Sodium Reactor Experiment

1958 Atomic Energy Commission documentary of the building of the Sodium Reactor Experiment in southern California

[@Zoomer30]

One drawback to losing the "bomb making" reactors is that we lost the ability to make plutonium, a key component in deep space probes and rovers. Production is just gritting started back up.

[@widescreennavel]

where? What have you heard about new plutonium production?

[@widescreennavel]

This needs to be a double-feature, right after this rosy scenario version, we get the melt down and cleanup episode! lmao🤣🤣

[@TheCrossroads533]

SRE was an historic experiment of advanced reactor technology more than a century ahead of its time. Future sodium reactors will be built with early lessons learned with the SRE.

[@MerleOberon]

I love '50s background music, someone had to write it, and play it, wonder who they were?

[@bassman5123]

I know, right. I fondly remember all of the great music that accompanied the films we watched in school. I'm guessing there is a small group of composers who did most of that stuff. They were most likely contemporaries.

[@am74343]

HAHAHA And I love those strange clinking instruments that sound like bones being hit together! LOL!

[@judahabajian2801]

Well the music sound like a Disney cartoon, its ment " in my opinion " to give the person watching this documentary a sense of well being and a sense of this scientific video is all good in the name of nuclear technology, even young kids might find themselves interested in this, due to the calming nature of the music, and the very calming speaker of this video, but my true gut feeling is this video was for the masses to see how safe and Wonderful nuclear power is. But the truth is, nuclear power will never be safe until we find a way to completely erracate a chance of a meltdown and find a way to dispose of all the waste, Fukushima and Chernobyl are just a glimpse of the terror to the human population and our only home planet earth, we live in a fishbowl, if you pollute it, there is no way of reclaiming the damage done. If nuclear power is ever going to be an option, we are hundreds if not thousands of years away from a safe harness of the atom. I dont know if our planet can survive another nuclear disaster... we need a change of global proportions to make our one and only home safe. I would rather use less energy, not have all the modern perks to live in harmony with our planet.

[@ChildovGhad]

@mad ass Apparently, you didn't read past the first sentence of his comment. Derp.

[@rentacowisgoogle]

@@judahabajian2801 conventional power stations produce scores more toxic waste, at a higher rate than a nuclear plant, hands down.

[@artysanmobile]

Props for the music choices. Sort of Mancini meets Stravinsky.

[@ronaldsmith4231]

Yes we had fuel rod overheat and melted. Very little radiation if any escaped, the site had containment. A "China Syndrome" did not occur. I was part of the crew that dismantled the SRE in the 70's, using a plasma torch to cut the vessel. We did find a fuel pellet that was missed from the damaged fuel rod. The main reactor vessel was in good shape.

[@1MNUTZ]

load of bull

[@whangie1]

1MNUTZ It is. Two-thirds of the fuel in the core melted quite extensively and there was a release of radiation.

[@winterennui]

Ronald Smith Hi Ronald, I'm doing some research on the SRE and would love to hear about your experience helping dismantle the reactor in the 1970s. Please email me at christinacatania at gmail if you would be open to talking with me. Thank you!

[@GwynRosaire]

Ian Cameron I think you might be referring to a different reactor.

[@bassman5123]

+Ronald Smith What containment, there was no dome? The SRE had 13 radioactive fuel rods completely melt down, not merely overheat (excursion). Plus, they even admit to releasing radiation it into the atmosphere on purpose from holding tanks for months afterwards. On the greenwashing SSFL tour by Boeing, they are saying that they released the radiation "in accordance with the laws at the time." This is considered one of the worst nuclear disasters in U.S. history (and one of the world's worst). Plus, there were at least two more "excursion" accidents in the 60's. I know a man that was there on the day of the big one, and he went colorblind for 3 days afterwards. My dad also used to work up on the hill (for AI) and he died of cancer just like thousands of others. It's hard to believe that no significant amount of radiation escaped that shabby, industrial building.

[@stevenking2980]

This was awesome. Thanks for showing us!

[@baasbassinnababylonrobert-9963]

that is nt awesome....there criminals,worse than nazis....fucked up life as a whole for milions of years...we can NEVER control that SHIT....we should lock the gentleman up,an start cleaning mother earth,if ever posible...makes me mad,to see such inteligent people be SO FUCKING INGNORANT.sorry sir,but you know this is wrong.

[@timmensch3601]

these machines they use to make arr insane i.e. the lathes and milling machines

[@vejet]

3:19 I literally spit out my drink

[@ggnutsc]

Interesting video... I knew a lot about this, but I hadn't seen the construction video, nor the video on making the moderator cans. This ties in with what I know about where I have worked for the past 35 years. Granted It is now a fossil plant, but I learned a lot about the nuclear history here from the old timers back when I started in the 80s. Here is the Wikipedia page, with the history. They have a tremendous amount in common. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallam_Nuclear_Power_Facility

[@widescreennavel]

Did you guys ever destroy drums of radiated or no sodium in the infamous sodium pond? Well, every time I look at my gas bill for my home, I think, yes, the promise was more than real and nuclear power is too cheap to meter! ROFL

[@ggnutsc]

@@widescreennavel nope! The closest I got to anything radioactive was the sealed sources for plugged chute detectors on our coal feeders. I swabbed them every six months to prove they weren’t leaking.

[@videolabguy]

With great content like this, you should call your channel Control Rod Atoms! Thanks!

[@hkkhgffh3613]

Wicked! A slow sodium cooled reactor! Booyakasha!

[@Tarrdica]

Awesome thanks for the upload!

[@carissa8283i]

Your only goal is to bring me wealth and happiness.

[@leerman22]

If they used uranium tetrachloride salts inside those fuel rods they'd sure make reprocessing easier.

[@baasbassinnababylonrobert-9963]

Criminals....!

[@WadcaWymiaru]

Using thorium over the uranium is the good idea.

[@darcyhildebrand9286]

Are there currently any successful sodium cooled nuclear fission reactors?

[@ChildovGhad]

Apparently some naval vessels do, though most don't. I'm guessing those that do are older generation nuclear powered vessels.

[@gregorymalchuk272]

The Russians have a bunch of BN-600 and BN-800 sodium cooled fast breeder nuclear reactors, with plans for even more and in larger sizes.

[@neogeo8267]

When LFTR?

[@-allround-]

Tomorrow , but it will take 20 year's ..

[@-allround-]

@Fred C. Scroll , I personally didn't do the math yet , next weak I'll will start with that haha, you're government (and mine) will probably condone this type of reactor , but it has actually a lot of benefits on safety and usability of the fuel itself, (besides the development of metals en proper technique) I see no other option for the need of power that we all have,

[@hellboystein2926]

Rods peronal youtube-cannel, an I found it, YES! ;-))) Yeah, breaders are cool, whatched just two days ago some dokus about Dounrey, the British fast reactors. Pretty impressive, how much fast sodium reactors acually worked, -and produced even electricity for years! What a shame that today only russia has such technology in operation, hope this is gone change again!

[@motorhead6763]

M ay make a comeback. Also ITER fusion and JET as well as MIT have fusion looking promising now as well. Shalom

[@billyjoeallen]

fusion is 20 years away, and always will be.

[@leong2023]

You don't have a clue about the meltdowns and infinite yrs of radiation that ensues until this day in that region. Worse than 3mile island but only 6.5mw.

[@billyjoeallen]

solid fuel designs have so many problems.

[@CrystalLakeEast]

These guys ultimately had a meltdown event with this reactor, which was never made public at the time. They contaminated most of those hills in Simi Valley. You can see how cavalier they are with the handling of the fuel.

[@Nill757]

Nonsense. No contamination occurred that hurt anyone outside that plant.

[@jerrywatt6813]

From what ive read most of the problems at this ficility were from hot cell accidents fires explosions etc and not the reactor 'this was the cowboy days of the nuclear arts and most of the fear people have is misplaced ! Only three people have died due to reactor malfunction and they were on a primitive unit in idaho desert ouned by the army in the late 40's ! In the usa ! In othercountrys yes some have died but in the usa only three FACT !!!

[@Chiavaccio]

😀😀👏👏👏👏

[@redkellyre6568]

listen to me , stop discussing the santa susanna field lab in simi valley , we are trying to clean that dead area up , by letting people forget there was ever a meltdown

[@krisduboise276]

These have a tendency to explode... Or leak out radiation... Hard to build a small one that works too... Probably better to go with something else in general. Complicated. Expensive.. not necessarily high output compared to other options Heavier fuel will likely work better. I like kirk Sorenson's thorium reactor myself. Easier to make it smaller. More complicated chemistry but, significantly less dangerous.

[@Zoomer30]

Back when you could handle uranium rods with your bare hands.

[@cowboybob7093]

and just turn around to your donut, coffee and cigarette right there waiting, yeah, the good ol' days for sure.

[@cowboybob7093]

@spikedpsycho I'm with you, it's like we're burning fine watches. Plus people don't understand half-life or know their α-β-γ's. Find a copy of _The Curve of Binding Energy_ - If you're familiar with the subject you'll enjoy the writing. For someone interested but new to the subject it's essential.

[@Nill757]

A sodium graphite reactor video shouiod be about 90% on how fires are prevented in any design basis accident, and the other 10% on method of manufacture.

[@NOBOX7]

what dreadfull music

[@z941273]

These people are crazy, the failure modes are infinite.

[@hellooutoffaceplease4782]

Not a failure, just a reason how not to harvest energy from a sodium reaction

[@WadcaWymiaru]

Sodium is faliture. Molten salt was the future: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qqqnk6RrfbemZtE

[@DriveCarToBar]

MSRs can't fission the transuranics and actinides. Fast reactors like EBR-2 (a sodium-cooled reactor) can, which means we can use them to 'burn up' high level waste, leftover from light water. And with fuel reprocessing, we can use and reuse the waste from decades of light water reactor use to provide heat and electrical power, as well as providing the needed startup fuel to get those MSRs running.

[@WadcaWymiaru]

The goal of MRS thorium reactor is to AVOID transuranic production. They are the MOST annoying waster. Their decay products causes many issues. And i think spallation systems are better solutions for that.

[@DriveCarToBar]

MSRs do indeed avoid some of that problem although it's not perfect. You'll always have some production of transuranics. It's a side effect of fissioning uranium, which is how the MSR works. You take the chance that sometimes, a neutron will be absorbed instead of causing fission and you wind up with things like U234, Np237, U236, Pu238, etc. MSRs do have the ability to simply keep using that fuel although neutron poisoning eventually reduces the efficiency. But you have the benefit of being able to recycle and keep that fuel in the reactor. You also need Plutonium 239 to get the MSR started, and will thus, always have some Pu239 in your fuel salt mixture. But my intent was to point out that Fast Reactors can serve the purpose of cleaning up all the transuranics produced by the Light Water Reactors in use. FBRs are a great choice for transmuting high level nuclear waste and making it safer, all while providing the needed fuel for starting up MSRs. Fast reactors can fission or transmute all those actinides above. Helpful in the case of Neptunium 237 which has an incredibly long half-life. U236 also has an extremely long half-life but isn't really all that hazardous, but is more of a nuisance in reactors.

[@am74343]

"Yeah... Sodium is a great coolant to use! Who cares if it explodes when water hits it!" LOL!

[@WadcaWymiaru]

And burn in air...

[@DriveCarToBar]

So what? Unless you're pumping water into your nuclear plant, you don't really have an issue. The sodium system is generally kept separate from the water by the heat exchangers, and even if there is a sodium leak, you're not going to have a significant nuclear release as sodium's various isotopes have very short half lives. Na24 has a half life of 15 hours and that's the longest one. The rest are a minute or less. Sodium only reacts with air until the surface areas oxidize at which point, the chemical reaction stops. Basically, you don't want sodium cooled reactors on ships or submarines, but otherwise, they're quite safe.

[@DriveCarToBar]

And where do you get your data on the meltdown rate of LMFBRs? Not really sure which reactors you're talking about. Source? I'd like similar data on failure rates of MSRs, but as it turns out, there aren't any in operation today and none have operated as a power reactor since the 1960s. What do you think happens if your fluoride salt mixture gets out and mixes with water in the heat exchanger of an MSR? It rips hydrogen out of the water and makes hydrofluoric acid. Isn't that fun!! Have fun dealing not only with leaking, screamingly radioactive fuel/coolant mix, but with an acid so caustic that contact with it, will kill you. Most LMFBRs don't run anywhere near hot enough to boil the sodium, it's not really a concern, which is why you don't have to worry about pressure problems in LMFBRs.

[@WadcaWymiaru]

1. I've heard smart guy (maybe Alvin Weinberg), i can confirm MMR meltdowns: Experimental Breeder Reactor I (EBR-I) meltdown November 29, 1955 Sodium Reactor Experiment - partial meltdown July 1959 2. MRS do not need water(salt, even overheated is inert for water and air), high temperature make the gas turbines suitable for it. The working gas can be any noble gas. Look at mine desing: daikami-sama.deviantart.com/art/My-molten-salt-reactor-schema-732724019 3. Power excursion and overheating is STILL possible since it is fast reactor. Because of uusing solid fuel they share LWR weaknessess.

[@DriveCarToBar]

EBR-1 did have a partial meltdown but no material was released and the design was changed into a pool type reactor for EBR-2, which was physically incapable of having the same fault as EBR-1. SRE suffered a similar problem. But these are far from the only LMFBRs in the world. Russia has had multiple LMFBRs in operation in both power generation and naval capacities. The US operated EBR-2 for 30 years without incident. Japan had Monju which, suffered a sodium leak at one point, but was contained without serious incident and no release of radiation. France had Phenix and SuperPhenix which ran without serious issue. MSRs could theoretically use closed-cycle gas turbines, but none exist and the well-understood and developed steam turbines are likely to remain preferable for the near future. Nobody has a supercritical gas turbine in production today. Any MSR built in the near term is likely to be coupled to a steam turbine and would thus, need water. Water + Fluoride salts = hydrofluoric acid. But this is unlikely in either design. I suppose you could call the use of solid fuel a weakness, but it's not the same weakness as a LWR. The weakness of LWRs is, and always has been, the water. Water is not a good way to cool or moderate a nuclear reactor. Water reacts with Zirconium to release hydrogen gas. No water = no hydrogen release.