BTW there’s a post lost out there somewhere in which I tell you that I’m soooo happy your previous post about SUV’s was a joke.

Oldnuke

I still think the technology might have been eventually safe and doable … but I doubt we will ever get there after allowing a bunch of greenie retards to regulate things they know nothing about.

Kristopher on December 10, 2007 at 4:27 PM

I’ll believe this when I see it. :-)

BTW there’s a post lost out there somewhere in which I tell you that I’m soooo happy your previous post about SUV’s was a joke.

Never mind.

Thank you for your co-operation.

doriangrey on December 8, 2007 at 4:28 AM

My only issue with your long, well thought out potential doomsday scenario is that I doubt humans will sit idly by and get crushed by a 2 mile high wall of ice moving however many miles per year. Much of the equatorial and tropical regions of the earth will still be habitable, and the likelihood is with our current technology you might be able to turn the glaciers into a useful resource still, either as cold storage tunnels or something. You could probably grow some form of low-light plant material in them if you could set up artificial sunlight.

If you found a way to melt the glacier into a controlled stream of water you could even have more hydroelectic capability. We’ve come a long way since the last Ice Age. There are enough brilliant people who could find a way to use an oversized ice cube.

Kristopher on December 9, 2007 at 11:45 PM

Please tell me you’re joking.

Oldnuke

I was joking.

I use the Nuclear SUV argument to freak greens.

Next time I’ll use a hyperbole tag … humor and sarcasm is difficult to detect in posts … my bad.

I do think it would be possible to make more use of SNAP generators … we do need to find some use for heat producing “waste”.

Letting the stuff boil high level waste is far more dangerous than putting it to use.

OBTW I’ve been digging around and can still find no reference to tritium in the exhausts of either NERVA or KIWI. I did, however, find plenty of reference to core material being ejected as part of the exhaust due to vibration and erosion. I understand now where you got the idea but those government guidelines probably had a lot of useless information in them. That’s why most utilities massage their own ODC manuals and weed out the crap that the government stuck in unnecessarily.

Please tell me you’re joking.

Oldnuke on December 10, 2007 at 1:06 AM

That one kind of jangled me a bit as well. I mean I know its been a while since I got out of the industry but I haver never heard of any reactor technology that uses Strontium 90 as a feed stock.

I remember reading that thorium 90 was one of the proposed feed stocks for the pebble bed reactors, but nothing I have ever read suggests that it was actually used. Furthermore considering the tennis ball sized requirement for the pebbles in a pebble bed I cant imagine how a pebble bed could possible be made small enough to power a SUV.

To top it off I cant imagine anyone being crazy enough to put anything as dangerous as Strontium 90 in a motor vehicle where the reactor was exposed to the dangers of a accident that could release Strontium 90 into the atmosphere.

I like this story, mostly because it proves that people can change their minds as the facts warrant.

Bryan – as you might have realised by now, issues prompting left wing anger work on a sliding scale scale.

“Injustice to rich white males” sits neatly at the bottom – just below “Anti-Christian bigoty”, “Pedofile rights” and anti-semitism.

“Anti-nuclear activism” is rather yesterday’s issue. There’s little “progressive” mileage in it these day…little opertunity for lefties to show “how much they care” (i.e. go on marches and try to get laid).

These days, left wing rage is focussed on Global Warming, which falls just beneath Islamophobia and a few select buddies at the top of the sliding scale. This means that it trumps most other concerns.

To illustrate, if it was shown that production of a new drug paraplegia drug created carbon emissions, it would have to be banned. Advocacy for the disabled falls beneath global warming on the scale.

However, when the left realise that nuclear energy will diminish the political power of Chavez, Ahmadinejad and the Muslim world, it will be quietly forgotten.

Global warming has actually been losing traction as an issue since Live 8 ensured its mainstreaming.

This means that the left will need a popular new cause to replace it.

I’ve long predicted that pedophilia will rise up the scale. It is one of the few issues that will cause genuine moral offence to decent people. It is therefore ideal as a militant cause celebre.

PedoAid 2010 could yet be a reality.

Kristopher on December 9, 2007 at 11:45 PM

Please tell me you’re joking.

The big problem with storing high grade radioactive waste is the Sr-90 and other heat producing isotopes … they make the waste slowly boil.

If that portion of the waste is removed and used run low capacity small power plants, we get two wins. The high ngrade waste can be stored and ignored ( instead of monitored ), and we get portable safe nuclear batteries.

I could see a pebblebed Sr-90 reactor powering a large SUV …

gekkobear on December 9, 2007 at 4:51 PM

Yup most of the global warming crowd have the Gore mentality, which is everyone else needs to reduce their carbon footprint while he increases his, which BTW, was already about 100 times larger than the average Americans.

I’ll take these scandalous douche bag crooks serious when they quite buying carbon offset and actually reduce their carbon footprints to around the size of mine, but they can go to hel1 if they think I am reducing mine so they can increase theirs or continue to have a carbon footprint 100 times greater than mine.

So long as nearly everyone who claimed to believe in Global Warming, believe the direst of predictions (that we’d need to cut CO2 Production by 85% worldwide, 97% in the U.S. by 2050 per the IPCC for example); and was still militantly incapable of being serious about the problem, or any realistic or noticeable solution… it was clear that even they didn’t take themselves seriously.

If they do start taking themselves seriously, promoting real plans with noticeable CO2 reduction and significant changes; I might have to reevaluate the situation.

I have to say it was easier to decide on what to do when both the pro-GW and anti-GW crowds were both promoting not taking the problem seriously.

doriangrey on December 9, 2007 at 3:56 PM

Dang it…

NERVA and KIWI both used plain hydrogen.

was not suppose to be NERVA and KIWI both used plain hydrogen.…

Oldnuke on December 9, 2007 at 1:40 PM

Are you assuming that any nuclear propulsion system is going to use tritium?

Thats a tricky one, it does seem to be the direction most designers are heading. The ability to use D/T as a catalyst with LOX as an after burn agent seems to be quite appealing.

NERVA and KIWI both used plain hydrogen.

True, however I am basing my assumptions regarding the tritium levels in the NERVA exhaust on documentation from Los Alamos National Laboratory abstracts regarding tritium exposure guidelines for the NERVA/Rover project.

Since they were not using tritium as a fuel catalyst yet implemented tritium exposure guidelines my personal experience as a health physics technician suggests to me that they were detecting substantially toxic tritium levels in their exhaust.

There had to be tritium coming from somewhere, or they would not have implemented tritium exposure guidelines. My best estimate/guess was the incorporation of lithium-hydride into the tie-tubes resulted in tritium production in the core which meant tritium in the exhaust plume.

doriangrey on December 9, 2007 at 1:07 PM

You’re right tritium was mentioned in that report. However it had nothing to do with the abandoned nuclear rockets and their emissions. What this report indicates is a propulsion system that utilizes tritium as reaction mass. A different type propulsion altogether. Perhaps I misunderstood your comment “You do realize that a nuclear rocket launched in the earths atmosphere is going to give off a tritium vapor trail right?” Where exactly is the tritium coming from? Are you assuming that any nuclear propulsion system is going to use tritium? NERVA and KIWI both used plain hydrogen.

From everything I’ve read or seen the nuclear rocket program was abandoned because it was expensive, had too many engineering problems mainly vibration stress and corrosion/erosion problems with the fuel elements and the big one politics. It had nothing to do with a tritium vapor trail. It’s still a bad idea on every level, just not due to tritium.

Oldnuke on December 9, 2007 at 12:55 PM

When NERVA was canceled one of the main reasons given was the radioactive exhaust, they didn’t specifically state the tritium vapor trail. However it was covered in this report.

3.2 – TRITIUM IN SPACE
Tritium is biologically active, about 9600 Ci/gram, and must not be released in the atmosphere.
5 kilograms of tritium is about equivalent, in Curies, to the biologically active Chernobyl release.
Its biological hazard potential, however, is much less.
Page 7
Because of mass limitations, DT reactors in space would probably not be able to support a blanket
to breed tritium, or recover tritium from the escaping plasma of a direct fusion rocket.
The fuel burn-up fraction for magnetic DT reactors is likely to lie between 0.05

doriangrey on December 9, 2007 at 12:02 PM

Just my opinion but I’d suggest you find a different source.

Here’s one about tritium production.

Tritium is produced in commercial reactors from the absorption of a neutron by Li-6 not by irradiating hydrogen. One of the reasons light water was chosen as a moderator is that it has a very low absorption co-efficient. That means it doesn’t absorb neutrons which would be necessary not once but twice to get tritium.

From everything I’ve read or seen the nuclear rocket program was abandoned because it was expensive, had too many engineering problems mainly vibration stress and corrosion/erosion problems with the fuel elements and the big one politics. It had nothing to do with a tritium vapor trail. It’s still a bad idea on every level, just not due to tritium.

Exactly how would tritium be produced in a nuclear rocket using hydrogen for reaction mass?

How is the secondary side a PWR considered an open vs. a closed system. What’s open about it?

What source are you using that tells you that the NERVA or KIWI Projects were abandoned because of excessive tritium production?

Water is used as a coolant in all commercial reactors in the U.S. (except Ft. St. Vrain which was shut down long ago). Water contains a lot of hydrogen. The only thing separating that water from the uranium is the cladding. Neutron flux is very high in the core of a reactor yet primary production of tritium is not from irradiation of hydrogen. That’s because hydrogen has a very low absorption coefficient for neutrons of any energy level. How would this differ in a nuclear rocket using hydrogen as reaction mass?

Oldnuke on December 9, 2007 at 3:01 AM

Follow this thread and its links and you will see where my assertions are coming from..

doriangrey on December 8, 2007 at 9:18 PM

Exactly how would tritium be produced in a nuclear rocket using hydrogen for reaction mass?

How is the secondary side a PWR considered an open vs. a closed system. What’s open about it?

What source are you using that tells you that the NERVA or KIWI Projects were abandoned because of excessive tritium production?

Water is used as a coolant in all commercial reactors in the U.S. (except Ft. St. Vrain which was shut down long ago). Water contains a lot of hydrogen. The only thing separating that water from the uranium is the cladding. Neutron flux is very high in the core of a reactor yet primary production of tritium is not from irradiation of hydrogen. That’s because hydrogen has a very low absorption coefficient for neutrons of any energy level. How would this differ in a nuclear rocket using hydrogen as reaction mass?

Firstly, you are a lier.
Secondly, I’ve challenged you directly multiple times to give me specific examples of this “evidence” – and each time you’ve ignored it.
Thirdly, you’ve presented yourself a self-proclaimed “expert” about nuclear energy, when it’s apparent you are “somewhat familiar” with the concepts – but in no way a true expert.
fourthly, you’ve repeatedly presented incorrect information as fact, when it is not, and have ignored or otherwise refused to acknowledge that you’ve done so.
Overall you leave me with the impression of an old, stubborn, arrogant, crotchety, know-it-all.

KMC1 on December 8, 2007 at 10:39 PM

So you claim, your claims lack any substance however. In fact they are nothing but empty claims and threats.

Eventually you’ll learn to ignore him.

KMC1 on December 8, 2007 at 10:39 PM

Like you have learned to do? Good looking out their bucko…

c6gunner on December 8, 2007 at 8:49 PM

Eventually you’ll learn to ignore him.

doriangrey on December 8, 2007 at 4:18 PM

Firstly, you are a lier.
Secondly, I’ve challenged you directly multiple times to give me specific examples of this “evidence” – and each time you’ve ignored it.
Thirdly, you’ve presented yourself a self-proclaimed “expert” about nuclear energy, when it’s apparent you are “somewhat familiar” with the concepts – but in no way a true expert.
fourthly, you’ve repeatedly presented incorrect information as fact, when it is not, and have ignored or otherwise refused to acknowledge that you’ve done so.
Overall you leave me with the impression of an old, stubborn, arrogant, crotchety, know-it-all.

I’m pretty sure the problem was worked out anyway by simply separating the reaction gas from the fissile material. There’s no need to irradiate it if you design the engine correctly. After all, we use water to cool nuclear reactors and to provide the steam which drives the turbines, but we don’t end up with tons and tons of radioactive water as a waste product.

c6gunner on December 8, 2007 at 8:49 PM

Doesn’t quite work the same, the reaction gas has to pass through the core for two different reasons. 1) the reactions gas is the coolant. 2) the reaction gas has to be heated to approximately 2500 kelvin in order to achieve thrust. You need to do some more reading on these engines, they are low orbit and interplanetary boost platforms, they are not designed or intended to be used as planetary boost platforms.

The reactors in submarines use a dual coolant heat exchange system where a primary coolant passes through the core and transfers heat to a secondary coolant which flashes over to steam to drive the turbines. The primary coolant is a closed system while the secondary is an open system.

The amount of heat required to drive a turbine to generate electricity is far less than the amount required to produce thrust.