Talk:Pebble-bed reactor

Top

This discussion of LWRs seemed off topic to me. Ray Van De Walker 04:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conventional design

The design of any "conventional" nuclear power plant is generally similar to any other: the nuclear reactions in the reactor core provide heat, which is used to heat a working fluid that is in turn used to drive turbines attached to electrical generators. Additionally, some form of neutron moderator is needed to slow the fast neutrons released by the fission reactions to a slower speed that will react with other atoms in the fuel.

Water can be used as both a working fluid and a moderator. Although it is not particularily effective at either role, its economics and well understood engineering made it almost universal in commercial nuclear reactors. Water is not particularily efficient at carrying away heat due to its relatively low boiling point and the problems when attempting to pump steam. For this reason the water flowing in the core is kept under high pressure, which raises the boiling point. The hot water generated in this "primary cooling loop" is then pumped into a heat exchanger, transfering heat into the "secondary cooling loop", which is allowed to boil in order to produce steam for the reactor. In some designs a third loop is also used, cooling the secondary loop via large cooling towers.

The only widely-used modification to this basic design is the heavy water reactor, which uses heavy water in the primary cooling loop. Heavy water is a much more efficient neutron moderator, which permits reactions in the fuel that would otherwise not be possible. This allows the heavy water reactor to use its fuel more efficiently, or more accurately, use fuel that is considerably less processed, in theory lowering fuel costs. In practice the savings have proven difficult to achieve; heavy water is extremely expensive to produce, and the lower energy density of the fuel makes the reactor as a whole less powerful for any given size.

In order to reduce this complexity, a number of experimental designs in the 1970s replaced the cooling water with an inert gas, which drove the turbines directly. None of these attempts were commercially succesful, for a variety of reasons that were unrelated to the concept itself. Gas cooled reactors remained a promising design, one that no-one appeared interested in investing the time and money needed to develop into a practical design.

Condensers

Someone changed the references to 'secondary heat exchangers' to 'condensers'; this is inaccurate because PBRs do not use a steam cycle, so there is no steam to condense into water. I revised the texts to restore the heat exchanger language.

Expense of heat exchangers

Nitrogen and air are almost identical, so a turbine designed for air should work well almost without changes. Though AAE's design might require a larger secondary condenser, this might not be a practical problem with a sea-water-cooled condenser, or a small stationary installation that can afford a small cooling tower.

I'm not clear what that means, "might not be a practical problem". Does it mean that a design with seawater cooling will be impractical, or that the problem would be easily solved? - Tzarius 01:13, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the original text. The issue is the size and expense of the heat exchangers. Water has a much larger heat capacity than air, and therefore smaller heat exchangers for the low temperature heat exchanger that AAE's design requires for a heat sink. User:Ray Van De Walker

Edited sentance stating conventional reactors cannot provide more then base power "because they require so long to change steam production rates". It is a false statment. An increase in electrical demand results in an increase in steam demand to keep the turbine spinning at the same frequency. The increase in the amount of steam produced drops the temperature of the reactor coolant. Since reactors are designed with a negative temperature coefficient of reactivity, the cooler temperature increases fissioning and increases power. All of this occurs within seconds. There is no massive time lag that prevents them from providing peak power; they do so every day on navy ships when electical demand changes with every watch rotation.

Hmmm... see

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/safr_nuke.html

(September 2002) or more recently

http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2003/june/pbmr.htm

(June 2003)

both of which indicate that the plant at Koeberg is two PWRs and that it is merely proposed to build a PBMR there.

There also seem some discrepancies between the technical details of this article and the above links.

Andrewa 18:40 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Removed a comment about a criticality excursion at Windscale. There was no such thing. Wigner energy was discovered after the Windscale reactor was built. The response was to instigate a deliberate program of Wigner energy release, by deliberately taking the reactor to a high temperature at which the energy would be released. Thermocouples were installed to monitor this process, but one by one they failed. On this occasion, the thermocouples in part of the core had all failed, and the operators didn't realise that the release had started in this area of the core. They took the reactor to power again to try to start the release. The combination of the Wigner release that had already started and the deliberate overheating of the core designed to start the release set the moderator on fire. Andrewa 04:39, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently done some work on expanding and tidying the entry for wigner energy - perhaps you would care to check/correct it? Ian 12:50, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

minor typos

... they advocate a system that reduces the partical pressure of helium in the coolant loop (should this be particle?)

... so a turbine deisgned for air should work well almost without changes (typo)

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone — including you — can edit any article by clicking the edit this page tab at the top of the page. You don't even need to log in, although there are several reasons why you might want to. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. -- Grun t ҈ 00:04, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)

China PBR

Today China announced plans for using PBR's to produce much of their energy. After a little bit of reading a good paragraph or two could be added to this article. --Ignignot 00:34, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Conflicting info?

This section has the sentence:

"Some authorities say that pyrolytic graphite can burn in air, and cite the famous accidents at Windscale and Chernobyl—both graphite-moderated reactors."

yet the wiki article on Wigner energy linked to in this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner_energy) says: "Despite some reports, Wigner energy buildup had nothing to do with Chernobyl:"

AlienDonkey —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.159.183.87 (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Modular?

These reactors are often referred to as "Modular Pebble Bed Reactors." What makes them modular? --NeuronExMachina 06:52, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Their size. The typical reactor has been >1000 MW. Which is a lot of power to take in one lump--and to pay for up front. These (proposed) reactors run 100-200 MW. Buy and build standardized units and plug them into the grid as your demand increases. Being smaller they're quicker to build and can be more-or-less mass-produced, which should lower the cost and increase the reliability.

—wwoods 07:27, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So the individual reactors are themselves seen as modular, as opposed to them being constructed of modular parts? --NeuronExMachina 07:36, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. Though the "pebbles" could also be considered modular parts, I suppose.

From the Wired article:

"If Wu's pebble-bed 'thing' is, well, hot, it's because Chinergy's product is tailor-made for the world's fastest-growing energy market: a modular design that snaps together like Legos. Despite some attempts at standardization, the latest generation of big nukes are still custom-built onsite. By contrast, production versions of INET's reactor will be barely a fifth their size and power, and built from standardized components that can be mass-produced, shipped by road or rail, and assembled quickly. Moreover, multiple reactors can be daisy-chained around one or more turbines, all monitored from a single control room. In other words, Tsinghua's power plants can do the two things that matter most amid China's explosive growth: get where they're needed and get big, fast.

—wwoods 08:25, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Missing aspect

I am missing an important detail in the article, as, to my understanding, there were mainly political reasons to stop the pebble bed reactor in Germany. IMHO there were interests of major companies (Siemens, partially owned by the German government) not to continue the development of that technology. And Rudolf Schulten had a contract with BBC, as far as I remember.

If I once find the time, I'll try to dig the details and add some aspects to the article.

Dr. M. Schulten

What makes PBMR safer?

I am not a nuclear engineer. But, I notice something odd in the article. In one occasion, the fail-safe design of PBMR is linked to 'doppler effect[Doppler_effect]' rather than 'doppler broadening[Doppler_broadening]'. Would any person knowledgable in this area double check this fact. --81.107.219.6 00:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't explain why the 'doppler broadening' effect which makes PBMR inherently fail-safe doesn't apply to more common reactor types. The article says that the temperature sensitivity is a property of U238. But U238 is used in all uranium reactors. So why aren't all reactors fail safe due to rising temperatures causing a decrease in fission leading to a safe equilibrium? What's different? Just the Uranium not being so packed together? Are the pebbles themselves important to this?

My guess is that water-cooled reactors operate at far lower temperatures, so the doppler-broadening is insignificant. Mackerm 02:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

>> While this may well be true, surely the problem arises when you have an uncontrolled chain reaction, leading to temperatures well above normal operating range. I don't understand why this doppler broadening doesn't prevent that.

Yes, they shut down, but there still is enough decay heat that the fuel will melt which leaves a Three Mile Islandish cleanup problem. The pebble bed reactor shuts it self down and can remove the decay heat as well, so there is no cleanup cost and the reactor can be restarted. Jrincayc 02:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All US and Western European reactors (at least power producing ones) have the property of having a negative temperature coefficient, that is, when the tempurature goes up the reactivity goes down. So, the same effect happens in other reactors. The difference with PBRs is that a) they have less excess reactivity to start with and b) the temperature can safely increase by a greater factor (600 degrees C as opposed to maybe 100 degrees). Jrincayc 04:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that it is three things. First is the thermal mass of all that carbon. It takes a long time to heat it up. Second is the very high failure temperature of the fuel, much higher than its normal operating temperature. Third, at high temperatures, one can rely on radiation cooling. pstudier 02:41, 2005 July 25 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't follow any of the three explanations. Can you go into more detail?

The main fear with a nuclear reactor is that the fuel will get so hot it melts or vaporizes and then escapes its containment. With any well designed reactor it is easy to stop the chain reaction, and even if one doesn't, any well designed reactor will slow or stop its chain reaction when it gets hotter. (Chernobyl failed both of these criteria.) Even if the chain reaction stops, the fuel is so radioactive right after shutdown that it can heat up and melt. This is what happened at Three Mile Island. With the PBMR, it takes longer to heat the fuel because of the large mass of carbon, and it can get a lot hotter before it melts. pstudier 23:33, 2005 July 31 (UTC)

The "Doppler Broadening" concept is a new one on me. My understanding is that the configuration of the fuel (tennis-ball sized spheres in a stack, each containing coated grains of fissile material) has the property that as it heats up the distance between the grains of material increases sufficiently to reduce the density of the materials below criticality. The spheres expand because they're hot, but then their contents and neighbors aren't close enough to sustain the "chain reaction". This is a direct result of the shape and arrangement of the fuel. In other reactors the fuel elements have room to expand as they heat up and don't move relative to each other as they do. Safety mechanisms or human intervention are required to keep the reaction under control.Crag 16:15, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

>> The argument about "expanding spheres" would make sense for one sphere in isolation, but surely does not make sense when you have a bin full of them. In particular, surely it can't make a difference for the spheres in the middle, where the neutron flux is highest ?

I believe the key to the "Doppler broadening" is the way the cross-section of U-238 varies with neutron energy.[1] Higher temperature in the reactor effectively broadens the band of neutron energies, which means a higher fraction of the fast neutrons are absorbed, cutting off the chain reaction. This doesn't apply to the ordinary reactor, because the moderator cools the neutrons down to the thermal neutron range too quickly to matter.

Disclaimer: IANANE. —wwoods 06:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More on "Doppler broadening". U-238, like many isotopes, has an affinity for absorbing neutrons that is inverse to the relative velocity of the neutron. This is called a 1/v absorption curve. But very heavy isotopes (including U-238) also have several sharp spikes in the probability of absorption that occur as specific energy levels. These 'spikes' lead to a phenomenon known as 'resonance capture'. If the neutron energy is at one of these 'resonance' energy levels, there is a much higher probability of absorption that removes the neutron from the fission chain. As the fast neutrons born from fission are thermalized, they lose energy with each collision with moderator atoms. If after one of these collisions it has an energy level (relative to the heavy U-238 atom) in a resonance peak, it is very likely to be absorbed.

The resonance energy spike is very 'narrow', but the neutron's kinetic energy is relative to the U-238 atom which is also moving due to thermal vibration. So the exact energy depends on if the U-238 atom is moving towards, across, or away from the neutron as it approaches. In any realizable fuel grain, there are a huge number of U-238 atoms, all vibrating randomly with thermal energies in random directions. When the fuel is cold, the U-238 atom velocity is low and regardless of direction that an individual atom is moving, and the neutron must have energy very close to the resonance peak to be in danger of absorbtion. Otherwise, it 'escapes' resonance capture. When graphed, the probability of absorption versus neutron energy has a very narrow 'peak'. But as fuel heats up, the range of energies for the U-238 atoms widens. So a neutron whose energy was not at the resonance level before, is more probably going to find a U-238 atom whose velocity is 'just wrong' that will make up for the fact that the neutron energy was near but not exactly at the resonance level. So neutrons at velocities near the resonance are more likely to be absorbed now. The result is the peak in absorption probability versus neutron energy is now 'broader'. The reason is the shift in relative neutron energy caused by the Doppler affect when U-238 atoms are moving faster. Hence the term, 'Doppler Broadening'.

The end result is, as the fuel heats up, more neutrons are absorbed in U-238 while slowing down from their 'fast' energy levels to thermal energy levels and are thus removed from the chain reaction. And the reactor fission process shuts down.

>> The above makes sense, but I don't understand why the same does not apply to a traditional fission reactor.

PBMR reactors are safer because of several reasons. The graphite material that encases the fissionable material (tennis balls as they seem to be refered to) act as a moderator to the critical reaction. There are also several control rods that can be used in the walls of the reactors to completely stop the reaction from continuing. The difference in the new design of the PBMR and the earlier designs is that these control rods are not pushed through the pebble bed but are used in the walls of the reactor for control purposes. By not allowing the rods to be pushed through the pebble media, fracturing, breaking or otherwise deteriorating the "tennis balls" is almost totally eliminated. Another inheritant safety design of the PBMR is that the graphite encasement of the fissionable material will not deteriorate or "burn up" even at the maximum temperature attainable in the reactor. The design takes into account the maximum attainable temperature by limitting the consentration of the fissionable matterial as well as the cooling properties of the helium used in the reactor. Furthur onsite safety of spent fuel is achieved by the encasement of the fissionable material in the "tennis ball". The design of the "tennis ball" is such that it will not or cannot be ruptured by the pressure of the deteriorating material inside. Because of all the design safety features in the PBMR, a release of radioactive material is practically elliminated. Please see http://www.pbmr.co.za/ for more information on PBMR technology. Sandman76 September 18, 2005

Helium is lighter than air, so air can displace the helium if the reactor wall is breached. Pebble bed reactors need fire-prevention features to keep the graphite of the pebbles from burning in the presence of air. Luckily, these are not difficult. This sounds a little awkward, aside from the language, there is no explanation nor a link to such an explanation of why "these are not difficult". Sounds a little Non-NPOV IMHO. It sounds like an interresting subtopic. What happens when there is a leak and the atmosphere enters the reactor? Somewhere in the article the possibility to flood parts of the building are mentioned: wouldn't this be a form of cooling that could cause the pebbles to start producing more heat again? What are the different possible worst-case scenario's? --MrPrince 07:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the graphite should not burn even when in an air environment [2]. A worst case scenario would probably be blow up the pressure vessel, the containment vessel and a dam upstream. The extra water would provide extra moderation and would also cool down the reactor which combined would probably cause the reactor to go prompt supercritial. This might very well cause Chernobylish amounts of of radiation release. For the same amount of effort, you could easily kill more people by attacking a chemical plant or bridge or something, so the pebble bed reactor is relatively safe. Jrincayc 16:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any way you can blow up something with burning hot graphite balls. This is not powder, and you have no way to go from ball to powder except mechanical crushing. Additionally, the graphite and the fuel oxides won't even melt when supercritical. That's why you won't get Chernobyl at all.Rwst 10:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not being clearer. You would need to use chemical explosives to cause the explosion. Jrincayc 15:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting information

The article states two things: That the German PBR research was shut down in the wake of Chernobyl in 1988 and, right at the end of the article, the German PBR research was shut down in 1986 due to a 'jammed pebble' releasing radation into the environment.

Which was it? It can't have been both considering the 2 year gap. Could we have some more information on the jammed pebble incident?

They experienced a 'jammed pebble' and ended up damaging it in 1986. This resulted in a small release of radioactivity just days after the Chernobyl accident. The plant received much criticism for not being totally open about the release. In 1988 the decision was made to permanently close the facility.

I think you might want to check out the THTR-300 article. ALthough I have not looked at it too much in depth yet, it appears to be accurate. Lcolson 03:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New South African PBMR

"PBMR contract for new reactor. South Africa's PBMR company has awarded a contract for engineering, procurement and construction management to SLMR - a Canadian-South African joint venture - for its demonstration Pebble Bed Modular Reactor at Koeberg. Construction is envisaged from 2007, and a second round of environmental hearings is under way at present. Meanwhile the BNFL share in PBMR has been passed to Westinghouse and negotiations are under way with other possible investors to enable Eskom to reduce its stake from 30% to 5%. (Published in) Nucleonics Week 17/11/05, UX Weekly 14/11/05." Simesa 11:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pebble bed reactors: a nuke for everybody, including UBL.

These pebbles are mass produced radiology dirty bombs and instant gratification for Al-Kaida. Because there are so many of them it is impossible to inventory them exactly. Steal one, put it in your pocket, travel to NY, crack it with a hammer and drop it on the streets. Result is a billion dollar clean-up operation and mass panic among the people. With widespread pebble bed reactor use everybody will have his/her personal own glowing ball from the black market.

Considering the huge mess little cobalt radiocative pellets caused in the famous "1983 Juarez" incident, we must consider what these golf-ball sized uranium-thorium pebbles could do to the living. Whatever is round gets easily rolled away and then it is hard to collect them, which becomes a nightmare for radiating items. That was first thing I learned in elemantary school when we played with those little coloured glass balls. For Juarez see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_radiation_accidents#1980s

As for pebble bed powered vehicles proposed, this is what happens when they crash: http://www.bravia-advert.com/includes/vid/bravia_60_sec_high.mov 195.70.32.136 11:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of doses would a spent pebble actually give? Jrincayc 03:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you steal an unirradiated pellet, it would not hurt anyone if you took it to new york and crumbled it and put it on a street. It would have to be ingested (inhaled) since uranium decays by releasing alpha particles. If it was irradiated by neutron radiation it would likely be so radioactive it would kill anyone holding it in a matter of seconds and couldn't be "put in a pocket". If an irradiated pellet was lost, it could quickly be found due to its rad signature (i.e. use a geiger counter) and the fact that people would be looking for it. The Jurez incident you linked to is from a medical application of radiation. Hospitals actually lose radioactive sources ecause the stafff are not trained as well as the staff at nuclear power plants. This would be nearly unheard of at a nuclear power plant. No-one would seriously consider making a car with a nuclear reactor core (except fools in the 50's that had no idea how a reactor works). Personally, I think the above comments were meant as troll bait, because they do not account for common sense solutions. As for the exact radiation dose, I'm not sure, but the fuel would most likely have to fulfill the requirement of being "self protecting" meaning it would likely give off 1000s of REM/hr.Lcolson 02:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could wait until the pebble cools down enough that it kills the person with it in their pocket after a week or month and not after a day. But compared to regular nuclear fuel, the pebble will be a lot safer since the TRISO coating would tend to protect against inhalation and ingestion hazards leaving only gamma emmisions. I agree with you that this is might be a troll. Jrincayc 03:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

>irradiated pellets can be found with geiger counter

Not everbody walks with a geiger counter in the pocket, not even the average policeman, ambulance or firefighter. A few years ago a russian businessman was assasinated by the mafia in Moscow. They arranged to have about a kilo of isotopes hidden in his leather office seat and that killed him in little more than a month. There is no assurance someone with a pebble would be noticed based on rad signature alone. 195.70.48.242 18:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

>It would quickly be found the fact ... that people would be looking for it

This is the catch. There are several tens of thousands of golfballs in the reactor so you cannot reasonably assume that people will put great effort into locating a single or a few missing one. Maybe Jesus and the good shephard would do that, but real-world people are lazy and likely to fix up documents and inventory lists rather than starts searching seriously. They may never realize that the few stuff was stolen they would assume it is rounding error and must be in some drawer in the corner.

That is so ridiculous I can't even believe you could think of it. Fort Knox has millions of gold bars. Do you think they would just say "oh it was probably a rounding error" if they lost one? Would they try to cover it up? Pebbles are at least worth their weight in gold. The reactor has machinery that would immediately notice if one was missing, and probably send up alarms. I don't understand how you could accidently leave nuclear fuel "in a drawer someplace." I agree with the above posters this is probably a troll. The fact is, there are much easier ways to get a significant quantity of radioactive material. --Ignignot 18:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The fuels in the PBR (ie. uranium, thorium) emit alpha rays and have a very long half life (all >10⁸ years), therefore the radioactivity of them is low. Also, they cannot be used in a nuclear weapon (not Prompt critical. For breeder reactors with uranium 233 of plutonium 239 (reactor grade), various technical difficulties will probably prevent a nuclear weapon from being built using the pebbles. Polonium

Like the previous comment says, there is no security risk if a pebble is stolen. However, the notion that the pebbles are very valuable and expensive is nonsense. Gold costs $18300/kg, while uranium costs $26.39/kg (according to Wikipedia articles on those elements). Uranium is the most expensive part of the pebbles (graphite (even the high grade needed) and the other materials are not very expensive). At most, they would be as expensive as the uranium. Even then, the pebble is 693 times cheaper. While there is some cost involved in making the pebble, I cannot see it reaching the cost of gold. The pebbles will be safe, useful, and inexpensive. Polonium 20:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget the residue

Have just expanded the bracketed phrase <nuclear waste> in the criticism section of the page. I feel it is a major snag that has been ignored so many times in the past that it deserves to be spelt out in full. It is not a major change to the text, the expansion just serves to highlight the magnitude of the legacy. Square brackets below denote my replacement for the bare phrase 'nuclear waste'

" Like most nuclear reactors, pebble bed reactors produce [radioactive waste which must either be safely stored for many human generations, reprocessed (more difficult after this method of reaction) or disposed of by a method yet to be devised.] The waste is more difficult to reprocess for further use due to the extra coatings. The fuel from other types of reactors is easier to reprocesses. "

Dave Jackson

Fast ?

I removed the section Fuel Cycle that can minimize nuclear waste because every high temperature gas reactor that I have heard of, except a proposed Generation IV design, is a thermal reactor. Thermal designs can not breed like IFR's. In any case reprocessing the pebbles is difficult and I know of no proposals to do so. One would have to either burn the carbon or crush the pellets and dissolve out the fuel. pstudier 18:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few points here:

-Most of the Gen. IV designs are fast reactors.

-It is feasibly possible to breed with thermal reactors by using fertile thorium, which I believe is what India is trying to do.

-I have seen proposals to minimize nuclear waste with a PBMR from General Atomics, and I am willing to bet others have too. I believe recycling the pebbles is a possibility, but also the PBMR could use reprocessed spent fuel from LWRs. I don't know what was in the section you removed, but what was in there may have been appropriate to keep in.--Ajnosek 18:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess that 20 years of AVR operation in Germany should have been enough to find a way to effectively get back U-233, but no. I also think that this failure was one of the reasons the project was dismantled, the other being that the accident happened just one month after Chernobyl (it was published somewhat later, no wonder).Rwst 10:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flamability of graphite

On the page is a discussion on the flamability of graphite. In the book "Nuclear Graphite", 1962 by Nightingale, it discusses the flamability of graphite in hydrogen and in oxygen and in air. Graphite is substantially less flamable than other carbon componds such as coal. The reaction involving oxygen is exothermic so self sustaining reactions are possible. However, whether it is actually self sustaining depends on the pressure, temperature and air flow conditions of the air. Nuclear Graphite gives a few graphs of different conditions. In short, you can get graphite to burn in regular atmospheric air if you give it the right pressure, air flow and tempetature, but for different pressures and temperatures, it will not burn. On General Atomics page[3], they claim that graphite is non-flammable for the typical conditions for a high temperature gas reactor. Self sustained reaction are possible for graphite that is kept in a region with high neutron flux at temperatures below the annealing temperature. Basically, what happens is that the neutrons will deposit energy as they slow down in the graphite. Then, this energy will add to the energy availble for burning. This caused the fire in the graphite used in the reactor in England. This is not a problem for pebble bed reactors since they use a temperature that is high enough to keep this energy from being stored in the graphite. I have not found any reports on this available on the internet. Jrincayc 14:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A less combustible form of graphite --

Another consideration is that not all pyrolytic graphite is created equal. The pebbles contain porous, low-density pyrolytic graphite, which has a large surface area and consists of unoriented graphite planes. This makes it relatively combustible. The surfaces of the pebbles, in contrast, are made of dense, highly-oriented pyrolytic graphite. It is non-porous, which makes it less combustible, but it also has another very positive characteristic: its "orientation".

Graphite consists of stacks of sheets of carbon atoms bonded to their neighbors but not bonded to the sheets above and below. The surface of a these sheet is remarkably inert, so oxidation would (I think) be confined to edges and defects. This would make oxidation very slow, in which case air cooling would dominate the heat balance, keeping the material too cool to burn. The pebbles are coated with this material, and the planes are parallel to the surface. Thus, most of the surface may have a negligible oxidation rate, even if other forms of pyrolytic graphite could burn under the same conditions. Harold f 00:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Efficiency: As a function of nuclear waste

NPR aired a piece this morning on South African work towards pebble bed reactors. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5345501

In it, a detractor suggests that pebble bed reactors generate more radioactive waste than a fission reactor, on a per-killowatt basis. Is this currently true? If so, what might be done to resolve the issue? A seperate subsection on efficiency would be fascinating, comparing the KW/$ and KW/(gram of waste), and construction costs to fission reactors. It would be doubly interesting if the functions for KW/$ and KW/(gram of waste) included the cost and benefit of recycled fuel.

Also, on a related note, can the spent fuel of the pebble bed reactor be recycled? Mrzaius 22:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The pebble bed reactor generates more kilograms of waste per kilowatt-hour than a light water reactor, but about the same radioactivity when measured in Becquerel per kilowatt-hour. The pebble bed fuel includes the graphite moderator which dilutes the fuel. Waste repository capacity is usually limited more by heat than volume so the burden of disposal should be comparable. The graphite fuel is a more durable form than the uranium dioxide fuel from a LWR and can be placed in dry storage immediately after removal. So it is arguable that the waste is easier to handle than LWR waste in a once through process. To recycle pebble bed waste, one would either have to burn the graphite, being careful not to release radiation in the smoke, or grind the pellets to allow one to dissolve the waste, and then dispose of the graphite. To the best of my knowledge neither process this has never been demonstrated. pstudier 23:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC) It has been suggested that an Emotionalist might tip a barrel of gasoline into the "can" and ignite the pebbles --Truegbruno 05:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)G Bruno (the truegbruno)[reply]

nuclear proliferation

From the article: "There is considerable opposition to the PBR from environmentalists and lobbey groups such as Earthlife Africa and Koeberg Alert who are concerned about its environmental impact and nuclear proliferation."

Pebble bed reactors are rather better for nuclear proliferation than a standard reactor for two reasons:

They have low excess reactivity, so it is hard to hide anything that absorbs neutrons, since it will show up in the amount of fuel that is used. I.E. if you put a blanket of say u-238 to try and produce plutonium then you will need to use more fuel since the neutrons will be absorbed by the blanket. This is not noticeable in conventional reactors since you can just pull the control rods out farther if you want more neutrons.
The pebbles are harder to reprocess than conventional fuel. You have to remove the silicon carbide before you can get at the plutonium that is produced. It's probably not impossible, but it is harder than a typical fuel rod from a light water reactor.

Do Earthlife Africa and Koeberg Alert give any reason for their fears about nuclear proliferation? Jrincayc 03:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing PBMRs is a bit like rearranging the deck-chairs on the Titantic. I've campaigned against nuclear energy for about 15 years and the debate always comes down to an ethical position regarding the use of uranium. For those deaf to the casualities resulting from uranium mining, and who ignore the considerable evidence supplied by the medical community who contend mining uranium ore is bad for ones health, there is something in the act of fission itself that conjours up dreams of riches, wealth and power. For those who see radioactive emmissions from conventional nuclear power plants as unacceptable and who believe there is no such thing as a safe dose of radiation, the nuclear industry is guilty of contaminating and polluting the planet. In other words, nuclear proliferation doesn't stop with bombs, but necessarily includes the entire uranium cycle. If we are to avoid nuclear war, we must put a halt to the entire industry.

I can't speak for Earthlife Africa or Koeberg Alert but they have a quite a bit of material online.Ethnopunk 13:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, what a red-herring rant. This comment will probably not bring anything good to this article, but perhaps I can help clear some misconceptions. Uranium mining is no worse than any other type of underground mining. In-situ mining is less harmful to workers, and by-product mining merely gets uranium from other ore that was already mined for other purposes. Open pit mining also doesn't expose workers to as much radon as would underground mining. From what I've heard, uranium niners have no higher or lower of an accident/death rate than other types of mining. Oh, by the way, I also heard that more radioactivity is realeased from coal power plants due to the uranium that is naturally present in coal than from a nuclear powerplant. And as mentioned earlier in this talk page, you won't be able to simply walk out with a pebble, they will be tracked.Lcolson 18:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds a bit what they used to say about the Asbestos industry. "Asbestos is safe for you and we should be using it everywhere including on our roofs, our gutters, our fences and in our kitchens." You are assuming that coal-mining is healthy and that we should continue to use fossil fuels. Isn't the real question, how are we going to convert dirty industrialists and their minions to clean, environmentally friendly energy, like hydrogen-gas go-generation fuel cells for one.Ethnopunk 11:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not like Asbestos. That industry was in a state of denial after they knew the facts. Uranium miners have some risk of radiation poisening, but no more than any other. But coal mining being dangerous has never been a reason not to mine coal, it is the hazzard to the ecology (CO2, soot, etc). We can't stop now to use coal, but we can with more nuclear. Coal, btw, is THE major contributor toward murcury in the envriorment since this is thrown out whenever coal is burned, another reason to phase it out. 216.203.27.99 23:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)dwaltersMIA[reply]

Back on topic, do you have any idea or source for Earthlife Africa or Koeberg Alert believing that PBMR's contribute to nuclear proliferation? Ethnopunk, I am more than happy to discuss nuclear power in general somewhere other than talk:pbr. Jrincayc 14:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fossil fuel

SA, we are told, does not have enough fossil fuel. What about all the coal? Paul Beardsell 06:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

imported exporter

SA will import Uranium from Russia, we are told. But also, we are correctly told, SA has its own uranium which it exports. Both true? Paul Beardsell 06:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having the ore and havng the fuel are two different things. This is what the controversy around Iran is about. Niger, in West Africa, is a huge exporter of processed uranium ore (called "yellow cake"). But it has zero capability to turn this into usuable fuel.

Fuel cycle in South Africa

Uranium production in South Africa has generally been a by-product of gold or copper mining. In 1951 a company was formed to exploit the uranium-rich slurries from gold mining and this grew into Nufcor, which in 1998 became a subsidiary of AngloGold Ltd. It produces over 1000 tonnes U3O8 per year.

Originally fuel for Koeberg was imported, but at the height of sanctions the Atomic Energy Corporation (AEC) was asked to set up and operate conversion, enrichment and fuel manufacturing services for Koeberg. These have now been closed down. Enrichment was undertaken at Valindaba, 60 km north of Johannesburg, by a unique aerodynamic Helikon vortex tube process developed in South Africa. Since this was not economic both centrifuge and molecular laser isotope processes were being explored when operations ceased. The semi commercial plant was of 300,000 SWU/yr capacity.

The AEC became the Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa (Necsa).

Eskom now procures conversion, enrichment and fuel fabrication services on world markets.

Since 1965 the AEC/Necsa has operated a 20 MW tank-type research reactor - Safari-1 - at the Pelindaba nuclear research centre. Since 1981 it used 45% enriched fuel elements manufactured locally from locally-enriched uranium, though the pilot enrichment plant producing this closed in 1990.

216.203.27.99 23:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)David Walters[reply]

made correction under Chinese section

Added "... of which PBMRs will be a major component." to the section on China which indicated they are planning on building 300 reactors. Most of the nuclear generation will NOT be PBMR, they will be bigger base load units of the 1000+ MW variety.

216.203.27.99 23:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)David Walters[reply]