Reply With QuoteIt's also a matter of numbers. After all why would you want a bike with 75HP, when you could have one with 150?
|
|
Actually the first reactor we sold them was the CIRUS design based on the NRX research reactor that was in chalk river (not candu).Originally Posted by mlc
it's a matter of pride
x
Moderator
It's also a matter of numbers. After all why would you want a bike with 75HP, when you could have one with 150?
Morally Ambiguous (submissions welcome)
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth." - Oscar Wilde
I'm not convinced of that. I was under the impression that the Bruce was capable of the second largest generating capacity in the world...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_N...rating_Station
Actually the pressurized heavy water reactors are more efficient then the light water ones as the moderator fluid runs cooler allowing for more efficient reactions.
LWR uses enriched uranium (3~5% U235 by weight) where as HWR uses natural uranium (~0.72% U235 by weight). Per kg of fuel a LWR will produce more power then a more efficient HWR because the fuel has much more U235 in it. This also means the LWR will produce less waste then the HWR and will have to have its fuel changed out less often, but the waste is "hotter".
The big downfall of a HWR is the cost of heavy water. Canada its not that much, but then we make it. Other places would have to import it.
Just because I had to deal with this issue today...weapons-grade uranium is 90%+ U235 by weight, which is far far more than what is required for power generation. Depleted uranium is U238, which is the bulk of the uranium.
Last edited by skip; 04-14-2011 at 03:05 PM.
95 RS125 (track), 05 DL650 (street), 89 FZR400 (project)
That is entirely possible, but the first reactor given India is mentioned on CANDU Owners Group "Highlights of CANDU History" area, specifically at the year 1960... it is described as a CIRUS, which I understood was a CANDU prototype..
http://www.candu.org/candu_reactors.html#history
Ask most if they are working where they are because it was their dream job or because it's the highest wage attainable to them. I bet you get the same answers. Yes i enjoy my job. Pay is very good. Is it my dream job? No, but then again professional eating/sports watching doesn't pay much. I went to school to be a stationary engineer. If your question of highest wage attainable was any sort of shot at me, you can just keep to yourself. Most people dont really know much about what we do, or the amount of knowledge we hold pertaining to our jobs.
I apologize Brett, no personal shot intended. On re-consideration, I was out of line to ask you about your choice of employment. We don't share the kind of familiarity required for such a discussion.
Through the nature of my employment, I have worked in several Boiler Houses, and have a general knowledge of what those Stationary Engineers do. I can't fault your choice of career!
I have learned much from this Topic. I don't believe I have influenced the opinions of the pro-nuclear ranks; nor have they changed my mine.
I hope that the more optimistic among us are correct; that Japan will be the last disaster, all spent waste will always be properly controlled, and that no WMD's will be deployed. On this we can all agree.
and $$$$
we still make it?
Part of that is because we tend to cluster reactors in larger numbers than elsewhere. Pickering has 6 active reactors, plus 2 currently inactive. Darlington has 4 in operation, and they are seeking approval for 4 more IIRC. Bruce has 6 in operation, 2 being refitted, and 2 more new ones in plan.
By contrast, most of the US reactor sites are one and two reactor sites. Each of their individual reactors tend to put out more power than our reactors, but when you cluster larger numbers of reactors together like we do, our site output numbers will look more impressive.
yes
I should have said not nearly as much as we did up until '97
Last edited by skip; 04-15-2011 at 07:37 AM.
95 RS125 (track), 05 DL650 (street), 89 FZR400 (project)
regardless of cost unless the americans could pretend they invented it they wouldn't use it
x
No problem, thats just how it came out when i read it. I don't mind the asking, it was just the perceived tone of the question.As for changing the opinions of pro-nuclear. Everyone has a different opinion. if we all had the same and all thought the same we'd be in a lot of trouble. I don't rag on people for being anti-nuclear. Thats your choice. As long as it was made on your own with the correct information. Not someone spoon feeding the bull. either way, have a good one.
I'm a nuclear operator at Bruce Power, and I completely agree with you.
"Sweating is better than bleeding, wear your gear!"
Be that as it may, there is still a situation happening in japan where over a month later the government is now moving to formally enact and enforce a 20 km exclusion zone around the broken plant for what appears to be the mid to long term, combined with evacuation of additional areas up to 60 km from the plant because of the risk of long term exposure to radiation. Despite the best of intentions and plans and multiple redundant safety systems, things went badly wrong. Imagine if anything remotely close were to befall Pickering or Darlington, close as they are to our most densely populated and industrialized urban centers?
I agree. This is a very serious matter. Likely more so than what most can comprehend with most people's lack of knowledge on the subject. Not saying anyone in particular, it's just from my interactions, many people do not have a lot of knowledge on this subject. This event will continue to play out for months. Hopefully it does not just get put to the back burner as it seems it somewhat already has. And also hopefully they get this thing completely under wraps as soon as possible.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks