Talk:Natrium reactor: Difference between revisions
m (→Safety of Sodium-cooled reactors: remove unecessary ( )) |
(→Safety of Sodium-cooled reactors: add response from Blomquist) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Sodium proponents make claims such as "walk away safe" (but in my opinion, make such claims are irresponsible and without good engineering evidence). | Sodium proponents make claims such as "walk away safe" (but in my opinion, make such claims are irresponsible and without good engineering evidence). | ||
I respect evidence and the factual accumulated record of multiple decades of reactor operating history. | I respect evidence and the factual accumulated record of multiple decades of reactor operating history. | ||
SFRs (Sodium-cooled Fast Reactors) have been built for now 70 years, and anyone having a serious interest should take the time to examine the | SFRs (Sodium-cooled Fast Reactors) have been built for now 70 years, and anyone having a serious interest should take the time to examine the [https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/fast-neutron-reactors.aspx operating safety record] for SFRs as a reactor class. | ||
https://world-nuclear.org/ | |||
Conclusion - approximately half of the SFRs constructed over seven decades had their operating lives shortened by a safety-related accident or incident. This is a vastly inferior safety record to any other current reactor class. | Conclusion - approximately half of the SFRs constructed over seven decades had their operating lives shortened by a safety-related accident or incident. This is a vastly inferior safety record to any other current reactor class. | ||
My specific safety concerns for sodium-cooled reactors are in [https://www.quora.com/Is-BN-800 | My specific safety concerns for sodium-cooled reactors are in | ||
[https://www.quora.com/Is-BN-800-the-best-nuclear-reactor-for-now/answer/Robert-Steinhaus The case for not building large numbers of Sodium Cooled Fast Reactors] | |||
'''Response:''' | '''Response:''' from Captain Roger Blomquist, United States Navy (retired) email 19-Feb-2924<br> | ||
Robert Steinhaus, a Liquid Fluoride Thorium (molten salt) Reactor (LFTR) advocate, has argued that these tests do little to demonstrate passive safety because they were conducted with VIPs present and under ideal operational conditions. In other words, they were public relation stunts, not realistic accident scenarios. In my experience, all reactors are operated under conditions that are the starting points for accident scenario safety analyses. And for many reactors, operating outside of the safety case operating envelope results in an automatic shutdown. Of course, all experimentalists aspire to provide repeatability and precision – it’s good experiment design. I expect an LFTR prototype will also do so in similar full-system tests to support licensing. And I would be very surprised if an LFTR safety demonstration test were conducted without VIPs and journalists present. Perhaps Dr. Steinhaus can suggest some additional specific operational constraints for future tests. | |||
Latest revision as of 15:16, 19 February 2024
Safety of Sodium-cooled reactors
Statement: by Robert Steinhaus, former physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the FaceBook forum
Molten Salt Reactors
Sodium proponents make claims such as "walk away safe" (but in my opinion, make such claims are irresponsible and without good engineering evidence).
I respect evidence and the factual accumulated record of multiple decades of reactor operating history.
SFRs (Sodium-cooled Fast Reactors) have been built for now 70 years, and anyone having a serious interest should take the time to examine the operating safety record for SFRs as a reactor class.
Conclusion - approximately half of the SFRs constructed over seven decades had their operating lives shortened by a safety-related accident or incident. This is a vastly inferior safety record to any other current reactor class. My specific safety concerns for sodium-cooled reactors are in The case for not building large numbers of Sodium Cooled Fast Reactors
Response: from Captain Roger Blomquist, United States Navy (retired) email 19-Feb-2924
Robert Steinhaus, a Liquid Fluoride Thorium (molten salt) Reactor (LFTR) advocate, has argued that these tests do little to demonstrate passive safety because they were conducted with VIPs present and under ideal operational conditions. In other words, they were public relation stunts, not realistic accident scenarios. In my experience, all reactors are operated under conditions that are the starting points for accident scenario safety analyses. And for many reactors, operating outside of the safety case operating envelope results in an automatic shutdown. Of course, all experimentalists aspire to provide repeatability and precision – it’s good experiment design. I expect an LFTR prototype will also do so in similar full-system tests to support licensing. And I would be very surprised if an LFTR safety demonstration test were conducted without VIPs and journalists present. Perhaps Dr. Steinhaus can suggest some additional specific operational constraints for future tests.
- Article with Definition
- Physics Category Check
- Engineering Category Check
- Developing Articles
- Nonstub Articles
- Internal Articles
- Physics Developing Articles
- Physics Nonstub Articles
- Physics Internal Articles
- Engineering Developing Articles
- Engineering Nonstub Articles
- Engineering Internal Articles
- Physics Underlinked Articles
- Underlinked Articles
- Engineering Underlinked Articles
- Nuclear Engineering tag