Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!ritcv!cci632!ccird1!rb
From: rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard)
Newsgroups: net.sci
Subject: Safe Reactors?
Message-ID: <421@ccird1.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 14-May-86 18:29:13 EDT
Article-I.D.: ccird1.421
Posted: Wed May 14 18:29:13 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 16-May-86 03:59:57 EDT
References: <226@prometheus.UUCP>
Reply-To: rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard)
Organization: CCI Rochester Development, Rochester NY
Lines: 49
Keywords: Soviet Union, nuclear fire, nuclear reactors
Summary: Are there any which are safer than others?

This article, and the Chernobel incident along with the 3 mile
Island incident has prompted me to as this question.

In article <226@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) writes:
>The graphite reactors run hotter than do the water bath variety
>here. In this incident the following scenario is more or less
>likely.
> The graphite can reach temperatures of 4000 degrees
>
OK, this article mentions the graphite reactor, which wasn't too safe.
It also mentions the BWR reactors (like 3 mile Island :-).
There are also the Sodium (or "breeder") Reactors which run even hotter
than graphite?

What about the Fort St Vrain "argon/freon" reactor in Colorado?  Is
this design any safer?  Is the Ft. St. Vrain reactor info included
in descriptions of reactors?  Are there any other such reactors?

What other options are available to make a really safe reactor?

Would smaller reactors be better than large ones?

I'm curious as to whether the "Boiling water is best" approach
taken by the navy in their "boat powerplants" is really apropriate
in the context of large plants, often located near populated areas.

I often wonder if safety is really a primary consideration when
these plants are designed (It was for Ft. St. Vrain).

If smaller piles, or "self feeding half/breeders" are better than
BWR, are there ways to more efficiently convert fission energy into
other forms of energy?

Are there any materials or elements which become "unradioactive"
when they are removed from the core cirulation (Argon?).

If a truly safe design were possible, would it be less costly
in terms of legal hassles to use this, rather than a cheaper
but more contriversial BWR design?

Obviously, I don't know much (anything) about nuclear physics,
but it would be nice to know if this form of energy could be
used more safely in other ways.

I was living in Colorado when the Three Mile Island plant went
nuts, and the issue was raised.  Public Service Company spokesmen
pointed out that they had rejected a number of "popular" designs
because they didn't believe they were "safe enough".  Was this
just PR, or is the argon/freon design really safe?