5 ms·
Here you go: https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:32030458 https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:32030458 and this: https://www.scie
by max002 5y ago
Here you go:
https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:32030458 https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:32030458
and this:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/cladding-material https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/cladding-ma...
and this:
https://news.mit.edu/2013/better-cladding-for-nuclear-reactors-0726 https://news.mit.edu/2013/better-cladding-for-nuclear-reacto... <-2013... and still most if not all plants use zircaloy, here how safe are your plants.
Once we have cladding that doesn't degrade making us to store (somewhere?) damaged rods along with all water and fuel i'll become fan of nuclear. For now it's just too dangerous. I bet if all that money would be spent on water, solar and hydro it'd be enough to cover our growing energy needs. Especially using energy from sea (gravitation you know) :)
Girls and guys and atomic energy fans, downvote as much as you want. It won't change reality. Current technology used for rods cladding degrades as time passes. Its not just accidents. If you think its just accidents that is the problem with atomic power then you didn't get into subject deep enough. Go and learn. Add eartquake and Tsunami's and yeah... you have another Fukushima or worse.
Have you ever asked yourself why we still don't use and wont use for a very long time nuclear in space missions?
Well, that's one of the reasons. Radiation will "eat through" materials with time.
- oneoff786 5y agoCurious if that last comment is true or logical. It sounds wrong but I’m not an expert. I don’t think we have any long term space missions for which power is a serious concern not easily solved with simple solar panels?
- max002 5y agoIt's about manned missions. The weight of materials needed to protect them from radiation is just too much with current tech. Here you have the logic.
- max002 5y agohttps://news.mit.edu/2013/better-cladding-for-nuclear-reactors-0726 https://news.mit.edu/2013/better-cladding-for-nuclear-reacto...
- wumpus 5y agoMissions to Jupiter recently have used solar panels, but anything farther has thus far been RTGs, something which the US has very limited fuel for.
- shawnz 5y agoWhat about RTGs which are common in space use? See also https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_systems_in_space https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_system...
- wumpus 5y agoWhat about them? It's a very different technology from nuclear reactors.
- shawnz 5y agoThe OP's argument about radiation degrading materials should apply whether or not it is a fission reactor, shouldn't it? And the page I linked does show some fission reactors which have been used in space as well.
- max002 5y agoThe link was there mostly for cladding of rods thats corroding.
- hcurtiss 5y agoWe’ve been running nukes in submarines and aircraft carriers for literally decades without major incident.
- wumpus 5y agoIs it OK to count Soviet accidents with the same technology, or should we pretend they didn't happen?
- max002 5y agoThey do not stand still on ground on place with major continental fault lines. https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/11/us/radioactive-soviet-submarine-leak-trnd/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/11/us/radioactive-soviet-sub... did you say something about running safely boats... ahh, so for you dangerous amounts of radiation leaking into sea is not a major incident? or accident?
- max002 5y agoAs wumpus said, we will never know about many soviet accidents. Im not sure ifnin today's russia or china such incidents... I think ifnthey could they try to hide it.
- Hextinium 5y agoThese fuel claddings already exist in the form of TRISO fuel for pebble bed reactors which are the next reactor generation. They should be able to contain reactor meltdown products on their own preventing the nuclear lava of Chernobyl and simplifying fuel handling.