Control modules similar to these, designed in the 1960s, continue in use in the 2010s.
Old technology doesn’t necessarily mean defunct technology.
{ Comments on this entry are closed }
nuclear energy
I can only imagine how horrific it must be for the workers at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station.
Operators, technicians, engineers and other personnel at the damaged Fukushima nuclear plants have been dealing with plant conditions beyond anything they’ve ever prepared for, trained for or conceived of.
Many have likely also suffered severe personal loss from the earthquake and tsunami.
{ Comments on this entry are closed }
and
the answer to “Shades of Mad Max.”
![shadesofMadMax[1]](http://exit78.com/wp-content/uploads//2010/09/shadesofMadMax1.jpg "shadesofMadMax[1]")
The image use here was actual cropped from a larger photo of HTRE-2, reproduced below
Heat Transfer Reactor No.1 (HTRE-1 or “Heater One”) went to full power in January 1956 and demonstrated the principle of nuclear-powered turbojet engines. It was converted to HTRE-2 (“Heater Two”) and became the world’s largest materials teat reactor. HTRE-2 subjected test fuels to neutron flux and 2800°F temperatures, advancing the state-of-art for materials.
HTRE-3 or “Heater Three” was built more like an aircraft with the reactor, engine, shielding, and heat transfer systems in a horizontal configuration. Eventually the reactor could start and run two turbojet engines at a time. “The engine itself, including the reactor, was less than ten feet long. What you see is the framework that was needed to make sure the reactor did not take off across the desert. But the framework also contained many instruments to measure the performance of the reactor and jet engine.” Jay Kurze, Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion physicist and engineer.
Just yesterday, I posted a picture of a remnant of cold war technology and asked, “What is it?”
Three people responded and third person, someone I’ve known for a long, long time – since before the internet – got it right.
These giant metal structures are test stands containing atomic jet engines. They are remnants of a joint US Air Force and Atomic Energy Commission program to build a nuclear powered airplane.
When the program began in the early 1950s, no one knew for sure whether a nuclear reactor could power an airplane engine. Engineers designed a series of three Heat Transfer Reactor Experiments to prove the principle.
The experiments took place on these test stands. HTRE-1 was later converted to HTRE-2.
The next step would have been tests using an actual aircraft. But many leading scientist and officials opposed it.
“Heater 3” components included reactor shield, single chemical combustor mounted behind the reactor shield assembly, two modified J-47 turbojet engines and interconnecting ducting.
On March 28, 1961, President John F. Kennedy cancelled the entire nuclear bomber program “effective immediately.” The development of intercontinental ballistic missiles had made the bomber obsolete before it was developed and reports that the Soviets had an operating nuclear aircraft proved to be false.
The atom-powered bomber was expensive, impractical, and obsolete almost before it was conceived. Missiles and conventional jet bombers would soon be able to do the same job – long-distance delivery of nuclear weapons – more cheap;y and efficiently. Despite the fact the plane was never built, the research done advanced the state-of-the-art in many respects. For example, the experiments tested the behavior of metals and materials at very high levels.
“Most of today’s high temperature metals and materials technology we learned from the work on aircraft engines.” Richard Meservey, Nuclear physicist.
Heater 1 / 2 and Heater 3 are on display at the EBR1 National Historic Landmark east of Arco, Idaho at the Idaho National Laboratory.
{ Comments on this entry are closed }
When it comes to many projects, endeavors, and merchandise touted as “green” these days, I find myself becoming more and more skeptical.
“Green” – for whatever reason – has come to symbolize environmentalism, likely through the association of green color with nature, health, and growth, and “green” energy generally refers to renewable and alternative production and use of energy.
An recent article in the Washington Post looks at five myths about green energy:
Americans are being inundated with claims about renewable and alternative energy. Advocates for these technologies say that if we jettison fossil fuels, we’ll breathe easier, stop global warming and revolutionize our economy. Yes, “green” energy has great emotional and political appeal. But before we wrap all our hopes — and subsidies — in it, let’s take a hard look at some common misconceptions about what “green” means.
5 Myths:
- Solar and wind power are the greenest of them all.
- Going green will reduce our dependence on imports from unsavory regimes.
- A green American economy will create green American jobs.
- Electric cars will substantially reduce demand for oil.
- The United States lags behind other rich countries in going green.
Check out the full Washington Post article: Five myths about green energy.
{ Comments on this entry are closed }
OK. I guess that’s a little overstating it. I’m not really unemployed. The job is over and the contract is up; I can’t sign up for unemployment because I’m making too much money – from my pension.
Students at a nuclear power plant simulator – photo rendered as a painting.
This was my second contract since I retired a little over three years ago. Both have been for about 6 months and both have been doing part of the job that I used to do before I retired – teaching license operator candidates in the classroom and in the simulator.
The class did well in the simulator operational exams administered by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission this week. The last day of the operational exams was Thursday, which was also my last day on the job. I had my box packed and was out the door by a little after 6 PM.
I suppose it will take a little time to get back into the swing of not working.
I think I’ll be up to speed by sometime Monday morning. 
I’ve got quite a lot of work to do around our place this spring, summer, and fall. Of course, we’ll get a little bit of traveling in, too.
Then, sometime in January, it looks like I’ll probably be back at work. That’s about the time the next class should be at the point where I’ll be needed – if they allocate the funds, which I think is quite likely.
I’ve worked a total of about 13 1/2 months out of the last 36 – and when I do work, it’s doing something I know well and get satisfaction from.
{ Comments on this entry are closed }
I’ve been working quite a number of hours in the simulator the last few weeks.
One of the requirements for reactor operators is that they demonstrate the ability to start up the reactor. Each candidate practiced the reactor startup 5 times and then had a startup where he or she is evaluated by someone from Operations management.
So that’s a total of 6 startups for each student. There are 12 students, so, over the last few weeks, there have been 72 startups for training or evaluation — and I was there for every one of them. Total time in the simulator for this was about 84 hours over a 4 week period — about 20 hours a week. And that doesn’t include the several startups that I did to verify the scenario I was using and to establish the conditions for the evaluations.
This week, I am working in the simulator from about 4 PM to midnight every day, providing support and guidance for a crew of students who are shutting the plant down and cooling to “cold iron.” Once that’s done, they’ll be doing a heatup to normal operating condition, with a startup and power escalation to as high in power as we can get before the end of the shift on Friday.
I’ll certainly be ready for a rest when the weekend rolls around.
{ Comments on this entry are closed }
Click for Exit78 Pinterest policy.