as a second look. Or how about the Charleston
Naval Shipyard, headquarters to the nuk'lar boomers. I showed up one
day, told the very nicely dressed marine on the gate that I was there
under contract # thus and such and needed to see Gen. Bly. He checked
his roster that the good General was on it, gave me a vehicle pass
and waved me in. *Wow* Shall I continue?
I'll compare that quite nicely with civilian nuclear security.
Sequoyah, for example. Armed guards on the fences, surveillance cameras
equipped with motion detectors guarding the fences, at least two other
kinds of motion detectors near the fences, high speed vehicle impalers
under the pavement at the entrance designed to be able to stop a truck trying
to crash the gate, a fully equipped armory, etc, etc, etc.
Now before anyone gets a mistaken impression, I think the security around
the DOE facilities I'm familiar with is perfectly adequate. As is
the security at nuclear plants. Neither security system will stop a
determined terrorist or group of terrorists. Angelo destroys his
credibility by saying such. Hell, I personally watched a group of
guards masquerading as terrorists run into the control room at
Browns Ferry after floating a dingy up the cooling canal and sneaking
in the plant through an unsecured door. TVA paid a hell of a fine
for that door but the fact remains, the guys got in.
The proper answer to the question, Angelo, is this: "yes a terrorist
could possibly get into the plant. we've considered that possibility
and have taken the following precautions to ensure such a person
could not do anything that would endanger the plant or the public."
When I answered that very question regarding commercial plants, I outlined
the concepts of defence in depth and single failure criteria dictating
that redundant systems be physically widely separate and well protected,
I described the aux control room that would allow operators to take
control of the plant were the control room lost for any reason and I
outlined how operators are trained to run critical systems WITHOUT
a control room - a skill the BFNP fire taught us we needed very badly.
I guess I could have kicked back on my credentials and just said "We're
the experts, boob, we've thought of everything."
John De Armond
>>>No the essence of what I said is Na solidification is about as remote
>>>as the Cubs and the Redsox in the world series together. Never will happen.
>>>(Ludicrous example)
>>
>>But you have provided no supportive evidence. Just 'I said so'
>>and 'it takes too long to cool' and now "People would stay there to
>>make sure it didn't happen." How, why, and how much are significantly
>>absent...
>>
>>
>This is a reach.Period.If the core solidified, it would pose no safety
>significance. Radiologically or neutronically. I don't know why coolant
>solidification would ever be a concern because in the worst case, the
>core is less neutronically reactive (reactivity = delta k/k) and there is
>a concept called "Shutdown Margin" (refer to John for a definition).
No one has suggested it would be a safety problem, something you'd have
noted had you not been so eager to call us civilians idiots. Let me
summarize it so you can comprehend:
Q: What happens if the pool cools off?
you: can't happen cuz we're Friends of Bill.
Q: But what if it does?
You: can't happen, trust me, I'm the expert. Not a safety problem if it did.
Oh, and you're an idiot for asking.
Why don't you try an answer like this on for size:
"We don't think the pool can ever cool for the following reason. The
pool contains xxxx gallons of sodium with a heat of fusion of yyy
bazillion kilocalories. It is surrounded by a structure with the
capacity to conduct heat of qqq kilocalories per day. At that rate, it
would take three and a half centuries to cool. We feel confident that
we could regain control in that interval. And if the incredable
happened and it did somehow become solid, we'd (I'm speculating) just
fire the sucker up at low power until the sodium remelted. We may have
to apply heat tracing to some of the piping but we consider the whole
scenario so incredable for the reasons given above that we did not
design this heat tracing into the plant. The plant design lends itself
to field installation of the tracing should it ever become necessary"
See? That wasn't so hard. A little secret: It's a hell of a lot more
fun being a teacher than it is a know-it-all.
Deac Moo of the UGC
> (Except maybe the
>terrorist scenario. I think there may in fact be a viable threat
>scenario in that one. Stingers and cement truck of explosive slurry
>with a mud pump in the hands of a squad or two of terrorists ought
>to be able to make one heck of a mess of any plant, though I
>don't think it could lead to a radiological accident).
Why be so exotic? Oh, right, you work for Apple :)
I'm still not sure what measures have been taken to remedy the "weakness"
seen in nuke plant security re: Car/truck bombs. I suppose new plant
construction will do something to take into account the current problems cited
by the NRC....
******
Net postings: Demonstrating the lack of quality psychotherapy in the world.
P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550
>In article <745603...@flash.ra.anl.gov> b41...@flash.ra.anl.gov (P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550) writes:
>>In article <CBvv...@frobozz.sccsi.com> ke...@frobozz.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>>>In article <CBvHE...@mcs.anl.gov> or...@salt.ra.anl.gov (T Orth FP/207/ 8505) writes:
>
>>Since the plant was first fired up 30 yrs ago, and I was 4, well I have
>
>Ah, a 26 year old young pup wet behind the ears. That explains a lot...
Uhm, excuse me, but by my birth certificate and basic math...30+4=34
Hardly a pup. Guess you've never had your hands on the controls of 1200Mwe
nuclear plant. If you only knew....
>
>>>I must commend you, Dr. Orth. Your response was much more civil than Dr.
>>>Angelo's. While I can understand Dr. Angelo's frustration, the way he
>>>expressed it didn't help him to make his case very well...
>
>>Hey, think of this. Both Tom and I have had private conversations to
>>inform the net that EBR-II is not IFR. I only got frustrated because I
>>was disapointed in the baiting tactics of Mike when he knew damn well
>>to debate is one thing, to antagonize is another.
>
>Off the mark. By a mile. Part of debate IS to antagonize, but I was
>not trying to antagonize at all. We got nowhere near deliberate
>antagonizing before you blew your top. You have a wonderful self
>oppinion, I don't think I've seen one quite so large in a long long time...
>
Like I said, yes I blew my top, but for a reason. You see, you can have your
cushy comp sci. career and not worry about loosing your job because some
greenie in DC has a hair about your choice of career. Im sorry if I dissapointed
you. You forget, we are all human beings. Now WRT to the above, yes you
were ANTAGONIZING. You know it, I know it and the netters know it (in my
best Bob Dole voice). Because lets suppose for example, that you
1) Knew a little about the technology (sci.energy)
You would have immediatly stated ..."Dont you mean physically not possible?"
(Instead you went half cocked about some "Trust me facade... the real
cop out!
2) Knew nothing about the technology
Then why would you tell me how my house is arranged when I know for a
fact you have never been here. It troubled me that you went on and on
and on about how H20 could get in the pool when you offered no scenarios
(BTW Eastern Idaho is in the dessert, you would know this if you were here,
so no floods)
I get it all the time from many people honestly wanting infromation. I am
always glad to oblige. Those who have received info packets from me know
it too.
3) Were pretending to be the Devils Advocate
After I exploded, you would have said ....Hey wait aminute.. sorry ...
I', on your side (you did eventually expose yourself, but it was too late,
the damage is done.) This is unexcusable, mainly because you knew damn well
that cyberspace does not afford the luxury of the spoken word for interpretation
Therefore you could twist anything to your likeing
4) Are truly anti-nuclear
You would have continued to bait the erroneuosly interpreted "Trust me..
issue. This is more in line with reality. I think you are deeply concerned
with the misrepresentation of the technology by well meaning people like
myself and Tom. You are looking for the semantic argument only, and not
offering a rational thought, nor do you know where I am coming from.
I was angry because I had a bad day, and I was in no mood for a neophyte
telling me what my plant looks like. I was also in no mood to ream through
the volumes and volumes of plant data, specs just to apease your sense
of paranoia. I vented. Im sorry. Now lets move on.
Reguards, Peter
>--
>
>E. Michael Smith e...@apple.COM
>
____________________________________________________________________
P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550
Since I am directly involved w/ the project, I am granted less latitude. BTW
If your bone pick was because I didn't give you the Na answer, then my mis-
understanding. I thought you wanted the qualitative reasoning which is
contained in AT. The Fistedis book should have sufficed, and when you wanted
more detail, the only recourse for me to think was .. "Hey this guy is
barking up the wrong tree.."
>>|> I must commend you, Dr. Orth. Your response was much more civil than Dr.
>>|> Angelo's. While I can understand Dr. Angelo's frustration, the way he
>>|> expressed it didn't help him to make his case very well...
>>|>
>>
>>He's under more stress than I am
>
>Maybe you could talk to him ...
>
Maybe you should consider the fact that alot of decent people could loose
their jobs because your greenie politicians dont want to solve solutions
to problems pointed out to them.
Look Mike, I intended to send you a copy of the post in the mail. Sorry
if you took it as private.
I thought this whole matter was way overblown, and admit, through miscommunication
on my part, and misintrepretation on your part. Let me clear the air, once
and for all.
1) When you asked for detailed description, I thought you were not satisfied
with the pat answer that it could not happen (because that is not the way
the plant is designed)
2) When you persisted on my reluctance to provide you detailed info, it
wasnt because I was reluctant, it was because it would take alot of
time for me to dig up the detailed knowledge you insisted (meters?....sounds
specific to me)
3) When you persisited in telling me the layout of the plant, I refuted
you ( recall I said originally so what if the core went solid..)
4) You are more interested in the debate for debate sake rather than the
real issues. I can be general, but I can be specific
Can you tell me how many square feet is your office, and how many supercomputers
you have, what brand, and where they are located, what is their service..etc
This was the avenue I thought you were going down...Asking very specific, very
detailed information.
BTW I allready appologized to the net for being rude, my apologies, I had
a bad day. I got angry when I learned that you and John were orchestrating
this scenario to spin me up. Please do not do this again.
BTW if I do meet you in real life, Im sure the circumstances will be quite
different.
>--
>
>E. Michael Smith e...@apple.COM
>
>'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has
> genius, power and magic in it.' - Goethe
>
>I am not responsible nor is anyone else. Everything is disclaimed.
____________________________________________________________________
P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550
I am going to publicly apologize for going off half cocked. Im sorry.
It did not help my cause. It wont happen again. But you see (here comes
justification) yes I am devoted to my work, just as any of you are.
Any one can have a bad day, and my day that particular day, was in the toilet.
I had to vent. I felt I had to choke the living shit out of something.
You see I've been reading all the falsehoods people have been spouting
about LMR technology (two people cant hold back the flood), despite all
the monnths of posting positive about it.
The one thing Ihave been careful to craft in the past, please read the
previous threads (One aw-shit shoutn't wipe out 10 at-a boys)
Is the impression that I do not know it all, nor should be taken on
face value. It is a good thing to disagree. Just do it fairly. I did not
appreciate the Mike/DeArmond ruse under the guise of a coaching session
I HAD IN THE PAST, BEEN FORTHRIGHT, and tried not to give the appearance
of TRUST ME. Our industry has been maligned ad infinitum because of the
"Trust Me sysdrome".. (funny how we let airline pilots,school teachers,
doctors, lawyers...get away with it - Is there some double standard going
on"
OK- This whole mess started with "It can't happen....". A little background;
If I said it couldnt happen, then do I have to give a litany of plant
design specs which could be used by others adversly. I thought it was
made clear in the beginning...
Someone remind me that when De Armond chastised Tom on his use of "meltdown-
proof", didnt this get cleared up immediately? (I believe I also was in
on that conversation)
In any event, chalk this one up to experience.
E. Michael Smith
>Look Mike, I intended to send you a copy of the post in the mail. Sorry
>if you took it as private.
Um, you posted excerpts from private email sent by me to you.
That is, well, rude at best. I'm satisfied that you are sorry
about doing that. Sending copies of a post as email is a waste
of time and likely to be seen as posting email as well...
>
>4) You are more interested in the debate for debate sake rather than the
>real issues. I can be general, but I can be specific
Not quite. I'm interested in both, about equally in this case. In
most cases the ratio is more 70/30 technical/form.
>
>Can you tell me how many square feet is your office,
About 120 for my personal office. About 2000 for my staff. About
2500 for the computer room.
>and how many supercomputers
One.
>you have, what brand,
Cray YMP-232.
and where they are located,
20740 Valley Green Drive, Cupertino California 95014
>what is their service..etc
Huh? Service life or what they do? Service life is about 3 years.
Was used for plastic modeling, now used for R&D investigations in
advanced bright ideas (i.e. engineers toy).
Funny story: Lately the Cray has been spending its day dreaming of
clouds. Seriously. We let a student at Stanford have a few spare
cycles to run some cloud simulations... Kind of an interesting
thought picture, isn't it? A Cray daydreaming of shapes in the clouds...
Could have a real payoff for weather prediction.
Don't know why you want to know these things, though.
BTW, we conduct public tours of the facility and have run Umpteen
thousand folks through the site. Including folks from {IBM, Microsoft,
HP, Sun, Hitachi, Sony, Boeing, and some Federal Agencies that like
to remain nameless...} among others. I've done 1 hour tours of up
to 50 folks at a shot 3 times a week at the peak. Right now we are
doing about 5 folks a week. For folks who know me, I will do personal
tours if they are in the area and call me. 408 974-3163.
>This was the avenue I thought you were going down...Asking very specific, very
>detailed information.
>
>BTW I allready appologized to the net for being rude, my apologies, I had
>a bad day. I got angry when I learned that you and John were orchestrating
>this scenario to spin me up. Please do not do this again.
Appology accepted.
>BTW if I do meet you in real life, Im sure the circumstances will be quite
>different.
Want a tour? We also have 2 TeraBytes of STK tape robot and some
other neat HW to look at.
nel...@usuhsb.ucc.usuhs.nnmc.navy.mil
ke...@frobozz.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>In article <CBx95...@mcs.anl.gov> or...@salt.ra.anl.gov (T Orth FP/207/ 8505) writes:
>>
>>|> can cause radiological events, at least in conventional reactors. Is IFR
>>|> different in this respect?
>>
>It sounds to me, offhand, that it's self-regulating to the point where there
>aren't any such events, but I don't know the design in detail (there any good
>references to the detailed design that don't divulge proprietary information?).
>
I too would like to hear the answer to these questions. Now that it has been
established beyond any doubt that there is no conceivable way that molten
sodium can in any way contact or react with oxygen in any form, the problem
of its chemical reactivity has finally been put to rest. There remain the
questions of what happens if the primary coolant loop fails? and what
provisions have been made for emergency cooling of the core in the event
control rods become stuck in the "out" position?
>
>....and even if the primary HX were to fail, and the sodium in the primary
>loop were to leak, convection in the pool would prevent a radiological event,
>right?
>
Is this true? If so what prevents the pool from overheating and boiling away?
>
>>Furthermore, there isn't a rule stating that
>>we have to put any of this above ground.
>
>underground, but I figure it's the expense.
>
This sounds like a great idea to me. Is there serious consideration along
these lines? The only other time I have heard this mentioned was by
Medvedev in his book "The Truth about Chernobyl."
Dennis Nelson (nel...@usuhsb.usuhs.mil)
John De Armond
>>>BTW, if you want to advertise your product on the net, better be prepared
>>>to pay for the promotion. One of the tenets of this forum is not for
>>>personal profit!!!
>>
>>Wrong. *Sigh* New to the net too, I see.
>>
>"For a free sample......" Sounds like a pitch to me to get more readers. I
>sent for your rag and was not impressed.
Too far over your head, huh?
John De Armond
>I do get the design. You don't seem to grasp the psychology of
>the 'simple demo' and how it can be used in propaganda, even if
>not technically correct. Remember the movie China Syndrome and
>all the technical faults in it, then ask how many people got to
>the point of asking about the technical issues...
Yeah, like the fact that most all the plant shots other than the control
room were shot in a coal plant. And that the great "pump" that was
about to explode there at the climax was actually a coal pulverizer.
Minor details like that. And yet for many taxpayers, that movie defines
what is wrong with nuclear power. Sad.
John De Armond
>I am going to publicly apologize for going off half cocked. Im sorry.
>It did not help my cause. It wont happen again. But you see (here comes
>justification) yes I am devoted to my work, just as any of you are.
>Any one can have a bad day, and my day that particular day, was in the toilet.
>I had to vent. I felt I had to choke the living shit out of something.
>You see I've been reading all the falsehoods people have been spouting
>about LMR technology (two people cant hold back the flood), despite all
>the monnths of posting positive about it.
Appology accepted from this quarter.
>The one thing Ihave been careful to craft in the past, please read the
>previous threads (One aw-shit shoutn't wipe out 10 at-a boys)
>Is the impression that I do not know it all, nor should be taken on
>face value. It is a good thing to disagree. Just do it fairly. I did not
>appreciate the Mike/DeArmond ruse under the guise of a coaching session
>I HAD IN THE PAST, BEEN FORTHRIGHT, and tried not to give the appearance
>of TRUST ME. Our industry has been maligned ad infinitum because of the
>"Trust Me sysdrome".. (funny how we let airline pilots,school teachers,
>doctors, lawyers...get away with it - Is there some double standard going
>on"
Damn right there is a double standard going on. Like the cute quote
from the nuke and the aviation engineer talking. The aviation engineer
says "There's only one difference between you and me. I get to kill
people and you don't." I don't like the double standard of having
to prove the vanishingly unlikely, of spending hours researching
some answers and in general being abused by everyone from the
professional antinukes to the ignorant media. But those are the rules
laid down for us who choose to speak out in public on the pro-nuclear
side. I just looked over in my archives. I've posted over 8 megabytes
of nuclear stuff to this group over the years. And that doesn't count
the archives lost to my office fire 2 years ago. You have any idea
how long that much stuff took just to type in?
This kind of effort is why there are typically only a couple of
pro-nukes active on this group. Ken Ng and Paul Dietz and a couple of
others provide lots of good current information but I've typically been
the only person on this group with hands-on operational experience. I
was thrilled to death when you in particular showed up with your SRO
experience AND an education. That thrill turned to horror when you
started firing off in all directions, playing right into the hands of
the opposition. When you say something is impossible, you have opened
yourself wide open for an invitation to prove a negative, something you
and I know can't be done.
>OK- This whole mess started with "It can't happen....". A little background;
>If I said it couldnt happen, then do I have to give a litany of plant
>design specs which could be used by others adversly. I thought it was
>made clear in the beginning...
For the most part, yes you do have to post details. We're like firemen.
The other side has the luxury of tossing the match into the tank of gas.
We get to put it out.
You just can't say "It can't happen" without a hell of a lot of
supporting data. When you say a Na-water reaction can't happen
in the containment, I (playing devil's advocate) can ask "So what if some
goob AUO hooks a fire hose up to an argon header by accident?" Can't happen?
Something almost identical was the initiating event at TMI. And how
many times have they pumped seawater into the containment at Pilgrim?
Maybe the reason I am so hostile to the tactics that you appologized
for is I've already made those same mistakes and cringe at someone
else doing it all over again.
T Orth FP/207/ 8505
|> >Since the plant was first fired up 30 yrs ago, and I was 4, well I have
|>
|> Ah, a 26 year old young pup wet behind the ears. That explains a lot...
|>
This is what happens when you let comuters do all of your arithmatic for you!!
|> E. Michael Smith e...@apple.COM
|>
|> 'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has
|> genius, power and magic in it.' - Goethe
|>
|> I am not responsible nor is anyone else. Everything is disclaimed.
Tom Orth
P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550
>In article <7456940...@flash.ra.anl.gov> b41...@flash.ra.anl.gov (P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550) writes:
>
>Not quite. I'm interested in both, about equally in this case. In
>most cases the ratio is more 70/30 technical/form.
>>
>>Can you tell me how many square feet is your office,
>
>About 120 for my personal office. About 2000 for my staff. About
>2500 for the computer room.
>
>>and how many supercomputers
>
>One.
>
>>you have, what brand,
>
>Cray YMP-232.
>
>and where they are located,
>
>20740 Valley Green Drive, Cupertino California 95014
>
>>what is their service..etc
>
>Huh? Service life or what they do? Service life is about 3 years.
>Was used for plastic modeling, now used for R&D investigations in
>advanced bright ideas (i.e. engineers toy).
>
>Funny story: Lately the Cray has been spending its day dreaming of
>clouds. Seriously. We let a student at Stanford have a few spare
>cycles to run some cloud simulations... Kind of an interesting
>thought picture, isn't it? A Cray daydreaming of shapes in the clouds...
>
>Could have a real payoff for weather prediction.
>
>Don't know why you want to know these things, though.
Howabout your source of power, your number of available memory, your
access accounts......just wondering how far you would go...
Oh sorry, thats privledged information.
>BTW, we conduct public tours of the facility and have run Umpteen
>thousand folks through the site. Including folks from {IBM, Microsoft,
>HP, Sun, Hitachi, Sony, Boeing, and some Federal Agencies that like
>to remain nameless...} among others. I've done 1 hour tours of up
>to 50 folks at a shot 3 times a week at the peak. Right now we are
>doing about 5 folks a week. For folks who know me, I will do personal
>tours if they are in the area and call me. 408 974-3163.
>
IFR gets lots of tours too! The people here are nice enough to prepare a
video and lots of paraphanelia on it. I have a backlog of about 30 requests,
including John DeArmonds. Would you like a packet? Send me your mailing
adress e-mail. I'll see what I can do.
>>This was the avenue I thought you were going down...Asking very specific, very
>>detailed information.
>>
>>BTW I allready appologized to the net for being rude, my apologies, I had
>>a bad day. I got angry when I learned that you and John were orchestrating
>>this scenario to spin me up. Please do not do this again.
>
>Appology accepted.
>
>>BTW if I do meet you in real life, Im sure the circumstances will be quite
>>different.
>
>Want a tour? We also have 2 TeraBytes of STK tape robot and some
>other neat HW to look at.
>
>--
>
>E. Michael Smith e...@apple.COM
>
>'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has
> genius, power and magic in it.' - Goethe
>
>I am not responsible nor is anyone else. Everything is disclaimed.
____________________________________________________________________
P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550
>In article <745603...@flash.ra.anl.gov> b41...@flash.ra.anl.gov (P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550) writes:
>>In article <CBvv...@frobozz.sccsi.com> ke...@frobozz.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>>>In article <CBvHE...@mcs.anl.gov> or...@salt.ra.anl.gov (T Orth FP/207/ 8505) writes:
>>>>
>>>>|>
>>>>|> Um, what is to prevent an administrative whacko from simply issuing
>>>>|> an executive order stating 'SHUT IT DOWN FOR TWO YEARS WHILE WE STUDY IT.'
>>>>|> and, by the time you get it through their head that this is 'Not A
>>>>|> Good Thing', it is two years later and you have a solid chunk of Na...
>>>>
>>>>You aren't trying to equate this with a radiological accident are you?
>>>>If the fuel is so cold that the sodium solidfies, it sure isn't dangerous.
>>>
>>>I think the reason he was asking is that the plant would represent quite an
>>>investment, and if the sodium solidifies, you may lose the investment.
>>>
>>
>>Why would this cause a loss in investment? If sodium solidifies, then couldnt
>>it be liquified?
>
>Depends on the design, doesn't it? But in all reasonable cases, I would
>expect that you'd be able to liquify it. At that point, it's only a
>question of how expensive it would be to do so.
>
Probably not that much. The equipment is in place to both prevent
cooling and mitigate overcooling.
>>What radiological impact does this pose? What core integrity
>>questions are asked? You tell me why you would even consider this.
>
>None of those questions are asked.
>
>Why? Because while safety is a large concern, it's not the *only* concern,
>don't you think?
>
What other concerns are there? Economic? THe reactor is just a test bed
providing a source of fast neutrons. Sure it pumps out about 20MWe, but
this is a bonus. THe real mission is reasearch.
>>Decay heat
>>in the fuel is sufficient from keeping Na from freezing. If you didnt have
>>fuel, then you just have a tank of Na w/o fuel. What is so dangerous about
>>that?
>
>Nothing, as long as you keep water out. :-)
>
I dont understand, how are you going to introduce water to a completely
isolated Na system? Flooding? There is no credible scenario for flooding
in the Eastern Idaho desert. BTW, the Reactor Building is isolated from
the rest of the plant. I cant think of any foreign intrusion of water.
Condensation from the roof? Failure of HVAC? These are not credible initiators
because 1) The structure is very thick, thus entrainment is not possible
2) The pool is sealed. If coolant cannot leakout, how can something get in?
>>>I would surmise from what you said above that the way to liquify the sodium
>>>is to put real fuel in the reactor. :-)
>>
>>Keep circulation going via pumps is the prefered method. Pump energy and
>>decay heat is sufficient.
>
>If decay heat isn't there (say you pulled out all the fuel), would pump
>energy be sufficient?
>
>>>BTW, could you tell me what the bootstrap procedure for the reactor is, i.e.
>>>how you initially liquify the sodium when you fire up the plant for the first
>>>time?
>>
>>Since the plant was first fired up 30 yrs ago, and I was 4, well I have
>>no direct experience. From what I read, the Na was heated up and piped
>>in to the pool at 750 deg. Then after thermal conditions, fuel was loaded.
>>Refer to the EBR-II story..American Nuclear Society
>
>Okay, but I was actually thinking of the bootstrap procedure for the IFR,
>not for EBR-II...
>
The IFR as a reactor has not been built yet. It will be about 600MWe
(est) and take about 6-8 years to construct, once DOE approval is given.
Using IFR fuel in the EBR-II reactor is the first step, one demonstrated
sucessfully to date. :*)
>>>>First of all, national security issues are only a subset of the issues...
>>>>proprietory are other reasons.
>>>
>>>This poses a problem, and puts you in a rather nasty predicament. You see,
>>>the informed skeptics are going to have a hard enough time accepting the
>>>IFR as it is, and they're going to be *for* the basic idea. The general
>>>public is going to be even harder to convince, and they're the ones that
>>>you must eventually convince. I realize that IFR may be so good that
>>>nobody in their right mind would reject it, but:
>>
>>Boeing need not diseminate the plans for the 747 for people to fly in it.
>
>But that's because people don't have much fear of flying in general, so
>they're not as skeptical. Furthermore (largely a contributor to the
>latter, no doubt), planes are *old* technology, much older than nuke
>reactors.
>
Yes, but commercial jet travel did not come to bear until the 1950's, at
least the same time line as commercial nuclear. Now after the Mercury
Comet disasters, Boeing picked up the slack. Air travel was seen as necessary
to propel people places faster, sooner. This boils down to the generation
of electricity by whatever method. I am not advocating just nuclear. Its
been my contention nuclear could be done alot better, and IMHO, the IFR
is a good start.
>>Electric utilities make design and operation available to the public
>>through FSAR, Tec Specs, etc.. I think the same can be said for IFR.
>
>This is probably good enough, but does this happen before or after the
>thing gets built?
>
The commercial licensing process is a long process. There are Environmental
Impact statements, reviews, hearings, and testimony long before ground
is ever broke. The NRC has in recent years tried to streamline the license
process with 1-step licensing, standard plant approval, all while trying
to involve the pulbic. This is to ensure another Shoreham never happens.
I believe when the FSAR, PFSAR, and Tec Specs are approved, at the early
stages, the list of copies for distribution include towns,counties, lawyers,
intervenors (yes they do get copies) and anyone who wants one for that matter.
>>> (a) rejection or acceptance requires an evaluation that depends on
>>> information. When that information is lacking, no good evaluation
>>> can result, and the default in that case is usually to reject the
>>> proposal.
>>>
>>> (b) the public is not necessarily in its right mind.
>>>
>>>I easily sympathize if you can't reveal the information needed to answer the
>>>pointed questions asked, but you must realize that failure to provide that
>>>information may ultimately place the project at great risk of termination.
>>
>>No. The only thing at risk of termination is my job.
>
>I hope that not even that is at risk.
>
Anyone who divulges proprietary information without their employers
consent, or compromises the integrity of operation, beit a nuclear
plant, or a grocery store, surely places their job at risk.
All the while, I am trying to provide as much positive innformation of
the IFR w/o crossing the line. Some may think, hey, why is he even on
this net? Why? Because I feel that the word must get out, at the grass
roots level, what this technology is about. Some others affiliated with
this project feel the same way, and walk the thin line. Would you think
if Thiokol, or McDonnnel Douglas were building the space station, their
employees would advocate publically, what their doing. Probably not. THe
reason for the openness on my end (up to the limits of AT), is that as
a non-profit research entity, like the one that employs me, deserves to
continue the research it started. Because its research spins off other
research in academia, and so on and so on. The only ones to profit from
this research is the American people.
>>Respect it and move on
>>to a more salient point. I think enough technical information will be made
>>public to satisfy critics.
>
>I'm looking forward to this.
>
>>When has information not been made public? I think that all non-AT
>>publications have been made available
>
>This will definitely be good enough if the AT isn't safety-critical.
>
>>>But you must realize that the reason he doesn't know more is that you're
>>>not willing to tell him more! That's what this is about.
>>
>>No! He has all the information available to make an inforormed desision
>
>I think it's up to him to decide that.
>
>>>This makes sense. The secondary sodium loop probably emerges through a
>>>rather thick wall, too, I would imagine...
>>
>>The Intermediate sodium loop emerges from containment. Enough said ?
>
>Yup.
>
>>>I must commend you, Dr. Orth. Your response was much more civil than Dr.
>>>Angelo's. While I can understand Dr. Angelo's frustration, the way he
>>>expressed it didn't help him to make his case very well...
>>>
>>Hey, think of this. Both Tom and I have had private conversations to
>>inform the net that EBR-II is not IFR. I only got frustrated because I
>>was disapointed in the baiting tactics of Mike when he knew damn well
>>to debate is one thing, to antagonize is another.
>
>I know. The problem is that some anti-nukes will come along and
>intentionally antagonize you, and they won't be doing so for educational
>purposes. They'll intentionally be out to destroy your credibility with
>the public and you'll *have* to keep your temper under control in those
>circumstances.
>
I dont understand the difference between believabilty and credibility
in the light you put it. Maybe this is the crux of the problem. According
the the dictionary, to be credible is to be believable. Is credibility
in the light you put it tied to "capability" and ability to perform as
as a technical person? Is credibility tied to personality or by substance?
If the former is the case, then Leslie Nielson, Casey Kasem should be
considered credible authorities on nuclear energy. Or should crediblity
be tied to one thing- qualifications?
Oh sure I've demonstrated I can be rough around the edges when I get pushed,
but does this negate my qualifications to deliver the cogent message. The
substance of the message should be independent of the messanger. Does this
negate my qualifications to deliver the message? Maybe. But it does not
negate the fact that I am positioned to understand what is really going on.
I mean, Im 500 feet away from the Rx. Does this mean I am not credible to
deliver the message from my own backyard? Who would be more credible? SOmeone
in MA or GA or Silicon Valley? WHy would they be considered more believable
if they have no basis for believablity? That is why I got angry. Because
others were acting as if they have the basis for believablity. Its ok to
speculate, and to ask questions, but to be the unqualified authority
(which I do not claim to be) ad hominem (sp?) is another matter.
Look at Sterglass. He rants and raves at his lectures, yet is he believable?
To some yes, to others no. The ones he feels he is not credible believe so
because what he proposes, the substance of what he says, is crap (IMHO).
Oh sure, he has an abrasive presonality, but should personality be a
prerequisite for crediblility? His style of delivery is offensive to some,
but his message is still heard, apparently. Does this make him less credible?
Is a personal attack, although ill-mannered, still grounds for making
someone not believable? If an airline pilot was giving his personal opinion
someone who has a fear of flying, and never flown, nor piloted, and got
so frustrated at the person for "comming out of left field", and "Blows up",
does this make him less credible as an aviator? Does this negate his
contributions and experiences?
Is it a general rule that if a Nobel laurate attacks someone with opinion
that all their qualifications, experiences, and accomplishments, what they
have to offer is out the window?? (Edward Teller excluded)
Now I am no Nobel Laurete thank God, however, if I happened to go overboard,
should I hang it up, rip up diplomas, quit my job and throw my arms up
in disgust? Because no matter how much education and experience one has to
offer, a personal attack negates it??
Sure personal attacks and name calling lead nothing to the debate or discussion,
but consider how the debate/discussion would have to degrade to what point,
before frustration sets in and name-callling begins.
Personal attacks, thus are unsolicited opinions, which do not degrade a
persons qualifications. THus, personal attacks and name calling, should
not hinder that person from cooling down, and carrying on.
>I realize you believe that this is only cyberspace and so forth, but there
>are a lot of readers of this newsgroup, many of whom are probably undecided
>about nuclear power. It *is* unfortunate, but it's a fact of life that the
>way you present your data will have a huge impact on how it's received. If
>you react in anger in response to a posting from someone who stated ahead of
>time that they were pro-nuke, how will you react when asked the same things
>by someone who is undecided (and relatively uneducated) or someone who is
>vehemently anti-nuke? Unfair and illogical as it may be, you don't stand
You are right. But consider how a discussion degrades to get to that point.
It is unfortunate that the bad is all someone recalls, however, this only
highlights that as humans, we can only be pushed so far.
BTW, I do not have to stay on this net, to give a positive message about
ALMR technology. I think I am risking alot professionally when I stand up
for this, I have disclaimered everybody. But consider this..If someone like
me or Dr. Orth do not convey this message, then who will set the record
straight? I leave it up to you out there to be informed, at whatever cost.
>a chance in hell of convincing anyone of anything if you throw insults at
>them.
You are right. But consider what they have said to make someone so spun up
that a simple ****Argghhh**** just wont do. Yes restraint is maturity,
yet antagonism is a double edged sword.
Im sure the recipient of an insult feels the need to lash back, its only
human nature, however, there is a time and place (private) for everything.
I allready apologized. It was out of character, and I had
a bad day, enough? I learned never to trust anothers interpretation and
to be clear in the message, since this all started with one left out word
(because).
>
>Because of the size of the readership here, you are, in essence, speaking
>to the public here.
Right again. Sometimes when you see only a few "regulars" its easy to
get cought up in informality and carelessness.
>
>
>
>--
>Kevin Brown ke...@frobozz.sccsi.com
>This is your .signature virus: < begin 644 .signature (9V]T8VAA(0K0z end >
> This is your .signature virus on drugs: <>
> Any questions?
Don T. Borowski
: but does this negate my qualifications to deliver the cogent message. The
: substance of the message should be independent of the messanger. Does this
: negate my qualifications to deliver the message? Maybe. But it does not
: negate the fact that I am positioned to understand what is really going on.
: I mean, Im 500 feet away from the Rx. Does this mean I am not credible to
: deliver the message from my own backyard? Who would be more credible? SOmeone
: in MA or GA or Silicon Valley? WHy would they be considered more believable
: if they have no basis for believablity? That is why I got angry. Because
: others were acting as if they have the basis for believablity. Its ok to
: speculate, and to ask questions, but to be the unqualified authority
: (which I do not claim to be) ad hominem (sp?) is another matter.
and the messenger. This is even more true with the general public. So
to best get your message across, you will need to respond with good grace,
even to personal attacks. A sense of humor is a necessity. It is not
shameful to say, "I don't know, but I will try to find out for you."
Don't get me wrong. I admire all those who take up work in much needed
areas (like nuke engineering) that are currently out of political favor.
I, and many on the net, want you to succeed. And part of that success
flows out of areas not (well) taught in engineering schools - human relations
and communications skills.
I ask questions because of technical interest. I know what happens when
sodium and water (or air) come into contact. So I marvel when somewhat
has figured out how to make a sodium/water heat exchanger when can operate
safely, and be safely shut down if a leak should develop at the interface.
I assume that it has been properly designed. Thus I am all
the more interested in finding out how it has been made to work. I expect
an answer that assumes some technical background, though not an intimate
familiarity with sodium/water heat exchangers. I can tolerate answers
like, "I am not really familiar with that since I work in the fuels area."
Or, "It works something like this, but that's about all I can say due to
security/proprietary reasons." I just want a reasonable answer.
In all cases, I expect respect. But if I don't get it, I will not turn
on the afterburners. If you can show respect even to your attackers,
you just may earn their respect. And you will certainly earn even more
of mine (and of others as well). I know this is all hard work, but it
is a necessary part of the job you have chosen. I wish you well.
Donald Borowski WA6OMI Hewlett-Packard, Spokane Division
"Angels are able to fly because they take themselves so lightly."
-G.K. Chesterton
E. Michael Smith
>>In article <745606...@flash.ra.anl.gov> b41...@flash.ra.anl.gov (P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550) writes:
>>>In article <yar...@dixie.com> j...@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>>>>b41...@flash.ra.anl.gov (P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550) writes:
>>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>its product available to Apple (Mike you listening?)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>BTW, IBM and Apple have this joint development product, called
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>the Power PC, a result of Apple and IBM making their product
>>plans available to each other...
>
>Well, now, be fair. Are the details of this technology being released to
>the general public? If not, then it doesn't exactly count as an example
>of public release of information...
Kevin, I have been completey fair. The question was not one of
release to general public, it was specifically IBM & Apple
sharing product information.
Look up Kairetsu (or how ever the Japanese is transliterated...) and
see the movie Rising Sun...
P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550
You see, this is what I mean; The whole problem was that others were insisting
it is an NA/H20 heat exchanger, when all along, it was an Na/Na heat
exchanger. They kept insisting it was Na/H20 (the IHX), when they could not
understand that no one has ever built an IHX which was Na/H20 for use in a
reactor core. Now the secondary has Na/H20, but thats the secondary, and what
is so bad about that? Where is the safety significance? There are many
chemical plants which manufacture NaOH which employ Na/H20 HX's, but not the
primary side of an FBR (fast breeder rx).
You see, listening is an art, (or reading in this case), whereby the
protagonists just would not concede their argument of the specific details
of the plant and deluded their thinking into the mass hysteria that
subsequently ensued. It got personal and ugly when I said "Self....you are
not dealing with a couple of Einsteins....and even if I were, I think
Einstein would have guessed it. Besides, I knew the protagonists' history
and surmised they were not acting out a hypothetical situation...They actually
thought the IHX was Na/H20. They actually thought that if the gates were locked
and all 800 of us would troup out that the core would go solid. (This is
what I read). They actually thought a solid chunk of Na were a possibilility
and that it posed some sort of grand hazard. I said "Self....,these guys'
elevators dont go to the top floor....
I got in trouble because all the while when I first said "it cant happen"" I was
thinking to myself, "Self...These guys think the IHX is Na/H20...who are they
and why do they keep insisting it is?.. So I reasoned, you cant get water
in a pure Na/Na system if it wasn't designed for water... (someone brought
up flooding, but by then there was a mass of confusion). They kept insisting
they knew that the IHX was Na/H20. Thats like me insisting your HP plant
turns out nothing but IBM components. When I offered up specific plant design,
I knew I was treading the tightrope of proprietary information. They got hot,
and insisted I was holding back. You see, I work at the actual job site, and
am aware the ramifications of misinformation carry steep penalties-namely
my job. I shouldnt even be on the net, but this is a good story (IFR) which
needs a grass roots effort to set the record straight.
BTW ANL-E is located near Chicago, so you see, Tom and I have both
bases (ANL-W and ANL-E) covered wrt IFR.
So you see, when I said "it cant happen", thats like asking yourself
What is the likelihood that this HP plant is designed to produce HP
calculators, and all of a sudden, you get IBM. Could that happen? No, because
that is not how your plant is configured, but you know that and I don't;
NOR WOULD I PRESUPPOSE IT WAS, IN THE ABSENSE OF INFORMATION.
If anti-nukes presuppose information, then it is up to me to keep the
record straight. This is what happened. Now you understand what the leading
events and circumstances were, Im sure you can understand the frustration
I felt in trying to inform those that in that particular example (Na/Na),
they should have got their facts straight.
It wasn't that I was skirting the issue, it was just that I didnt think it
was an issue, since the IHX is not Na/H20, but Na/Na;and to speculate otherwise
was like stating you know what's beyond these gates, when you dont know for
a fact otherwise.
********************************************************************************
Now I respect dissent and informed opinion. But even anti-nukers know that
when they presuppose erroneous information, people tend to get alittle hostile.
After all, isn't that what "Trust me " is all about??? Hmmmm......
*******************************************************************************
I think I got it after-all.
Now, does anyone out there know what happens when you spray H20 ONTO Na?
I can tell you right now, it isnt the same as Na->H20. Why? Basic chemistry.
E. Michael Smith
>
>|> >Since the plant was first fired up 30 yrs ago, and I was 4, well I have
>|>
>|> Ah, a 26 year old young pup wet behind the ears. That explains a lot...
>This is what happens when you let comuters do all of your arithmatic for you!!
Yup. Guilty as charged. You'd hardly think I got a BofA Math Award
and Ca. State Scholarship... (which I did). I've also noticed that
I've gotten much sloppier about math since I became a manager and had
to deal with people problems all day long instead of technical ones.
Oh well, if a sign inversion is the worst error it make this week,
I'll be happy.
--
E. Michael Smith
>>Cray YMP-232.
>Howabout your source of power,
PG&E through a 750 KVA transformer out back.
>your number of available memory, your
It's part of the model number above. 232 is 2 CPU's 32 Mwords memory.
>access accounts......
Number or who? Number is about 2000 I think, but havn't counted
it in a year or so. Who? Any and all Apple Engineers can have an
account just by asking, so the number isn't really important.
>just wondering how far you would go...
Right up to the point where you want to know what project a type
of usage is for. I don't know that, don't want to know it, and
if I did know it I couldn't tell you.
>Oh sorry, thats privledged information.
Only specific project oriented usage. The rest of the answers
I've given (except my office size ;-) are often talked about in
tours of our facility.
>Would you like a packet? Send me your mailing
>adress e-mail. I'll see what I can do.
Don't really have the time to read one right now. Maybe in
a quarter or two... Perhaps the backlog will have cleared out
by then... For now, thanks, but I must decline.
P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550
>In article <745776...@flash.ra.anl.gov> b41...@flash.ra.anl.gov (P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550) writes:
>
>
>>access accounts......
>
>Number or who? Number is about 2000 I think, but havn't counted
>it in a year or so. Who? Any and all Apple Engineers can have an
>account just by asking, so the number isn't really important.
>
>>just wondering how far you would go...
>
>Right up to the point where you want to know what project a type
>of usage is for. I don't know that, don't want to know it, and
>if I did know it I couldn't tell you.
>
You see how easy it is to get boxed. We go through that all the time.
You know if I would have told you the last sentence, then you would
have returned the old "Trust Me....
My point is that every industry has a secrecy threshold. It seems there
is a double standard with nuclear. How do you balance the public's need
to know, with proprietary infomation? How do you balance forthrightness
and openness with the need for security? I don't have those answers.
>E. Michael Smith e...@apple.COM
>
BTW I got one of those Bof A Math Awards in 77. It comes in a nice
leather folder. Suprised the snot out of me because up to that point,
I was just looked on as a punk kid.
P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550
>b41...@flash.ra.anl.gov (P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550) writes:
>
>>>>BTW, if you want to advertise your product on the net, better be prepared
>>>>to pay for the promotion. One of the tenets of this forum is not for
>>>>personal profit!!!
>>>
>>>Wrong. *Sigh* New to the net too, I see.
>>>
>>"For a free sample......" Sounds like a pitch to me to get more readers. I
>>sent for your rag and was not impressed.
>
>Too far over your head, huh?
>
Yeah, I couldnt figure out where the Na/H20 HX goes on my fuel injectors
For that matter, I couldnt even figure out what would happen if gasoline
got in my radiator and made the engine block solid.
>John
>--
>John De Armond, WD4OQC | For a free sample magazine, send
>Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | a digest-size 52 cent SASE
>Marietta, Ga "Hotrods'n'computers" | (Domestic) to PO Box 669728
>j...@dixie.com "What could be better?" | Marietta, GA 30066
____________________________________________________________________
E. Michael Smith
>In article <1993Aug19.2...@michael.apple.com> e...@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>>In article <745776...@flash.ra.anl.gov> b41...@flash.ra.anl.gov (P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550) writes:
>>>access accounts......
>>
>>Number or who? Number is about 2000 I think, but havn't counted
>>it in a year or so. Who? Any and all Apple Engineers can have an
>>account just by asking, so the number isn't really important.
>>
>>>just wondering how far you would go...
>>
>>Right up to the point where you want to know what project a type
>>of usage is for. I don't know that, don't want to know it, and
>>if I did know it I couldn't tell you.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>You see how easy it is to get boxed.
No, I don't, since I'm not 'boxed'. Hell, I even jumped to the
'end game' since I knew where you were going from the first post
and, after a couple of iterations, got tired of it. It would have
taken you at least 2 more posts to get close to this point if I'd
wanted to keep playing (and had simply deleted the issue of 'how
far you would go' and ignored it. I got tired of it, so in plain language
I told you the limits of my ability to discuss (and saved us a couple
of iterations.))
Key point: At no time did I assert that I knew anything about
the topic area I could not discuss nor at any time did I make
any claim or assertion that would have led to a discussion of
that area.
>We go through that all the time.
>You know if I would have told you the last sentence, then you would
>have returned the old "Trust Me....
No. Until you get this point you will continue to have great problems.
That last sentence starts with "I don't know that".
IFF I'd said something like 'The Cray is used for this really neat
project that will change your life and no other computer in the
world can do it!' THEN said 'I can not tell you any more because
it is a secret' then and only then would it be 'Trust me'.
You must have an assertion of something without available evidence
in order to require trust. A simple statement of "I can not talk
about new computer product plans" has no element of 'Trust me' because
I've made no assertion requiring your belief.
>My point is that every industry has a secrecy threshold.
Yes, it does. There are several topics that I have secret knowledge
about THAT I DO NOT EVER MENTION since to do so would put me in the
problem state of needing to provide evidence I can not release OR
asserting that it must be taken on trust. There are other things
that I can talk about, but only in general terms.
An example? I KNOW what the R&D is that is being done. I know who,
by name. I know what product. I now planned product schedule ship
date. I deliberately posted that I did not know (yes, 'disinformation')
since that is what I must do to avoid opening a topic area I cannot
discuss. In this case it was done, in part, so that if/when we reached
this point I could point back to it as an example of how to circumspectly
talk about an area without violation of confidence.
Notice that we danced about a very sensitive area, R&D Projects, that
I never divulged any secret info, and that I did not make an assertion
that required trust for it to be believed. (Until now, of course.
Now that I've asserted that I DO know the project details, I've put
myself in a position that I cannot support. This IS an example
where 'Trust me' is the truth. I can't provide the proof of this.)
Do you now see the difference? I've provided an example of how to
talk circumspectly about something, giving out LOTS of non-secret
detail, hiding the secrets without requiring 'trust' or even leaving
open that avenue of enquiry. I've also, with this posting, provided
and example that DOES require trust. (And even explained the
details of where to look to see the difference.) And put myself in
a position where I can't post any more on the topic without endangering
my employment or my credibility due to the 'Trust me' problem.
>It seems there
>is a double standard with nuclear. How do you balance the public's need
>to know, with proprietary infomation? How do you balance forthrightness
>and openness with the need for security? I don't have those answers.
Hopefully you do now...
Yes. Sometimes you have to not say _anything_ about an area to DO
know something about, to avoid opening a topic you cannot further
talk about.
Yes. Sometimes you have to flat out lie (as I did above in the
disinformation example) to avoid a topic area. That is life in
the fast lane.
James King
>In article <1993Aug19.0...@michael.apple.com> e...@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>>In article <7456940...@flash.ra.anl.gov> b41...@flash.ra.anl.gov (P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550) writes:
>>
>Howabout your source of power
Hey, even I know that: Pacific gas and Electric, a good chunk of it from
the evil Diablo Canyon plants.
Jim
#include <disclaimers.h>
P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550
>In article <745801...@flash.ra.anl.gov> b41...@flash.ra.anl.gov (P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550) writes:
>>In article <1993Aug19.2...@michael.apple.com> e...@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>>>In article <745776...@flash.ra.anl.gov> b41...@flash.ra.anl.gov (P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550) writes:
>
>>>>access accounts......
>>>
>>>Number or who? Number is about 2000 I think, but havn't counted
>>>it in a year or so. Who? Any and all Apple Engineers can have an
>>>account just by asking, so the number isn't really important.
>>>
>>>>just wondering how far you would go...
>>>
>>>Right up to the point where you want to know what project a type
>>>of usage is for. I don't know that, don't want to know it, and
>>>if I did know it I couldn't tell you.
>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>You see how easy it is to get boxed.
>
>No, I don't, since I'm not 'boxed'. Hell, I even jumped to the
>'end game' since I knew where you were going from the first post
>and, after a couple of iterations, got tired of it. It would have
>taken you at least 2 more posts to get close to this point if I'd
>wanted to keep playing (and had simply deleted the issue of 'how
>far you would go' and ignored it. I got tired of it, so in plain language
>I told you the limits of my ability to discuss (and saved us a couple
>of iterations.))
>
the limits of my ability to dicuss. Case in Point: when John told
you he found an article comparing Pb and Na as a coolant, he left
out some important details; namely that the paper was written by
individuals at ANL-E. Before this paper that he was "Going down
to GTech to get", was ever a paper, it was Applied Technology. You
now see where I am coming from?
>Key point: At no time did I assert that I knew anything about
>the topic area I could not discuss nor at any time did I make
>any claim or assertion that would have led to a discussion of
>that area.
>
You left out one key distinction, namely namely the difference between
"couldn't" and "wouldn't". You see, you try to pin the latter on my
reluctance to tell you anything when I was bound by the former (couldnt).
Now do you see the source of your confusion?? I admit there is a double
standard with nuclear because people as yourself, who have a basic distrust
of the information they are provided on this end usually prescribe to
the latter, and this is why you went down the path you did.
>>We go through that all the time.
>>You know if I would have told you the last sentence, then you would
>>have returned the old "Trust Me....
>
>No. Until you get this point you will continue to have great problems.
>That last sentence starts with "I don't know that".
>
Yes, but you countered, "And if I did know that, I couldnt tell you.."
Lets suppose a) you didnt know it, fine. b) you did know it ; then here
is where I have a problem with your double standard; It is your use otf
the word "could". This is the key word which is the crux of the misunder-
standing. You see, its irelevant if you knew or didnt know, the fact
that "could" was used instead of "would" (conditional), or "should (not)"
(which is an optional directive), or "shall (not)" which is a command,
gives you the option of dictaiting the terms of divulging information. It
also is ambiguous wrt the explaination because it leads the reader to
believe you are deliberatly withholding information.
Let me recap:
1)Could - a conditional option /OR permission (I could tell you [if I want]
or I could not tell you [Im not allowed]
2) May - a definite optional (I may tell you, I may not..)
3) Shall- a definite command (I shall not tell you why.. I [will] not..)
4) Would- a conditional (I would provided....)
Now you see only a native English speaker "could" ever understand this. :-)
>IFF I'd said something like 'The Cray is used for this really neat
>project that will change your life and no other computer in the
>world can do it!' THEN said 'I can not tell you any more because
>it is a secret' then and only then would it be 'Trust me'.
1) I never used that analogy wrt to IFR. You are now getting into the
trouble you started; namely by misintrepreting the original intent
of why I did not even bother to justify my response with a "because",
namely the question posed was as an inane as <<so why dont pigs fly?>>
2) I never said it was a "secret" initially. (Only when you wanted specific
dimensions, temperatures,operating scenarios-did I question this- only because
alot of what you asked is ALLREADY answered in the many "redbacks" (see
previous post), however, I dont Know which ones have been turned into public
papers like the one John was looking at (remember his Pb/Na paper was once
AT)
Your problem with my statement was that it conflicted with your belief
that you have a <<right>> to know.. nomatter what the status of the research,
and you should not operate under the assumption that there is a great
veil of secrecy. As long as you do, there will be no end-game.
>
>You must have an assertion of something without available evidence
>in order to require trust. A simple statement of "I can not talk
>about new computer product plans" has no element of 'Trust me' because
>I've made no assertion requiring your belief.
Like I said, I thought it was pretty self explainatory. Your analogy is
not entirely true if you consider that I operate under a different set of
rules than you do, namely, if I make an assertion requiring evidence, then
you bet I would give one. It is pretty self-evident why I didnt say "because"
(And I did not say..because I cant talk about it-if you believe that then
you will continue to misinterpret the original meaning of what I wrote)
Tell me why I should give evidence against the laws of nature. This is what
you were asking in the first place- "Tell me Mr.Nuclear Engineer...why?"
Was like asking why is the sky blue (scattering of molecules refracted from
the sun-earth POV) IMHO
>
>>My point is that every industry has a secrecy threshold.
>
>Yes, it does. There are several topics that I have secret knowledge
>about THAT I DO NOT EVER MENTION since to do so would put me in the
>problem state of needing to provide evidence I can not release OR
I never got in the problem you mentioned because the constraints you
placed on the problem were erroneous. You said Na/H20 when it was Na/Na
and closed system. You assumed my evidence was in support of the former,
but it was in support of the latter.
>asserting that it must be taken on trust. There are other things
>that I can talk about, but only in general terms.
>
Same here. You know I am willing to give general terms, but what you were
after was a little more IMHO. You see, this whole epilogue proved my point.
That even you must concede you do not know everything nor can provide
evidence or proof of everything. THis is like me stating to you..Tell me
why this very instant your computers aren't siphoning out my bank account
(nothing there) or ruining my credit rating....or causing great peril in
society. This is similar to what you asked me- on this end, a perceived
inocous question, no softball, no any ball.
BTW, when I play fungo, I throw the ball "up" to hit it. FYI.
>An example? I KNOW what the R&D is that is being done. I know who,
>by name. I know what product. I now planned product schedule ship
>date. I deliberately posted that I did not know (yes, 'disinformation')
>since that is what I must do to avoid opening a topic area I cannot
>discuss. In this case it was done, in part, so that if/when we reached
There you go. You just proved my point again. You see, this was what
I have been trying to convey to you all along. We talk the same language,
but hear a different message. This is probably due to the "inbred distrust"
of the nuclear industry, wheras people are learning very quickly how
computers can ruin their day. Dont worry, eventually, you computer engineers
will have to justify every little inocous detail if current trends continue.
>this point I could point back to it as an example of how to circumspectly
>talk about an area without violation of confidence.
>
Yes I can do that too, but why would I dance the tightrope. Remember, in
my business, its best to be conservative. Conservative in judgement, in
analysis, and primarily, in conduct of operations. THere is no dancing, or
skirting. THis is what I tried to convey, but to no avail.
>Notice that we danced about a very sensitive area, R&D Projects, that
>I never divulged any secret info, and that I did not make an assertion
>that required trust for it to be believed. (Until now, of course.
>Now that I've asserted that I DO know the project details, I've put
>myself in a position that I cannot support. This IS an example
>where 'Trust me' is the truth. I can't provide the proof of this.)
Again, we are operating under a different set of rules. R&D projects are
known at least on a superficial level by anyone who is willing to find
out the information. Notice the only "secret" info I ever skirted is not
really "secret" by what you or John know. It is really "preliminary", since
the work is "on-going" (thats why they call it research & DEVELOPMENT)
because the results are in "development" until such time, like John's
Pb/Na paper, that it becomes public. This is done to protect the technical
integrity of the lab.
You see Mike, if I found the answer to your question in the specific terms you
wanted, and they were contained int these "preliminary" redbacks,
(Why couldnt the core solidify?.H20/na?.Because these tests ,designs etc...)
then now could you see the couse of action. Its like Tom said, "You dont
know what the rules of conduct in a national lab are?"
>
>Do you now see the difference? I've provided an example of how to
>talk circumspectly about something, giving out LOTS of non-secret
>detail, hiding the secrets without requiring 'trust' or even leaving
>open that avenue of enquiry. I've also, with this posting, provided
>and example that DOES require trust. (And even explained the
>details of where to look to see the difference.) And put myself in
>a position where I can't post any more on the topic without endangering
>my employment or my credibility due to the 'Trust me' problem.
>
It seems that your level of 'trust' wrt to industry tolerance doesnt equate.
How do you build trust by "hiding" the details. This IS what "Trust me.."
is all about. Your last sentence is the crux of my argument. THank you for
clearing that up. You tried to put me in that position, and thats why I got
mad at your arrogance.
>>It seems there
>>is a double standard with nuclear. How do you balance the public's need
>>to know, with proprietary infomation? How do you balance forthrightness
>>and openness with the need for security? I don't have those answers.
>
>Hopefully you do now...
No. And I dont think you do, nor anyone does for that matter. Its called
a "Judgement Call". And the situation dictates the response, and is allways
changing (citing your R&D example)
>
>Yes. Sometimes you have to not say _anything_ about an area to DO
>know something about, to avoid opening a topic you cannot further
>talk about.
>
>Yes. Sometimes you have to flat out lie (as I did above in the
>disinformation example) to avoid a topic area. That is life in
>the fast lane.
Yes but as you know, I can swim with the sharks too. I wouldnt have made
it to where I am otherwise. But if I flat out lied, the stakes are a
little higher on my end, and then you are not in the fast lane, you are
in warp speed, covering your butt (some would argue-"Remember TMI?")
>
>E. Michael Smith e...@apple.COM
P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550
>In article <1993Aug19.2...@michael.apple.com> e...@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>>In article <CBzy...@frobozz.sccsi.com> ke...@frobozz.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>>>In article <1993Aug18.0...@michael.apple.com> e...@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>>>>In article <745606...@flash.ra.anl.gov> b41...@flash.ra.anl.gov (P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550) writes:
>>>>>In article <yar...@dixie.com> j...@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>>>>>>b41...@flash.ra.anl.gov (P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550) writes:
>>>>
>>>>>It is a <<Proprietary Issue>> similarly why IBM doesnt make
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>>its product available to Apple (Mike you listening?)
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>BTW, IBM and Apple have this joint development product, called
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>the Power PC, a result of Apple and IBM making their product
>>>>plans available to each other...
>>>
>>>Well, now, be fair. Are the details of this technology being released to
>>>the general public? If not, then it doesn't exactly count as an example
>>>of public release of information...
>>
>>Kevin, I have been completey fair. The question was not one of
>>release to general public, it was specifically IBM & Apple
>
>Dr. Angelo came up with that example under the assumption that IBM and
>Apple were competitors. Except for the Power PC project, they *are*
>competitors. I think his example still stands, if made more explicit
>with, e.g., the design of the Macintosh.
>
Right! I was thinking how Apple might be reluctant to share any R&D given
the MS Windows debacle, whereby the lawsuits claim MSWindows (IBM compatible)
stole Apple's GUI and market. :-)
IS this the same for Os-2?
>>Look up Kairetsu (or how ever the Japanese is transliterated...) and
>>see the movie Rising Sun...
>
>I plan on seeing the movie anyway. Is it any good?
>
It was fragmented, and the story line was predictable. Third act car
chase etc.... Twist at the end was predictable. Lots of Japan bashing by
Keitel. I gave it a 5/10. My wife liked it because it had Sean Connery.
>>E. Michael Smith e...@apple.COM
>
>
>--
>Kevin Brown ke...@frobozz.sccsi.com
>This is your .signature virus: < begin 644 .signature (9V]T8VAA(0K0z end >
> This is your .signature virus on drugs: <>
> Any questions?
____________________________________________________________________
P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550
>
I didn't know that an inanimate object like a nuclear plant, had a
moral conscience. When they get decomissioned do they go to nuclear
plant heaven/hell?
>Jim
>#include <disclaimers.h>
Don T. Borowski
sodium heat exchange loop, and thus the sodium inside the reactor would
not come in contact with water even if there were a failure in the
water-sodium heat exchanger. I was interested in how the water-sodium
heat exhanger was operated safely. I would have appreciated some
technical details. I had thought them to be novel, but as you just
said, they have be used in industry for some time. It would have been
good to have presented this information up front.
In reply to E. Michael Smith, when speaking about the uses of your
Cray supercomputer, you could state that it is being used to
simulate new computer designs, without revealing any proprietary
information. You could even state some general technical information,
such as "If you want to simulate another computer at its operating
speed, you need an even faster computer to do it, since a simulation
is not as 'efficient' as the operation of the real thing. Thus we
have a Cray computer to allow us to do these real time simulations."
(Not that I know that you are using your Cray this way.)
In a similar manner, I believe that Mr. Angelo could speak of his
work, satisfying the curiousity of us netters. An answer to the best
of his ability would certainly satisfy me. When the information
impinges on security/proprietary area, a general answer within the
constrains is sufficient, stating that no more can be said because
it is a sensitive area.
And all sides, how about just a little more human respect?
E. Michael Smith
>>Kevin, I have been completey fair. The question was not one of
>>release to general public, it was specifically IBM & Apple
>>sharing product information.
>
>Quite so. I guess I was reading a little more into what Dr. Angelo said
>than what he actually said,...
>The reason IBM and Apple are sharing information in the Power PC project
>is that they have an explicit contract to do so, do they not? But an
>individual on that project would not be permitted to release proprietary
>details of that project to the general public (e.g., via netnews) without
>either express permission of the powers that be or without risk to his
>job. And that, I think, is the relevance of the example, for if it doesn't
>apply to the case of releasing information to the public (e.g., via netnews),
>then it's not a relevant example at all.
Well, I think it falls into the last statement 'not a relevant example
at all' and I'm not inclined to 'project' more into the example
than was posted in order to make it work ...
>Dr. Angelo came up with that example under the assumption that IBM and
>Apple were competitors. Except for the Power PC project, they *are*
>competitors. I think his example still stands, if made more explicit
>with, e.g., the design of the Macintosh.
"His example would stand if changed." Yes, it would, but then it
wouldn't be the same example ...
>>Look up Kairetsu (or how ever the Japanese is transliterated...) and
>>see the movie Rising Sun...
>
>I plan on seeing the movie anyway. Is it any good?
Some of the secondary characters are overstrongly stereotyped, and
there a couple of loose ends in the movie that should have been
tied up (not the ones that add to the mystery, just some inconsistencies
in the plot line...), but all in all, I LOVED it.
Connery and Snipes do very good jobs. Snipes plays the role of junior
officer to Connery (and some folks have picked at him for playing a
'weak' role, but that, IMHO, was what the role was to communicate. I
think both did a great job.)
The movie had everything for me. Action, intrigue, mystery (with some
reversals and counter reversals of villan), character development (mostly
in the main characters, natch), sex, martial arts, and the exploration of
the collision of Japanese and American culture.
I don't know where the 'Japan bashing' reputation comes from. Yeah,
the Yakusa are over stereotyped, but by and large the Japanese business
men are protrayed as completely outclassing the Amercan Biz Boobs they
deal with. Looked more like "Americans are dolts" to me... There
was plenty of points for BOTH cultures to ponder about themselves...
Even if you don't like the rest of it, the movie is worth it just
to see Connery do his thing and for the action scenes. But it
really should be seen as a murder mystery. If you like 'who donnits'
this is a good one.
(What any of this post has to do with energy, at this point, is beyond
me...)
John De Armond
>>Right up to the point where you want to know what project a type
>>of usage is for. I don't know that, don't want to know it, and
>>if I did know it I couldn't tell you.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>You see how easy it is to get boxed. We go through that all the time.
>You know if I would have told you the last sentence, then you would
>have returned the old "Trust Me....
>My point is that every industry has a secrecy threshold. It seems there
>is a double standard with nuclear. How do you balance the public's need
>to know, with proprietary infomation? How do you balance forthrightness
>and openness with the need for security? I don't have those answers.
Of course, the minor detail is that Apple is private industry while you're
government and and everything you do belongs to us, the US citizens.
We generally need to have a little be more than "trust me, it's proprietary"
in order to accept now being allowed to see what we've bought (or more
accurately, accepted the debt on.) Mike could have perfectly reasonably
told you that nothing associated with Apple is any of your business.
You generally don't have that option.
James King
>In article <jimkingC...@netcom.com> jim...@netcom.com (James King) writes:
>>
>>>Howabout your source of power
>>
>>Hey, even I know that: Pacific gas and Electric, a good chunk of it from
>>the evil Diablo Canyon plants.
> ^^^^
>I didn't know that an inanimate object like a nuclear plant, had a
>moral conscience. When they get decomissioned do they go to nuclear
>plant heaven/hell?
>
>
>>Jim
>>#include <disclaimers.h>
>>
>>
Why, if you come visit us here in Santa Cruz (CA), many folks can enlighten you
on the evils of technology, all technology, and most especially the nuclear
daemons. Now Grateful Dead CD players ain't technology; they're a natural part
of Right Living, and the electricity that goes into them is good and moral
since it goes to a good purpose. But PG&E that make sthe electricity is evil
because it's a power company (and runs those evil Diablo Canyon reactors).
Don't you know that all forms of technology have a moral character completely
independent of what people do with these tools -- good technology gives you a
warm fuzzy feeling and doesn't have any problems -- bad technology is what
THEY do and they want you to give them money and somebody is drinking black
coffee at 3 AM and looking at the numbers one more time to see if they are sure
of all the facts before they make a decision.
Jim
I don't need no stinkin' disclaimers. :-)
John De Armond
>Yes, but you countered, "And if I did know that, I couldnt tell you.."
>Lets suppose a) you didnt know it, fine. b) you did know it ; then here
>is where I have a problem with your double standard; It is your use otf
>the word "could". This is the key word which is the crux of the misunder-
>standing. You see, its irelevant if you knew or didnt know, the fact
>that "could" was used instead of "would" (conditional), or "should (not)"
>(which is an optional directive), or "shall (not)" which is a command,
>gives you the option of dictaiting the terms of divulging information. It
>also is ambiguous wrt the explaination because it leads the reader to
>believe you are deliberatly withholding information.
I think it might be constructive in this, my last post in this thread,
to reign the scope back to what started this debate. Peter, this
debate had nothing to do with Applied Technology or national security
or any of the other tangents you've tried to divert this thread off
on in order to worm out from under your initial bluster. Here is
what you said in two separate posts that got this "I've got a secret"
thread going:
>The IHX is connected by a Z-pipe which is also in the pool. The shell side
>of the IHX goes to another HX connected to the plant secondary system.
>I really cant get into the specifics of the plant design, for obvious reasons,
>however I will state that this reactor is 30 years old. I also bellieve I
>had a typo, its 750 deg F.
....
>For the mere fact that the volume of Na is large enough that the
energy can't
>be lost fast enough. Basic heat transfer and thermodynamics. I think with
>30 years operating experience, EBR-II (not IFR BTW) has demonstrated from
>fuel cycle to fuel cycle (I think the number of startups and extended shutdowns
>range in the hundreds) that sufficient safeguards exist to keep such a
>fantastical scenario from happening. I can understand your lack of information
>on plant design, just as I cant comment on how you run your magazine on
>a day-to-day basis. Be advised, I don't want to tread on my employer wrt
>to information NOT in the public domain. Somethings are better left proprietary
>for obvious reasons (national security).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
To summarize, when asked why the IFR pool could not solidify and how
water would be kept out of the containment sodium pool, you tell us
there is a big pool of sodium with a Z-pipe. Then when pressed for
more details, you hide behind "It's a secret" and slap the National
Security label on everything else. Then later on, of course, you claimed
it not to be national security but commercial propriety, a strange
concept for a taxpayer-funded project. Fortunately Tom came through
with the level of detail most people were wanting.
Well, this is the end of my contribution to this thread. Like Mike,
I have grown weary and the fun's gone so onward to the next debate.
Maybe I'll un-killfile Yackadam for some lightweight debate :-)
P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550
>In reply to Peter L. Angelo, I did understand that there is a sodium-to-
>sodium heat exchange loop, and thus the sodium inside the reactor would
>not come in contact with water even if there were a failure in the
>water-sodium heat exchanger. I was interested in how the water-sodium
>heat exhanger was operated safely. I would have appreciated some
>technical details. I had thought them to be novel, but as you just
>said, they have be used in industry for some time. It would have been
>good to have presented this information up front.
>
It operates very safely, OUTSIDE the reactor building. I thought this was
presented up front. Recall, when I said Na-H20 could not happen, you should
have read the previous post. Miscommunication occured and misperception occured
when a bell and whistle went off in Smiths head viz a viz dodge, skirt, etc.
You forget, it is a privledge for me to be on this net; not to many DOE
sites have that luxury. (Savanah River is not connected, in fact, many
nuclear sites remain disconnected, so no worry here of the "1000's of employers
lurking.." BTW I think SNL has to go through GT or BITNET, any LANL, LLNL
out there??
>In reply to E. Michael Smith, when speaking about the uses of your
>Cray supercomputer, you could state that it is being used to
>simulate new computer designs, without revealing any proprietary
>information. You could even state some general technical information,
>such as "If you want to simulate another computer at its operating
>speed, you need an even faster computer to do it, since a simulation
>is not as 'efficient' as the operation of the real thing. Thus we
>have a Cray computer to allow us to do these real time simulations."
>(Not that I know that you are using your Cray this way.)
>
>In a similar manner, I believe that Mr. Angelo could speak of his
>work, satisfying the curiousity of us netters. An answer to the best
>of his ability would certainly satisfy me. When the information
>impinges on security/proprietary area, a general answer within the
>constrains is sufficient, stating that no more can be said because
>it is a sensitive area.
>
If you can explain that to management here, then maybe you can work here.
I dont think they see it the same way you do. :-)
>And all sides, how about just a little more human respect?
Agreed. Nothing is gained by playing games and deception, especially with
misrepresenting ones cause in the interest of developing good debating
skills.
>
>
>Donald Borowski WA6OMI Hewlett-Packard, Spokane Division
>"Angels are able to fly because they take themselves so lightly."
> -G.K. Chesterton
>
____________________________________________________________________
Tipton, Knights Fan Extraordinaire
>sites have that luxury. (Savanah River is not connected, in fact, many
Savannah River Site is connected to the Internet on a limited basis. The
reason why it has not been for so long is the lack of a dedicated computer for
outside connections. W/ classified/controlled info on most systems, they
don't want outside connections for obvious reasons.
>nuclear sites remain disconnected, so no worry here of the "1000's of employers
>lurking.." BTW I think SNL has to go through GT or BITNET, any LANL, LLNL
>out there??
I'm pretty sure that LLNL and LANL can both get to the Internet, but I'm not
sure.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew W. Tipton | Bachelor of Nuclear |EIT, USDoE/Savannah River Site
gt2...@prism.gatech.edu| Engineering-June 1994 | b7...@sn1202.srs.gov
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: None of these are the opinions of Georgia Tech, the U.S.
Department of Energy, or Westinghouse Savannah River Co.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Good times, and witches, and SonofaBitches, I've known more than I can recall"
-Jimmy Buffett, "Changes In Latitudes..."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mail to b7081@sn1202 _will_ bounce. That account is not currently set up for
outside-internet access.
P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550
>>
>>|> >Since the plant was first fired up 30 yrs ago, and I was 4, well I have
>>|>
>>|> Ah, a 26 year old young pup wet behind the ears. That explains a lot...
>
>>This is what happens when you let comuters do all of your arithmatic for you!!
>
>Yup. Guilty as charged. You'd hardly think I got a BofA Math Award
>and Ca. State Scholarship... (which I did). I've also noticed that
>I've gotten much sloppier about math since I became a manager and had
>to deal with people problems all day long instead of technical ones.
>
>Oh well, if a sign inversion is the worst error it make this week,
>I'll be happy.
>
I think that this is a classic example of where "Attention to detail" is
lax. I think you, I, and the rest of the world can conclude that something
as inocuous as a sign change may be an indication that your original inter-
pretation which BTW lead us down the primrose path, has as much care as
the math you just demonstrated. Attention to detail IS IMPORTANT, and should
carry over to everything you do.
>E. Michael Smith e...@apple.COM
P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550
I never said "Trust me..its proprietary..." Look, you even cited
an ANL study comparing and contrasting Pb/Na cores, and before you
could even go down to Georgia Tech to look at the article, which BTW
was make public through conference proceedings, it was "propietary " in
the sense that the work is considered "preliminary" until such time that
it can be validated/blessed. I think you missed the whole point of the
exercise. As Americans, we have the right to know that information which
affects us directly. Its called getting a court order of disclosure or
"Government in the Sunshine Act" Its why no more than 3 NRC commissioners
could ever meet together. You should know that. BTW, I work for a <<Private>>
contractor. Just as if Geo Tech procurs DOE support for the Neely reactor,
do you think Karam et al would publish anything w/o internal review (peer
review included)? I doubt it. I think you are comparing "Apple"(s) and
oranges in this case, and are pretty far off base :-)
P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550
I grew up in the Bay Area. We had our HS senior ditch day at the SCruz Beach
way back in 77. Good Times. I know Santa Cruz is a tremendous Bohemian
Colony, which BTW is the same as Berkely/Haight-Ashbury in the 60's. UCSanta
Cruz doesnt give out grades, but <<evaluations>>. Its also the same school
where some feminist wanted the <<female sign>> (woman in dress) taken off
the bathroom doors, right? Aside from some pretty good surf at Pescadero,
there isnt much there. Real civilization begins past Soquel Ave towards
Capitola. I think I know your neck of the woods better than you think. :-)
P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550
>In article <7461155...@flash.ra.anl.gov> b41...@flash.ra.anl.gov (P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550) writes:
>>sites have that luxury. (Savanah River is not connected, in fact, many
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Savannah River Site is connected to the Internet on a limited basis. The
>reason why it has not been for so long is the lack of a dedicated computer for
>outside connections. W/ classified/controlled info on most systems, they
Someone tell DeArmond this. I think when the protagonists realize
things arent as open as they like, they get hostile to the point of
a red herring.