Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Sign in to follow this  
LostCosmonaut

The Worst Reactor Accident in US History

Recommended Posts

Not Three Mile Island (which was laughably insignificant compared to popular reception), but SL-1.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ed1_1387144246&use_old_player=0

 

Protip: Don't design reactors with a single control rod.

If you do design a reactor with a single control rod, don't move the control rod with your bare hands. A fatal case of Impaled-to-the-Ceiling Syndrome may result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not Three Mile Island (which was laughably insignificant compared to popular reception), but SL-1.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ed1_1387144246&use_old_player=0

 

Protip: Don't design reactors with a single control rod.

If you do design a reactor with a single control rod, don't move the control rod with your bare hands. A fatal case of Impaled-to-the-Ceiling Syndrome may result.

 

That must have been extra fun to clean up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A dramatized account of the SL-1 Accident;

 

 

It's not perfect, but it's pretty solid for a film made by a random member of the public (especially on $5k budget).

 

Also, contrary to what I've previously posted, SL-1 actually had more than one control rod. It's just that the reactor design didn't satisfy the stuck rod criterion, so removal of the most important control rod was enough to send it prompt critical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Army fucked something up? NO!

 

Rickover might have been a colossal asshole and probably stayed in the military for too long (by the Reagan administration he was almost certainly past his sell by date), but he did a damn good job getting naval reactors going and making safety a permanent cultural thing. If K-19 had happened on an American sub, it probably would have set back US sub technology 10-15 years. (I doubt it would have killed it, because once shit like Yankees, Victors, and Alfas are running around the US military is going to get over any anti-nuclear antipathy to avoid getting completely owned by the Soviets.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By LostCosmonaut
      Metal cooled reactors have several advantages over pressurized water reactors. For one, their power density is greater, additionally, the coolant is unpressurized, improving safety.
       
      However, there are some downsides. The Soviets' Project 705 class submarines were powered by liquid metal reactors utilizing a lead-bismuth alloy as coolant. This alloy had a freezing temperature of roughly 400K. As a result, the reactors had to be run constantly, even while the submarines were in port (there were facilities to provide superheated steam to the reactors while the subs were docked, but they broke down and were never repaired). This reduces the lifetime of the reactor. Another coolant choice which has been used operationally is NaK (Sodium-Potassium). This alloy is liquid at room temperature, but reacts violently with water or air. I'm not an expert, but this seems like a bad thing.
       
       
      It seems to me that if appropriate coolants could be found, it seems that liquid metal fast reactors could see more widespread acceptance. To my untrained eye, gallium looks like a good choice. Its melting point is relatively close to room temperature (~303K), and the boiling point is quite high (over 2600K). Also, gallium is less reactive than sodium or other alkali metals. It appears that there has been some research on this topic: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149197000000640(unfortunately, the article is behind a paywall), and it looks quite promising.
       
      Anybody have any opinions on this, or suggestions for alternative coolants?
    • By LostCosmonaut
      An interesting approach to cooling the nuclear fuel; http://atomic-skies.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-liquid-jet-super-flux-reactor.html
       
      If you're able to keep your fuel cooler, you can increase your neutron flux, and with it your power density. This could be highly important in applications where you're space or mass limited. Such as, for instance, a submarine, or a rocket engine.
    • By LostCosmonaut
      I recently began a class on nuclear rocket propulsion, and one of the first topics covered was various nuclear rocket cycles. I'll do my best to explain them using amazing MS Paint drawings and words.
       

       
      The first is the hot bleed cycle. In this cycle, some propellant does not go through the reactor, but is instead shunted off in a different direction. This is mixed with some of the propellant that has passed through the reactor, but not out the rocket nozzle, creating a relatively hot stream of propellant. This propellant is passed through a turbine, which then powers the fuel pump. After passing through the turbine, the propellant is exhausted overboard (on some designs this can be used for attitude control). Since the propellant that has passed through the turbine is at lower temperature than that which has passed through the reactor, some efficiency is lost. The NERVA design from the 1960s/1970s utilized the hot bleed cycle.
       
      The cold bleed cycle is similar, except no propellant from the reactor is used to power the turbine. As a result, the propellant passing through the turbine is colder, thereby reducing turbine efficiency. However, this does have the advantage of producing less thermal stress on the turbine components. However, since the mass flow through the turbine is larger, the cold bleed cycle is less efficient than the hot bleed cycle.
       
      The expander cycle cleverly avoids propellant wastage by passing all the propellant used in the turbine back into the reactor. This avoids expending propellant in the relatively low temperature turbine exhaust, and means that the expander cycle NTR has a higher specific impulse than the hot or cold bleed cycles.
×