I love to watch Professor David Ruzic, he know what he is talking about. I took some courses what professor Ruzic was teaching at BOULDER UNIVESITY. Excellent courses.
The problem with this is the nuclear industry could have got this message out to the point where people would understand pretty much what goes on in a nuclear reactor. Rather than do they they let the media run all kinds of scare stories, and Hollywood made all kinds of scary movies where radioactivity is like an unseen monster and people got scared to death over it, and I see them commenting online or hear them over the radio terrified of anything nuclear. They have the loudest voices and the least knowledge. The big point they have is that the problems that have happened like Chernobyl and Fukushima were large scale and scary, but not that much damage was really done. They were also totally avoidable and stupid.
Professor, Can you explain something please. If the boiling of the coolant stops the chain reaction, why there is something called loss of coolant accident (LOCA)? What is the difference in this point?
While it is true that a loss of coolant will interrupt fission, the decay heat from fission products does not stop. That coolant flow prevents the core from melting. So a LOCA is a very bad type of accident.
Can I ask a question. If a reactor loses cooling due to water loss when at full power would the fission products continue to produce enough heat to cause a problem. IE if a reactor were producing 1,000Mw thermal power how much would the by products be adding to that power output. would the by products stop all heat output without a moderator or is there action by another method rather than neutron activated fission. How much heat would a 1,000Mw thermal reactor produce 1minuite, 5, minutes or 10 minutes after a SCRAM shutdown if it were SCRAMed. Would that heat need active cooling, if so, how?
This question has been burning at me for a while. Is the difference between a thermal neutron capture and a fast neutron capture a factor of how centered of a hit on the capturing U235 atom? In other words, a fast neutron must have a way more center of mass hit (bulls eye) on its target then a thermal neutron need for capture? Great stuff, thanks!
No. A neutron absorbing atom has a given "cross-section" or probability of absorption based on the incident neutron energy. The cross section is not just higher for thermal neutrons, but also more predictable across a relatively broad range of thermal energy. This great helps in reactor design.
Pretty much every thorium cycle reactor is unique, some of them being quite similar to regular U-235 LWRs. And only two of the thorium cycle reactors built are rated over 300 MWe.
I have a question for the professor. According to his tapes, Valery Legasov claimed the explosion at Chernobyl was equivalent to 4 tons of TNT, would a western style containment building be able to hold that in from the inside, including the 500 ton upper biological shield being shot off into the ceiling of the building?
I think the greatest safety precaution during moments of crisis for nuclear reactors/power plants is that EVERYBODY knows how horrifyingly dangerous it is to start fucking around with them and how insanely stupid it would be to target them. Of course that also applies in reverse for somebody truly batshit crazy as well.
I could listen to this guy lecture all day long. he makes it interesting, understandable, and most of all, believable!
Can you guys make some organizational playlist of your videos so we can watch them in the proper order, great channel by the way?
I love to watch Professor David Ruzic, he know what he is talking about. I took some courses what professor Ruzic was teaching at BOULDER UNIVESITY. Excellent courses.
Excellent
Information
The problem with this is the nuclear industry could have got this message out to the point where people would understand pretty much what goes on in a nuclear reactor. Rather than do they they let the media run all kinds of scare stories, and Hollywood made all kinds of scary movies where radioactivity is like an unseen monster and people got scared to death over it, and I see them commenting online or hear them over the radio terrified of anything nuclear. They have the loudest voices and the least knowledge. The big point they have is that the problems that have happened like Chernobyl and Fukushima were large scale and scary, but not that much damage was really done. They were also totally avoidable and stupid.
Professor, Can you explain something please. If the boiling of the coolant stops the chain reaction, why there is something called loss of coolant accident (LOCA)? What is the difference in this point?
While it is true that a loss of coolant will interrupt fission, the decay heat from fission products does not stop. That coolant flow prevents the core from melting. So a LOCA is a very bad type of accident.
What is the difference between a control rod and a shim?
Can I ask a question.
If a reactor loses cooling due to water loss when at full power would the fission products continue to produce enough heat to cause a problem.
IE if a reactor were producing 1,000Mw thermal power how much would the by products be adding to that power output. would the by products stop all heat output without a moderator or is there action by another method rather than neutron activated fission.
How much heat would a 1,000Mw thermal reactor produce 1minuite, 5, minutes or 10 minutes after a SCRAM shutdown if it were SCRAMed.
Would that heat need active cooling, if so, how?
Isn't that what happened at Fukushima? The pumps were flooded and unable to pump cooling water into the reactor?
This question has been burning at me for a while. Is the difference between a thermal neutron capture and a fast neutron capture a factor of how centered of a hit on the capturing U235 atom? In other words, a fast neutron must have a way more center of mass hit (bulls eye) on its target then a thermal neutron need for capture? Great stuff, thanks!
No. A neutron absorbing atom has a given "cross-section" or probability of absorption based on the incident neutron energy. The cross section is not just higher for thermal neutrons, but also more predictable across a relatively broad range of thermal energy. This great helps in reactor design.
Quick not thg o anyone wondering, most bwrs have their turbines in containment, they are generally big rectangular buildings
please make a video describing Thorium reactors.
Pretty much every thorium cycle reactor is unique, some of them being quite similar to regular U-235 LWRs. And only two of the thorium cycle reactors built are rated over 300 MWe.
I thought Oxygen-18 was stable.
I have a question for the professor.
According to his tapes, Valery Legasov claimed the explosion at Chernobyl was equivalent to 4 tons of TNT, would a western style containment building be able to hold that in from the inside, including the 500 ton upper biological shield being shot off into the ceiling of the building?
It can take a 747 strike in a hurricane so its probably good
I think the greatest safety precaution during moments of crisis for nuclear reactors/power plants is that EVERYBODY knows how horrifyingly dangerous it is to start fucking around with them and how insanely stupid it would be to target them. Of course that also applies in reverse for somebody truly batshit crazy as well.
Also, invest in some squeaky free markers, please…