3 ms·

Good idea. "At 19:47 high temperature liquid sodium coolant at one of the three secondary heat exchangers started leaking through a broken thermometer sheath .

Good idea. "At 19:47 high temperature liquid sodium coolant at one of the three secondary heat exchangers started leaking through a broken thermometer sheath ... on the piping and it ignited on contact with air." https://onlineethics.org/cases/case-1-fire-sodium-coolant-leak-prototype-fast-breeder-reactor-monju https://onlineethics.org/cases/case-1-fire-sodium-coolant-le...

credit_guy 5y ago
That's a good catch. For some reason I was thinking of room-temperature sodium, but of course the liquid sodium from sodium cooled nuclear reactors is hot, and apparently burns in contact with the air. If you read more closely though the article you linked to, you'll see that the complaint there was not the fire in particular (which caused some damage, but no radioactive leaks), but the claim of the plant operators that the plant was "absolutely safe", and the attempt of a cover-up. In other words, the safety of this plant was judged not in comparison with the safety of a conventional water-cooled reactor, but in comparison with an absurd goal of "absolute safety". When people hear the sodium can cause fire when in contact with the air, they immediately remember the spectacular explosions of sodium in contact with water. Then they assume a sodium cooled reactor is a beast that only a madman would contemplate. In reality, sodium cooled reactors are not any worse than water-cooled reactors. All reactors present various challenges, and some of the challenges faced by sodium cooled reactors will be higher, and some lower than those facing water-cooled reactors. But sodium cooled reactors have an absolutely tremendous advantage: most of the fissile material they use as fuel (be it Uranium or Plutonium) does undergo fission and creates fission products, as opposed to actinides. Bottom line: the nuclear waste from sodium cooled reactors (and all types of fast neutron reactors) is much, much more manageable than the nuclear waste of conventional nuclear reactors.
- Gravityloss 5y ago
  If you use a steam turbines, the sodium would be potentially in contact with water easily, on different sides of the wall in the heat exchanger with a lot of surface area etc. I wonder if you used a CO2 turbine instead...
  - Trouble_007 5y ago
    (circa:1957) The Sodium Reactor Experiment : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_Reactor_Experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_Reactor_Experiment Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-cooled_fast_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-cooled_fast_reactor

credit_guy 5y ago

That's a good catch. For some reason I was thinking of room-temperature sodium, but of course the liquid sodium from sodium cooled nuclear reactors is hot, and apparently burns in contact with the air. If you read more closely though the article you linked to, you'll see that the complaint there was not the fire in particular (which caused some damage, but no radioactive leaks), but the claim of the plant operators that the plant was "absolutely safe", and the attempt of a cover-up. In other words, the safety of this plant was judged not in comparison with the safety of a conventional water-cooled reactor, but in comparison with an absurd goal of "absolute safety". When people hear the sodium can cause fire when in contact with the air, they immediately remember the spectacular explosions of sodium in contact with water. Then they assume a sodium cooled reactor is a beast that only a madman would contemplate. In reality, sodium cooled reactors are not any worse than water-cooled reactors. All reactors present various challenges, and some of the challenges faced by sodium cooled reactors will be higher, and some lower than those facing water-cooled reactors. But sodium cooled reactors have an absolutely tremendous advantage: most of the fissile material they use as fuel (be it Uranium or Plutonium) does undergo fission and creates fission products, as opposed to actinides. Bottom line: the nuclear waste from sodium cooled reactors (and all types of fast neutron reactors) is much, much more manageable than the nuclear waste of conventional nuclear reactors.

Gravityloss 5y ago
If you use a steam turbines, the sodium would be potentially in contact with water easily, on different sides of the wall in the heat exchanger with a lot of surface area etc. I wonder if you used a CO2 turbine instead...
- Trouble_007 5y ago
  (circa:1957) The Sodium Reactor Experiment : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_Reactor_Experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_Reactor_Experiment Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-cooled_fast_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-cooled_fast_reactor