Thread: Systems

Yes, but such an environment only occurs during a nuclear disaster, really.
Once the disaster has occurred or is occurring, it is moot whether or not the graphite is flammable, since it is only on fire once the problem has gone out of control.

[edit] It is also evident that you didn't read, or at least remember, my introduction to the edit.

yeah, and thankfully because there are 10+ RBMK reactors active nowadays in eastern europe, so if the graphite utilisation had big problems in current environment i would be screwed

i think there are two things to take into account when designing a nuclear plant :
- efficiency (we build it because it produces cheap electricity after all, and without releasing greenhouse gases)
- security
and the 2nd is more important than the first IMO, so that could be why water is prefered over graphite as a moderator.... (and maybe there are other reasons too.. i don't know)

by example, i'm not sure but with graphite, if a problem happens it wouldn't absorb neutrons as the water would (which is a quality in normal conditions) and so would increase the reaction instead of slowing it down..

Originally Posted by shautieh

by example, i'm not sure but with graphite, if a problem happens it wouldn't absorb neutrons as the water would (which is a quality in normal conditions) and so would increase the reaction instead of slowing it down..

Was my point not clear? The reaction has to be increased, otherwise you would get next to no energy output.

Water and heavy water are used because they absorb neutrons - this makes them into unstable isotopes, and they then release the electrons at a slower rate, but it also allows for more control of the reaction as a whole.

when i said it would increase the reaction in case of problem, i meant it would make the things go worse faster..... that's all

so as we seem to agree, let's talk about things other than nuclear plants ! and maybe some people more will come back to this thread lol

=> what do you think of solar/wind/etc plants as an alternative to fossil fuels and why not nuclear power ?

I quite like the ideas of solar and wind plants, but in order to get a decent resul they need to be quite big farms, which for some reason some people are opposed to. I actually find it pleasent when, in the countryside, you can see some windmills.

The only problem I have with fission is the waste products, and that it's not renewable (though we could get closer if we also had those fast-breeding plants, but they were too dangerous, apparently.)
I'm still excited over ITER, I hope it goes well.

it depends of the countryside, but it seems to be like nuclear plants : people want it, but NOT near them >.>
i don't know if there are a lot of windmills in the USA ?? because there would be plenty of place to put some at least

the other big problem for windmills and solar thingies is that the energy production is not linear, which prevent them from being reliable mass energy producers.


about the fission, we have enough products to use it for some hundred years, but it's true that it will be a temporary source of energy only.... (some hundred years is not that bad though )

Originally Posted by shautieh

i don't know if there are a lot of windmills in the USA ?? because there would be plenty of place to put some at least

Having never been there, I wouldn't know.

One resource I think we may be able to make use of is earthquakes - it'd be fairly easy, really. The only question is transport of the energy.

how would you use it ??? we don't know beforehand where an earthquake will take place and so it will be difficult to make something to retrieve its energy.....
the transport of the energy is not a big problem after this first one is solved ;p

ps : where are you from ?

England.

They can almost guess where one will occur, but the generators wouldn't be temporary.

I guess the main point is that it'd generate power for the victims to use for a while after the quake, whilst waiting for everything else to get fixed.