3 ms·

I'm not sure how much heat a typical commercial nuclear reactor designed for power generation produces, but the reactors at Hanford and Savannah River (used for

I'm not sure how much heat a typical commercial nuclear reactor designed for power generation produces, but the reactors at Hanford and Savannah River (used for plutonium production, not power[1]) generated heat measured in gigawatts[2]. That's why they were built next to large rivers - because of the massive cooling requirements. Maybe you were taking that into account, or maybe heat production drops by a factor of 1000 during an unexpected shutdown, but I read your comment as being that the design you have in mind is limited to a few megawatts. [1] Except for the N reactor, which was dual-use. [2] https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/pu50yc.html https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/pu50yc.html

ChuckMcM 8y ago
I was specifically commenting on the spent fuel pool which generates much less heat (at most about megawatt as far as I can find in the literature). However those pools have been a source of issues at Fukishima as there were some indications that the pool could reach criticality under the loss of cooling. (which rapidly escalates the heat production!) The referenced video talks about cooling the spent fuel passively for 72 hrs and then having to turn on a pump to add more water. (it doesn't say where the steam is going, presumably its being vented) So that got me thinking about letting the steam go through pipes forming a heat exchanger (either in the ground or in the air, and after this discussion the air would be better) so that as it condensed it could be returned to the spent fuel pond rather than lost.