Recycling nuclear waste via advanced reactor design

May 28, 2015 by Kate Mcalpine, University of Michigan
The simulation of the reactor core confirms that the dead zones allow the reactor to operate safely. This image shows where atoms split, or fission. The fuel rods run vertically, with the red, high-fission fuel regions and blue, low-fission dead zones. Credit: Seker et al, University of Michigan

An advanced nuclear reactor under development by Hitachi could help solve the nuclear waste problem, and University of Michigan researchers were involved in verifying its safe performance through computer simulations.

The U-M team worked with colleagues at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of California, Berkeley. After more safety analysis, Hitachi plans to move forward with a prototype of the "resource-renewable boiling water reactor" in the next few years.

One of the major technological hurdles for nuclear energy is developing systems to dispose of the waste produced by typical reactors. It must be sealed away for hundreds of millennia while the radioactivity naturally decreases.

Hitachi's new design would burn off the longest-lived radioactive materials, called transuranics, shortening that isolation period to a few centuries. This would recycle the nuclear waste to produce yet more energy and reduce the amount that must be stowed away.

"Because of transuranics, we're talking about lifetimes for storing fuel that we can't even fathom," said Thomas Downar, U-M professor of nuclear engineering and radiological sciences. "You get this down to a hundred years, then you're talking about the ability to engineer a container that you have confidence will last that long."

In the conventional boiling water reactors that currently produce about 30 percent of all the nuclear-generated electricity in the U.S., the neutrons that split uranium atoms have been slowed by the boiling water. In contrast, the Hitachi design uses fast neutrons since they are more likely to split, or fission, transuranic atoms.

Prototype fast reactors have been running since the 1970s, but they use a sodium coolant. Sodium burns when it comes into contact with air and reacts violently with water. This is one of the reasons why U.S. utilities that operate reactors have been hesitant to consider sodium-cooled designs.

A water-cooled fast reactor, though, could offer safer and more familiar operation. The challenge was designing a water-cooled core that would stop itself if it started overheating and the water turned to steam. In conventional reactors, the water's slowing action acts as a failsafe because steam is less effective at decelerating neutrons. Since fewer neutrons are at the right speed to cause fissions, the reaction rate slows down too.

For a boiling water reactor that's burning transuranics, this scenario is trickier. The faster neutrons could mean a faster fission rate, creating more heat, steam and fast neutrons.

"If something goes wrong and the power increases, you want to have the fission rate decrease," Downar said.

To create this safety feature in their reactor, Hitachi engineers plan large dead zones in the fuel rods, made of materials with a much lower probability of fissioning with fast neutrons.

Hitachi calculated that as the presence of steam reduced the density of the water, fast neutrons were likely to travel further. By keeping the active regions of the fuel assembly small, more neutrons would be lost to these "blanket" regions in an overheating scenario, slowing the fission rate.

Before beginning the expensive process of prototyping, Hitachi wanted to confirm with outside experts that the design would perform as expected.

With funding from the Department of Energy, members of Downar's group spent the last three years developing codes that could simulate the more complex layout and physics of Hitachi's reactor core design. For example, uranium fission reactions are reasonably steady and easy to predict, but transuranic reactions are irregular and difficult to calculate accurately.

The U-M team developed a method to generate data that simulates the way transuranics burn. They then applied this data to established codes currently used for reactor analysis. By looking at what happened when the steam bubbles appeared, the team found that the fast neutrons tended to leave the reactive part of the fuel assembly, slowing the reaction rate as planned.

Now, the university teams are about to begin a careful comparison of their methods with the predictions from the Hitachi computer codes to discover any differences in the simulation of the advanced reactor's performance. Hitachi will fund the teams at U-M, MIT and Berkeley for the next phases of the project.

Explore further: Next-generation nuclear reactors that use radioactive waste materials as fuel

Related Stories

GE and Hitachi want to use nuclear waste as a fuel

February 18, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- One of the world's biggest providers of nuclear reactors, GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (a joint venture of General Electric and Hitachi), wants to reprocess nuclear waste for use as a fuel in advanced nuclear ...

Recommended for you

Semimetals are high conductors

March 18, 2019

Researchers in China and at UC Davis have measured high conductivity in very thin layers of niobium arsenide, a type of material called a Weyl semimetal. The material has about three times the conductivity of copper at room ...

94 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

gkam
1 / 5 (9) May 28, 2015
More promises. But every promise comes with a failure lately.

Will this be "Too cheap to meter"?

Will it, like the others, be "impossible to melt down"?

We do not need more promises and failures from the Nuclear Priesthood and the Big Money behind it.
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) May 28, 2015
More promises. But every promise comes with a failure lately.
Will this be "Too cheap to meter"?
Will it, like the others, be "impossible to melt down"?
We do not need more promises and failures from the Nuclear Priesthood and the Big Money behind it.
just disgusting words from a frustrated engineer.
gkam
1 / 5 (7) May 28, 2015
No frustration here, Willie. I see things working out just fine. Another delay for Votgle, more nukes needing subsidies.
WillieWard
4 / 5 (4) May 28, 2015
"Arguing with an engineer is a lot like wrestling a pig in the mud after a couple of hours you realize the pig likes it" - Engineering Professor
http://cdn.meme.a...9571.jpg
RealityCheck
2.2 / 5 (10) May 28, 2015
Hi Willie.

Mate, your personal agenda is clouding your mind. Try objective reading instead of trolling gkam; you might actually learn something.

For instance:

- they caution that these simulations are 'iffy' because the transuranic reactions are more unpredictable than the uranium fission reactions.

- they admit that storage for 100+ years still be needed for the shorter lived products produced.

And in any case, there is no 'safety' guarantee worth the name wherever numerous, large scale plants involving processing of large concentrated fuel-quality radioactive material which includes LONG lived waste from previous 'traditional' Nuclear Plants. Mistakes happen, and terrorism/theft happens. And keeping LARGE SCALE centralized Nuclear Plants activity/transportation etc going which puts BOTH long lived AND short lived in harm's way for mistakes/terrorism etc is a bad idea for anyone who is familiar with the "Probability Laws" and "Murphy's Law" of any large scale activity.
gkam
1 / 5 (6) May 28, 2015
I have to confess Willie may be right about us sometimes enjoying a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

It's cruel, but we are all flawed.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (7) May 28, 2015
More promises. But every promise comes with a failure lately.
Will this be "Too cheap to meter"?
Will it, like the others, be "impossible to melt down"?
We do not need more promises and failures from the Nuclear Priesthood and the Big Money behind it.
just disgusting words from a frustrated engineer.
Dude this is no engineer and never was. By his own admission. And by the caliber of the knowledge he exhibits in his posts.

DONT insult engineers.
ab3a
5 / 5 (5) May 28, 2015
As a registered professional engineer, I have to make some disclaimers to all:

1. At this scale of operation, the only guarantees are financial and they are limited.
2. There will always be costs. How they're recovered is a different issue.
3. Accidents happen. We can do a lot to keep them from happening and to limit the scope of the damage. But if you want guarantees, see disclaimer 1.

Professional Registration of engineers exists because they have a code of ethics that they are legally and morally required to adhere to, much like doctors, accountants, and lawyers. There will always be abuses, and the registration exists so that those who abuse this trust can be prosecuted.

Again, there are no guarantees, but if you don't take risks you'll never get the rewards.
WillieWard
4 / 5 (4) May 28, 2015
- they admit that storage for 100+ years still be needed for the shorter lived products produced.
"One of the major technological hurdles for nuclear energy is developing systems to dispose of the waste produced by typical reactors. It must be sealed away for hundreds of millennia while the radioactivity naturally decreases."
"You get this down to a hundred years, then you're talking about the ability to engineer a container that you have confidence will last that long."
http://phys.org/n...tor.html
From hundreds of millennia to hundred years (1000 to 1) it is a meaningful progress just in sixty years, since the 1950s the birth of nuclear-power technology.
With more researches it can be dropped to less than a year.
gkam
2 / 5 (8) May 28, 2015
So far we have shown we are unable to store contaminated gloves and tools from nuclear work. WIPP was supposed to last 10,000 years (even though the half-life of Plutonium is 24,400 years), but failed in just a few, sending high-level Americium and Plutonium downwind to Carlsbad.

Hanford is leaking and it is headed for the Columbia River. So far, they have not been able to stop it. It is EXTREMELY high-level waste, and very toxic besides.

I can't comment on our national storage for nuclear fuel rods because we do not have any.

If you still believe this group after all the lies, money, and destruction, you deserve it.
WillieWard
4 / 5 (4) May 29, 2015
gkam, Earth's nucleus and crust are radioactive: uranium-238, uranium-235, thorium-232, carbon-14, potassium-40, radium-226/228, radon-222, are everywhere on Earth.

"Radioactivity is present not only in the mantle, but in the rocks of Earth's crust."
http://phys.org/n...ore.html
"Radioactive decay accounts for half of Earth's heat"
http://physicswor...ths-heat
http://www.scient...core-so/
http://en.wikiped...t_budget
http://en.wikiped...gradient

Earth is pretty unsafe and toxic for you; you should leave Earth to go to a safer planet. Goodbye gkam, good trip!
gkam
1 / 5 (6) May 29, 2015
A "new reactor design"? How many have we tried now? Those of you not in the industry will not know how many types and configurations. Look them up. There are many more than you know. We already tried using molten sodium and water (boom!), and high-temperature gas-cooled (Fort St. Vrain), and Thorium (Fermi I,) but it was removed and substituted Plutonium-spiked Uranium, which almost melted down (read "We Almost Lost Detroit").

Willie, we have been playing so far. If we get serious, you will slink away.
WillieWard
3.4 / 5 (5) May 29, 2015
...we have been playing so far. If we get serious, you will slink away.
Some persons love to call others liers, but believe in their own lies, and hate other people that contest their lies.
gkam
1 / 5 (5) May 29, 2015
No, Willie, I do not hate you.

You are just a silly autoresponder, braying the same stuff over and over. You have no education or experience in this field, so your opinion does not count.

http://www.utilit.../399938/

BTW, with this battery technology, we won't need your deadly radioactive sources any more, able to store wind and PV power and get rid of the nasty deadly radioactive stuff you like, . . but cannot even store.
gkam
1 / 5 (5) May 29, 2015
Send all our nuclear waste to the guy who wrote this article. Tell him to get started.

Or send the stuff to Willie.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) May 29, 2015
...just a silly autoresponder, braying the same stuff over and over. You have no education or experience in this field, so your opinion does not count.
my opinion may not count as I'm not a conceited/cocky/fibber like you.
But there a lot of renowned people around the world that count:
"List of pro-nuclear environmentalists"
http://en.wikiped...ntalists
"Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy"
http://en.wikiped...r_Energy
"Environmentalists For Nuclear"
http://ecolo.org/
"EFN believes that environmentalist opposition to nuclear energy for the production of electricity is the worst misunderstanding of the 20th and 21st centuries."
http://www.hirosh...rgy.html
http://www.voanew...447.html
http://www.salon....r_power/
WillieWard
5 / 5 (2) May 29, 2015
...get rid of the nasty deadly radioactive stuff you like,...
but these you like:
lithium
radioactive rare-earth metals
trichlorosilane
silicon tetrachloride
sulfur hexafluoride
sulfur dioxide
hydrogen fluoride
sulfuric acid
sodium hydroxide
phosphine gas
arsine gas and other arsenic derived chemicals
indium
lead
http://www.solari...mer.html
gkam
1 / 5 (5) May 29, 2015
SF6? Not toxic, Toots. That is what we use as insulating gas for our one to three million Volt electron beam generators, and high-voltage transmission transformers and switches and breakers. I guess THIS is not your field, either.

Thanks for demonstrating the disaster of Wiki in the hands of kids without experience or knowledge of the world.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (6) May 29, 2015
SF6? Not toxic, Toots. That is what we use as insulating gas for our one to three million Volt electron beam generators, and high-voltage transmission transformers and switches and breakers. I guess THIS is not your field, either.

Thanks for demonstrating the disaster of Wiki in the hands of kids without experience or knowledge of the world.
Well I guess MSDS sheets were after your time.

"Effect on the global warming : Contains Fluorinated greenhouse gases covered by the Kyoto protocol."
http://www.praxai...4657.pdf

-But I thought you thought that global warming was hazardous to your health -? No?

-Thanks for demonstrating once again what a pompous asshole you are.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (6) May 29, 2015
Professional Registration of engineers exists because they have a code of ethics that they are legally and morally required to adhere to, much like doctors, accountants, and lawyers. There will always be abuses, and the registration exists so that those who abuse this trust can be prosecuted.
-Exactly. It is also meant to guarantee a certain minimum level of education and relevant experience.

And it also means that phonies like gkam/george kamburoff
http://www.kamburoff.com/

-who misrepresent themselves as engineers can be prosecuted as well.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (6) May 29, 2015
Ooooh george look at this

"Sulphur hexafluoride is not considered likely to harm the environment in the vicinity of its release. On a global scale however, it is a greenhouse gas contributing to global warming. It has an extremely high "global warming potential" (23,000 times that of carbon dioxide)... Sulphur hexafluoride can persist in the atmosphere for up to thousands of years."

-I am surprised that with your MS in Environmental Appreciation or whatever, you werent aware that your insulator gas was pretty bad stuff.

How come?
RealityCheck
3.3 / 5 (7) May 29, 2015
Otto, Willie. :)

Take a deep breath and relax, guys. gkam is right. SF6 is not 'toxic'.

Toxicity relates to damage potential to a biological organism, and is specific in both dose level and species. So, apart from its 'asphyxiation/air displacing potential in large quantities in confined spaces (which also goes for any other gas except Oxygen), SF6 is NOT 'toxic'.

As for its GH effect potential, that is why many foundry/other industrial processes try to avoid/replace SF6 for protecting molten reactive metals and other air/Oxygen sensitive products during refining/molding etc operations.

Relax, guys. Concentrate on the real 'killer' problem at hand: CO2 emissions. :)
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) May 29, 2015
Relax, guys. Concentrate on the real 'killer' problem at hand: CO2 emissions. :)
"The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atpmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT additional load on this balance. The oceans, land and atpmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a CO2 much more severe rise than anything we could produce."

Clearly, the natural world (plants and animals) are responsible for most of CO2 emissions, thus more solar panels and wind blades on them to stop these CO2 polluters.
gkam
1 / 5 (5) May 29, 2015
And it is not cheap. When we pumped SF6 out of our Beam vessels, we saved it for re-use. Before we started doing that, we just had to make sure it did not displace the air. It was used to blast arcs in transmission switching, but I do not know if it still is used as such. I would guess it is.

Have otto Wiki it.
Taxtropel
5 / 5 (2) May 30, 2015
When will we stop stupidly using boiling water for reactors!?! This is the single largest flaw in nuclear reactor design!
xstos
not rated yet May 31, 2015
Sigh
5 / 5 (2) May 31, 2015
The U-M team developed a method to generate data that simulates the way transuranics burn.
27 comments already, and none of them complaining that computer simulations can't predict the behaviour of a complex system, the way they do about climate models? No quoting of Freeman Dyson even?. He must have said something pertinent at some time.
gkam
1 / 5 (7) May 31, 2015
No "fast breeder" is going to eat and destroy radioactivity.
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) May 31, 2015
No "fast breeder" is going to eat and destroy radioactivity.
Where do you think "fission fuels" come from?
Earth has radioactive elements since its formation. Sources of natural background radiation:cosmic radiation, cosmogenic radiation, and terrestrial radiation.
"Naturally occurring radioactive materials are present in its crust, the floors and walls of our homes, schools, or offices and in the food we eat and drink"
https://www.iaea..../radlife
"Shales and clays are responsible for most natural radioactivity, so gamma ray log often is a good indicator of such rocks"
http://en.wikiped...amma_ray

"The radioactive elements are called radioactive isotopes, or radionuclides, or nuclides. Nearly all of the radioactive material in the ocean is natural, and represents material that has been on Earth since its formation"
http://www.watere...ean.html

go to a safer planet
gkam
1 / 5 (6) May 31, 2015
This is my planet, Willie.

You go to Fukushima, . . . your place.
WillieWard
5 / 5 (1) May 31, 2015
You go to Fukushima, . . . your place.
No problem, if I had money, I would go there. I'm not an irrational coward.
Nearby Fukushima no more than 20 mSv/a while in some places the Earth's natural radioactivity reaches up to 800 mSv/a.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) May 31, 2015
You and I are not going to solve these problems, Willie, so I quit the "discussion".

Thanks for participating. Good luck to you and the rest of us.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) May 31, 2015
Take a deep breath and relax, guys. gkam is right. SF6 is not 'toxic'.

Toxicity relates to damage potential to a biological organism, and is specific in both dose level and species. So, apart from its 'asphyxiation/air displacing potential in large quantities in confined spaces (which also goes for any other gas except Oxygen), SF6 is NOT 'toxic'
Willie didn't say it was toxic either. But it obviously is dangerous, and gkam the environmental appreciation MS expert had no idea it was a potent greenhouse gas despite his 'education' and 'experience'.

Someone with a formal education in the field would have known this, more evidence that his CV is a lie.

Gkam used a typical sleeze tactic of adding an inappropriate modifier, 'toxic'. You do this quite a bit don't you? Sleeze tacticians will often forget their differences to attack a common foe yes? Fight to preserve the right to pump shit.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) May 31, 2015
Of course the 1st amendment guarantees the right to pump shit but it also guarantees the likelihood that you will be slammed for it.
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 01, 2015
Hi Otto. :)
Take a deep breath and relax, guys. gkam is right. SF6 is not 'toxic'.

Toxicity relates to damage potential to a biological organism, and is specific in both dose level and species. So, apart from its 'asphyxiation/air displacing potential in large quantities in confined spaces (which also goes for any other gas except Oxygen), SF6 is NOT 'toxic'
Willie didn't say it was toxic either. But it obviously is dangerous, and gkam the environmental appreciation MS expert had no idea it was a potent greenhouse gas despite his 'education' and 'experience'.
All who've studied Halogen compounds re Ozone Layer, Greenhouse etc problems already treat their effects, and abatement of such compounds from human activity sources, as a given'; ie, ALREADY being tackled; effects already known; so informed discoursers don't need to re-iterate it at every turn.

Efforts now concentrate on what can be done about CO2, which we can do much MORE to abate this ubiquitous culprit.
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 01, 2015
gkam correctly offered
SF6? Not toxic, Toots. That is what we use as insulating gas for our one to three million Volt electron beam generators, and high-voltage transmission transformers and switches and breakers
Indeed, it used to be the topic of an altered voice demonstration, in that one would take a lung full of SF6 then speak a phrase but, only after doing the same with Helium so the contrast would be more extreme.

I recall at Curtin University open days in Bentley, Western Australia the lab tech would demo it but only after a few breaks and definitely not continuously. As its much heavier than air it displaces air more effectively at the lower parts of our lungs.

Of course when stated its not toxic - in this context it means to those who inhale it at a level, not necessarily to the upper atmosphere where it diffuses fairly slowly.

Paracelsus first noted the only difference between a medication & a poison is the dose, that applies to all chemicals !
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 01, 2015
Hi Mikey :)

You fell for gkams diversion as well. Willie included it in a list of harmful materials. Gkam claimed it was not toxic but failed to realize that as a greenhouse gas it IS harmful.

He is simply not familiar with greenhouse gases and so is not the environmental expert he claims to be.

Again, willie didnt SAY it was toxic. Did he? So why are you adding more irrelevance?
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Jun 01, 2015
No diversion. I used to work with it.

Not otto. He had to look it up.
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (4) Jun 01, 2015
Hi Otto. :)

Not so. Willie included it in a list of other presumable toxic materials in the way they directly affect organisms/biology, as part of production of photocells etc..
but these you like:
lithium
radioactive rare-earth metals
trichlorosilane
silicon tetrachloride
sulfur hexafluoride
sulfur dioxide
hydrogen fluoride
sulfuric acid
sodium hydroxide
phosphine gas
arsine gas and other arsenic derived chemicals
indium
lead


Willie did NOT list SF6's greenhouse effect aspect. So gkam answered direct to the point Willie tried to make, but failed because SF6 is NOT directly hazardous as a direct poison etc to biology processes.

Please Otto, if you still intend to stalk and scrutinize gkam's discussions/points, at least get things straight before plunging in with your confirmation biases and personal ego/animosity. It would save you further embarrassment and the forum much valuable time and effort trying to wade through your spamming irrelevances. Ok?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 02, 2015
Hi rc:)))

So quote where willie said that the items in his list were toxic.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Jun 02, 2015
otto HAS to find some way to rescue his posts from being read by real folk. You will find the bending of truth past the elastic limit in the hateful and juvenile posts of otto.

I think it is because he has done nothing in his life, and exists here as a pseudonym of a lurker, playing his admitted "games" with the rest of us.

It is time for the adolescents and the wiki-warriors to go get some education and experience.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Jun 02, 2015
Meanwhile, let's send our nuclear waste to those who think they can make it "safe".
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Jun 02, 2015
I made an offer to the Filthy Fuel Freaks here that I would take all the waste from wind and PV generating facilities if they took that from coal and nuclear operations.

They refuse.

Why??
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 02, 2015
YOU still haven't explained why you did not know that SF6 was a potent greenhouse gas. What, did you sleep through class that day?

More likely you have no formal education and only lie about the fact.

I'm right aren't I? Eikka, AA, and many others with genuine educations have concluded this.

You're not smart enough to lie about being a professional, in a forum full of professionals.

You make yourself look more ridiculous with every post.

I repeat - you're not SMART enough to lie and get away with it here.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Jun 02, 2015
Sounds so infantile:
Send all our nuclear waste to the guy who wrote this article. Tell him to get started.
Or send the stuff to ...
You go to Fukushima, . . . your place.
Meanwhile, let's send our nuclear waste to those who think they can make it "safe".
Give this writer a lead suit and a shovel and send him to Fukushima.
Can we send out old high-level waste to you folk who still think it is okay?
Can we send our high-level waste to you nuke lovers?
that other engineers may feel dishonored/ashamed.
gkam
1 / 5 (3) Jun 02, 2015
Let's hear about the experience of otto in the nuclear field. Ever been in a nuke plant? Ever studied all the forms of generation?

Let's go at it, Toots. You are an admitted lurker, hiding behind a phony name, with no experience or education in this field, so all you can to is character assassination. It will not work.

Going to take the coal waste, otto? Want the high-level waste? Coal toxins?

Willie is too SCARED to do it.
gkam
1 / 5 (3) Jun 02, 2015
"Can we send out old high-level waste to you folk who still think it is okay?"

Sounds so infantile? No, Willie the word is SIMPLE.

Those are simple questions, based on your defense of nuclear power. They are on-the-spot.

Answer them.
WillieWard
1 / 5 (1) Jun 02, 2015
"Can we send out old high-level waste to you folk who still think it is okay?"
If even the lowest levels of radiation are harmful to life.
What about radioactive element thorium which is found bound to rare-earth-metals ores that now are widely part of wind farms. Should the wind farms also be decommissioned as soon as possible, and these radioactive parts sent to you?
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Jun 02, 2015
Gosh, Willie, you bet!!

Do you have any idea how much those elements and compounds are worth?

BTW, aren't you a fan of Thorium? The stuff which failed in Fermi I? Yeah, I can sell you some, I think.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 02, 2015
Let's hear about the experience of otto in the nuclear field
Lets hear about the experience of gkam/george kamburoff
http://www.kamburoff.com/

-that convinces him that fallout is the MAIN cause of lung cancer, that H2 explosions can cause dirty molten Pu puddles to fission and throw imaginary fuku nuke vessel parts 130km... without making a crater, that thorium reactor research is being abandoned worldwide, or that Pu is raining down on idaho.

-THAT 'experience' in the 'nuclear field' is obviously worthless.

EVERYBODY here can see this but you george.

How come? Youre not a tad bit INSANE are you?

Youre not just a little fucking CRAZY are you george????

;)))))
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Jun 02, 2015
Did you look up Fermi 1?

Why didn't Thorium work?

What happened with the next fuel?

Did you read "We Almost Lost Detroit"?

Take them in that order.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 02, 2015
No hoops you moron. I only have to repost ONE.

"India's forward-thinking attitude has established the country as the leader in thorium reactor development. But can India put its long-term plan into reality? Now, their AHWR design is finished, taking them one big step forward.

"The plan is to have a 300MW prototype in operation by 2016 and then expand thereafter. By 2050, thorium should meet 30% of India's electricity demand."

-Many other countries are also pursuing R&D, for instance:

"The China Academy of Sciences in January 2011 launched an R&D program on LFTR, known there as the thorium-breeding molten-salt reactor (Th-MSR or TMSR), and claimed to have the world's largest national effort on it, hoping to obtain full intellectual property rights on the technology."

-So. You AGAIN have the evidence right in your fucking FACE and you just cant accept it because the mind of george fucking kamburoff has already concluded otherwise.

What a SICK little man you are.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 02, 2015
But please, lets hear again about your experience in the 'nuclear field' that leads you to conclude:

-that fallout is the MAIN cause of lung cancer

-that H2 explosions can cause dirty molten Pu puddles to fission and throw imaginary fuku nuke vessel parts 130km... without making a crater

-or that Pu is raining down on idaho."

EXPLAIN.
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (4) Jun 02, 2015
Hi Otto. :)
So quote where willie said that the items in his list were toxic.
It was implicit in his quoted reply to gkam, thus;
...get rid of the nasty deadly radioactive stuff...
but these you like:
lithium
radioactive rare-earth metals
trichlorosilane
silicon tetrachloride
sulfur hexafluoride
sulfur dioxide
hydrogen fluoride
sulfuric acid
sodium hydroxide
phosphine gas
arsine gas and other arsenic derived chemicals
indium
lead
http://www.solari...mer.html
Note where the 'nasty deadly' toxicity aspect of materials was raised by gkam; and then Willie posted a list mostly containing 'nasty deadly' stuff whose toxicity is well known . Except the list contained SF6 which was not toxic. What conclusions can be drawn other than gkam replied to the point and pointed out where SF6 was not toxic?

Less reading bias; more objectivity, Otto. Ok? :)
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Jun 02, 2015
Yes, the ottoid got caught again, a pathetic character hiding behind his pseudonyms. Did you see how he actually thought all of us engineers did exactly the same thing, and had the same job responsibilities? I think I remember being Plant Engineer in the foundry making engine blocks for 10,000 hp engines was decidedly different than engineering the test system for the LM555 for National semiconductor and "walking in" the laser resistor trimmers.

Maybe otto found different information in wiki.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 02, 2015
the 'nasty deadly'
Please provide a reference showing that 'nasty deadly' pertains exclusively to toxicity and not to other things such as pollution in general or to greenhouse gases.

Here is the word combo in general usage.

"Cancer is an evil, nasty, deadly disease"

"New Yorker's nasty, deadly, citywide pollution habits"

"sharp nasty deadly used syringes"

"truly nasty, deadly emissions from the coal-fired power plant that fuels the car" (which we know contains greenhouse gases)

"Saturated fats, sodium and "pollution"... the supposed pure and clean world is full of nasty, deadly things"

"could leave all that nasty deadly CO2..." (BINGO)

"why such nasty, deadly rites have had religious..."

"hope you get in a real nasty, deadly accident"

"foul, nasty, deadly water"

"nasty deadly habits of unrighteousness"

"A cold, nasty, deadly, unwelcoming cat"

-See this is what happens when a moron decides to defend an imbecile. Nasty, deadly business.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 02, 2015
"India's forward-thinking attitude has established the country as the leader in thorium reactor development. But can India put its long-term plan into reality? Now, their AHWR design is finished, taking them one big step forward.

"The plan is to have a 300MW prototype in operation by 2016 and then expand thereafter. By 2050, thorium should meet 30% of India's electricity demand."

-Many other countries are also pursuing R&D, for instance:

"The China Academy of Sciences in January 2011 launched an R&D program on LFTR, known there as the thorium-breeding molten-salt reactor (Th-MSR or TMSR), and claimed to have the world's largest national effort on it, hoping to obtain full intellectual property rights on the technology."

-So. You AGAIN have the evidence right in your fucking FACE and you just cant accept it because the mind of george fucking kamburoff has already concluded otherwise.

EXPLAIN george. Come on you coward. Show some guts. Admit you LIED.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 02, 2015
a pathetic character hiding behind his pseudonyms
I think he's talking about you rc. You gonna take that??
RealityCheck
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 02, 2015
Hi Otto.

I took a break to catch up with latest news items here, when I checked this thread for replies...and yours was a doozy!...of semantical rationalizations for continuing your reading confirmation biased approach to discourse. The level of denial and lingering personal ego investment in your 'internet personna' and 'tactics' is remarkable....even for worst standard of internet trolls!

Don't you read what you write? They ALL affect people/safety/health etc by their direct action in producing adverse physical/chemical/sociological/criminal etc outcomes.

Even item:
"truly nasty, deadly emissions from the coal-fired power plant that fuels the car" (which we know contains greenhouse gases)
...first and foremost conveys the direct deleterious (read toxic) nature/effects of the combustion products on people/animals biological processes.

See? Even THAT item invokes toxicity aspect...with only paranthetical ref to comb. products ALSO containing GHGs/effects.

Ok? :)
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2015
otto is not real. He has bragged about being a lurker, one who hides behind phony names, playing his "games".

otyo is not real.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Jun 03, 2015
first and foremost conveys the direct deleterious (read toxic) nature/effects of the combustion products on people/blah


I'm sorry mr bullshit but you don't know what the word toxic means.

"Toxic
1.
of, pertaining to, affected with, or caused by a toxin or poison:
a toxic condition."

-Toxin very specifically applied to poison. An infection is not a poison. A greenhouse gas is not necessarily a poison. DANGEROUS and deleterious do not imply toxic although toxins can be either.

See this is what happens when a moron decides to defend an imbecile. Nasty, deadly business.
otyo is not real
Real or not, otyo has no trouble proving that you are full of shit. All the time, in most every post.
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2015
This is hilarious.

otto, it was your buddy, Willie who maintained that silly nonsense about the toxicity of SF6, with which you have never worked. Take it to him.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2015
So let's play George. EXPLAIN why you still think that thorium reactors don't WORK when China, India, and other countries are planning on building them?

EXPLAIN.
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2015
Oh, give up on the SF6? First intelligent thing you have done here.

I did not say they did not work, Toots,, but that we had given up on them. You took that as a statement that everybody had done so, and I let you run with it, like with the other misunderstandings we see from those with no experience in those fields.

My god, otto, you argued about whether conversion devices deliver kW/hr!! It is the most dumb-ass mistake the goobers make.

Did you look up Fermi 1 like I suggested?

TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Jun 03, 2015
This is hilarious.

otto, it was your buddy, Willie who maintained that silly nonsense about the toxicity of SF6, with which you have never worked. Take it to him
Ah more smelly lies. You were the first one to use the word toxic.
SF6? Not toxic, Toots
-And it's obvious that you don't know what means either.

Curious for an 'expert' with an MS in Environmental Admiration.
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2015
For the rest of you, . . I PROMISE I am not otto, to give myself a reason to brag.

I promise.

I could do a much better job of interrogation than the screaming of "LIAR" and "BULLSHIT!", two of the favorite responses of otto.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2015
I did not say they did not work, Toots,, but that we had given up on them. You took that as a statement that everybody had done so, and I let you run with it, like with the other misunderstanding
More smelly lies. You said research was being abandoned worldwide.
kW/hr!! It is the most dumb-ass mistake the goobers make
More smelly lies. YOU said that kW includes a time component. You were proven wrong by both Eikka and me. The ref you posted confirmed this.

This is why the word of George kamburoff is worthless here.
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2015
Yes, otto, a kilowatt is one thousand Watts. An Ampere is one coulomb (a number) of electrons passing a point in one second. That times the Voltage driving it equal Watts. It is a rate, since the current is in Coulombs PER SECOND.

When you find out how basic and ridiculous your argument is, you will come back with a different phony name.

George Kamburoff taught over 30,000 engineers, otto. You would not be allowed in to the seminars without basic knowledge.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2015
screaming LIAR and BULLSHIT
But you've proven yourself to be a lying bulkshit artist. What other words should I use?

Anyone can read the posts above and conclude this. Why do you think that posting your real name in any way negates this?

Your name is dirt here because of the lies and bullshit you post. Nobody else has trashed it but YOU. This happened at every job you ever had didn't it?

YOU used the word toxic, not willie.

YOU said that thorium research was being abandoned worldwide and then LIED about it.

And you are being made accountable.
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2015
kW/hr?

Really? Even your buddies here have turned against you, otto. You are alone now, an anonymous sniper against a real person, with a real name and proof of his activities.

Who are YOU??
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2015
kW/hr?

Really? Even your buddies here have turned against you, otto. You are alone now, an anonymous sniper against a real person, with a real name and proof of his activities.

Who are YOU??

gkam
1 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2015
otto and Willie want to recycle Nookular Waste.

Let's send it to them.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2015
iPhone glitch.
Who are you?
How many times do I have to tell you George? I'm the guy who has proven to the people here that George kamburoff is a lying bullshit artist. I am the guy who has shown that you have trashed your name in yet another forum.

What else would you or anyone possibly have to know about me?

Who we are does not affect what we say. You have defined the name George kamburoff by what you have posted here.

Nobody to blame for that but YOU.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2015
When you find out how basic and ridiculous your argument is, you will come back with a different phony name
Wrong thread. You were proven wrong in another thread.
You would not be allowed in to the seminars without basic knowledge
Yes, team presenters who are delivering presentations prepared by genuine pros need to have BASIC knowledge. But it has been proven here that yours is full of gaps. Big ones.

Is that why you lost that job after only a few years?
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2015
Too late, otto.

You are screaming across the playground.

gkam
1 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2015
Look me up, folks. Then, look up "otto".

All you will find is a history of maladjustment in a lurker, one who plays admitted (bragged about, actually), "games".

If you want to hear what it really like to DO stuff, like most of you have done, let's discuss experiences and educations. The goobers on the sidelines can stay in wiki.

But DO look up the length of time it took for otto to understand (he still doesn't), that conversion devices are rated in kW, not kW/hr, a ridiculous unit.

On this topic of nukes and reprocessing, I see those most in favor of this idea are those most distant from the technology.
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2015

http://www.japant...er-quake

"TOKYO —Japan is looking at installing toilets in elevators and providing an emergency supply of drinking water for people trapped by the nation's frequent powerful earthquakes, an official said Wednesday.

The move comes after nearly 20,000 elevators were stopped, some for over an hour, in Tokyo high-rise buildings following a 7.8 magnitude quake last Saturday night."
-------------------------------------
Not a good place to use nuclear powerplants.
WillieWard
5 / 5 (2) Jun 03, 2015
otto and Willie want to recycle Nookular Waste.
Let's send it to them.
childishness. lamentable appeal!
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2015
Look me up, folks
George continues to try to sell the idea that WHERE facts come from is more important than WHAT those facts are.

George thinks that his hokey little website with a bunch of unsubstantiated claims about his past (and a cute little wizard GIF), along with an incomplete CV, must lead us to believe that toxic doesnt mean what everybody but him KNOWS it means, and that thorium reactor research is being abandoned worldwide. Its not.

Further he thinks that his website gives him the authority to LIE about what he originally said about these things.

Dont you realize how FOUL this is george?

George kamburoff is the guy who thinks that dried manure dust is a MAJOR component of Atmospheric polution in the central valley. He thinks that it is called volatile solids.

George kamburoff thinks that fallout is the MAIN cause of lung cancer.

George kamburoff thinks that radioactive waste is all one thing that contaminates everything it touches.

Etc.
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2015
Tomorrow I will check in with the VA psychologists who are watching "otto" for fun.

There is sufficient maladjustment there for an entire conference.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 03, 2015
Tomorrow I will check in with the VA psychologists who are watching "otto" for fun.

There is sufficient maladjustment there for an entire conference.
And they will gently tell you that they dont have time to be indulging your delusions of grandeur.

They already know youre seriously cracked. And Im sure they understand that if you display your maladies online you are going to have trouble.

They may even decide to cut back on your meds. You dont want that do you?
WillieWard
5 / 5 (1) Jun 03, 2015
Tomorrow I will check in with the VA psychologists...
Then take the time to ask them for checking you too; pathological fibber and exaggerator.
"In psychiatry, pathological lying (also called pseudologia fantastica and mythomania)" "Compulsive Lying Disorder"
http://en.wikiped...al_lying
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Jun 03, 2015
I predict at least one of the new European 1100 MW (not kW/hr), units with the suspect steel in the reactor vessel bottom heads will not see service. Perhaps most of them forged in France.

Plant Votgle is in more delays, while the debts pile up. But don't worry, we guaranteed billions of dollars to bail them out. How much did they spend to bail out YOUR local industry?

And WIPP is still a long way before it will "open" to store those contaminated tools and gloves without hurting the rest of us.

The intensely-radioactive nuclear waste at Hanford from the weapons program is making its way to the Columbia River, inexorably. Can we survive it dumping into the sea?

Meanwhile, all over the world, fuel rods at least hundreds of thousands of them, probably millions or more, are still kept in cooled water, because they are radioactive.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Jun 03, 2015
Oops, it is " . . because they are radioactive and exothermic."
RealityCheck
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 03, 2015
Otto.
...you don't know what the word toxic means.
Your semantical 'research' is woefully inadequate as your science/technology 'research'. The term 'toxic' is to convey directly harmful chemical effect on living organism.

The term 'poison' is a subset of that, conveying the TYPE of direct action involved, whether in inorganic OR organic chemical reaction. Ie, a 'poison' can interfere with desired catalyst action in organic/inorganic in INDUSTRIAL PROCESS production of desired chemical products....OR a 'poison' can interfere with vital catalyst action in LIVING organism's biochemical processes.

Moreover, the term 'venom' is a further subset of 'poison', in that the SOURCE, FORM and DELIVERY mechanism is conveyed more specifically. eg, a snake is a living source producing a form of poison for 'envenomation' via skin puncture, injection directly into vein/muscle.

Your reading bias is your Achille's Heel. You're not yet 'accomplished' multi-discipline researcher. Learn. :)
WillieWard
5 / 5 (2) Jun 03, 2015
I predict...
pathological fibber
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2015
Go here now:
http://livestream.../4103255

it is Thursday, and the broadcast regarding WIPP is on.
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2015
The broadcast from Carlsbad regarding WIPP so far is just politicians browning their noses. This meeting regards the fines the DOE has to pay for contaminating the area around WIPP with deadly alpha emitters such Plutonium. and Americium.

WIPP is the Waste Isolation Pilot Project, designed to last for 10,000 years, even though the half-life of Plutonium is over 24,000 years, but failed after about ten. They cannot even store contaminated tools and the gloves of workers safely, and they want to make MORE high-level waste.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Jun 04, 2015
Your semantical 'research' is woefully inadequate as your science/technology 'research'. The term 'toxic' is to convey directly harmful chemical effect on living organism
... thats a whole lot of nothing you got there rc.

Goodness the lengths people like you go to to avoid admitting the obvious (youre full of shit)

I must repeat: please provide a reference showing that 'nasty deadly' pertains exclusively to toxicity and not to other things such as pollution in general or to greenhouse gases.

I showed you that it pertains to many things besides toxicity. You dropped a load of your typical cow dung in response.

How original.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Jun 04, 2015
These goobers claim they can store nuclear waste worse than this stuff at WIPP, but they can't even store this stuff safely. Can we get the nuclear apologists to stop the high-level waste at Hanford from reaching the Columbia? Can the ocean survive it?
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (4) Jun 05, 2015
@ Otto.
thats a whole lot of nothing you got there rc. Goodness the lengths people like you go to to avoid admitting the obvious (youre full of shit)
I must repeat: please provide a reference showing that 'nasty deadly' pertains exclusively to toxicity and not to other things such as pollution in general or to greenhouse gases.
I showed you that it pertains to many things besides toxicity. You dropped a load of your typical cow dung in response
That all you got? Insults and evasions? Try CONTEXT.

When ANYTHING is 'nasty deadly' to human health, it's called 'toxic'; including: 'Radiation Poisoning/Toxicity'.

So, to the CONTEXT: gkam decried radioactive waste, which is toxic, as 'nasty deadly'. Willie replied sarcastically with a list of toxic chemicals used in manufacturing solar cells. Gkam pointed out SF6 wasn't toxic. Period.

Since then you've been trolling semantics, incompetently; wasting everyone's time. Give it a rest, mate. Stop digging your holes, Otto. :)
gkam
1 / 5 (3) Jun 05, 2015
Ask him how he buys his electricity. In what units?

BTW, Plutonium is also chemically toxic as well.
WillieWard
not rated yet Jun 05, 2015
"All rare earth ores contain uranium and thorium, which could pose a danger if not disposed of responsibly,"
"Rare earths require more chemicals to separate than base metals such as copper, zinc and lead,"
http://www.bloomb...turbines

"..a toxic, nightmarish lake created by our thirst for ..green tech.."
"These elements can be found in everything from magnets in wind turbines"
http://www.bbc.co...on-earth
http://inhabitat....-device/
http://oto2.wustl...ind.html
"..toxic materials contained in solar.."
http://www.thepet...lo-ranch
"..neodymium factories, which are crucial to wind-turbine production"
http://www.nation...-murdock
gkam
1 / 5 (3) Jun 06, 2015
Where are we going to do this "recycling"? WIPP? Hanford??

They cannot even STORE the wastes they have, let alone do something about them!

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.