http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_M._Weinberg
I looked up the name of the guy who I referred to as the father of the light water reactor. Following in the tragedy and tradition of J. Robert Oppenheimer, a giant of nuclear enegineering, Alvin M. Weinberg was crushed under the heal of the plutonium madness at the beginning of the nuclear age were safty takes a backseat to plutonium production. IMHO, it is this plutonium madness of the cold war that is the primal seed of the Fukushima disaster. On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:44 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > Both underwater and underground deployment of nuclear plants is ideal for > certain types of nuclear designs that are totally passively controlled. > This design is old and venerable. Being greatly concerned about nuclear > safety, the last paper that Dr. Edward Teller (designed the H bomb) wrote > before his death recommended this design. > > Also being greatly concerned about nuclear safety, the designer of the > light water reactor also fought for this design and was fired for pushing > too hard. > > Light water reactors are good at producing Pu239 which was important in > those days at the begining of the cold war. > > > These designs behave like a nuclear battery. In such a design, the core > supplies heat as required. The heat output of the design is load leveled. > > > The laws of nature regulate the nuclear reaction automatically and without > the possibility of error. > > > > If no heat is extracted then the plant goes subcritical and dormant. > > > > The core is the only part of the reactor that is below the sea. Reactor > automated core control and the power plant is on a surface barge or > platform that can be unmoored and remove to port if required to avoid a > strong hurricane. > > > > The core would remain underwater in a dormant shutdown state. > > > > Delayed heat remove from the core is enabled using a chimney effect where > heated water would rise to the surface through a large pipe. > > > > The surface turbo-generator rejects heat into the ocean surface and joins > the prevailing ocean current flow. > > > > Reactor refueling is simple and can be done automatically and waste > processing is integral to the reactor design were 99% of the nuclear fuel > is consumed. > > > > The underwater deployment is highly resistant to terrorism since the core > is maintained in a hot cell supported by robots. > > > > The core is deployed at a 100 meters depth and can withstand any natural > disaster (earthquake and associated wave generation) or the crash of any > sized plain no matter the size. > > > > > > Using water as a structural material will greatly reduce the size of the > plant minimizing the cost of structural material to a small fraction of the > size and cost of current reactors. > > > > > Such a plant is unlikely to be built because of a lack of heart and > incipient fear from many quarters. > > > Too bad the advice of the great men in American science was ignored for > political reasons… > > > > > > Regards: axil > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 10:33 PM, <mix...@bigpond.com> wrote: > >> In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Sun, 1 Apr 2012 23:17:19 -0400: >> Hi, >> [snip] >> >I think the problem can be addressed by putting emergency generators far >> >above the waterline, perhaps in the second story of the reactor building. >> >> I suggest building the entire reactor on the sea floor off shore. That >> way there >> would never be a shortage of cooling water, even if all electrical systems >> failed completely and permanently, provided of course that the design used >> gravity feed for the cooling water. If the reactor was far enough off >> shore, and >> deep enough, then tsunamis would go right over it, making little impact. >> >> Regards, >> >> Robin van Spaandonk >> >> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html >> >> >
