Talk:Pressurized heavy-water reactor

Energy Low‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Engineering Low‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology

Unsigned remark

This article seems to be more of a of two alternative techniques than a description of comparison than PHWR.

U238 will release much energy when it is split. That requires an extraneous source of neutrons. It is not explained why water absorbs too many neutrons. Are they absorbed by H, converting to D, or randomly scattered meaning that too many escape the fuel core?. In the case of heavy water, neutrons emerging from the core are, on average, reflected back towards the core, since deuterium is twice as heavy as a neutron. It makes no sense that deuterium is an unwanted byproduct in the PLWR type, yet deuterium is very expensive to produce for the PHWR type.27.33.246.67 (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This article contains a great deal of excellent material relevant to heavy water reactors in general, but which is not specific to the popular high-pressure design choice used in CANDU. This material should be moved to the Heavy water reactor article, and what remains at this article (if anything), should be just enough to make clear the differences between high-pressure and lower-pressure designs of heavy water reactors, which this article fails to do at present. We might also want to investigate whether general material at the CANDU article might better be merged into this article. --arkuat (talk) 04:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we wait or merge only one section. I accept your thesis that the section "pupose of using heavy water" should be merged into the heavy water reactor article. Would you be willing to move the merge header to just that section?

In regards to the resulting "loss of content," I hope to be able to boost the content in this article with information on some of the different PHWR designs, especially if more information on the Indian reactors becomes available after the implementation of the United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act and related IAEA Safegaurds Agreement. I suppose what I'm really saying is that this is a work in progress from my perspective. Revr J (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I don't see any reason why all HWR's cannot be described under a single article. None of the articles involved are lengthy enough to require splitting the topic into sub-articles. Heavy water reactor is currently a stub, and this article is still fairly short. I'm not familiar with Low Pressure HWR's, can someone provide a link? Mishlai (talk) 11:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge was done apparently on 20 August 2011. 70.24.246.151 (talk) 07:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spelling

Can we please spell the title of the page right. It is pressurized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.35.203.2 (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pressurised is the British variant, so both are correct. Mishlai (talk) 11:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pressurised heavy water reactor → Heavy water reactor – Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC) This article doesn't specifically discuss pressurized reactors, instead heavy-water reactors of all types. The page should be moved to reflect this. The destination page was a merge source and should not be deleted. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 23:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there's a big problem with this article, since HWR was merged into it. Undo the merge and then merge generic information about HWR to the HWR article. After that, see if there is a need for a separate PHWR article. If not, do a second merge. (as separate steps, so we can examine the merge history more properly) 70.24.246.151 (talk) 07:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Nuclear Proliferation

I don't understand why the ability to use unenriched uranium is listed as increasing the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation. It's impossible to build a nuclear weapon using unenriched uranium; you need enrichment capability. If anything, this characteristic should make PHWRs less likely to contribute to proliferation. Is there something I'm missing?

The second characteristic, the ease of obtaining plutonium and tritium, is a more sensible concern. Wristshot (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrote the section to clarify. It could still really use some sources, though. A2soup (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two remarks:

1) Production of plutonium my be a problem, butseldom in power reactors since they irradiate the fuel for to long a time. If you irradite the fuel for a long time there will be to much heavier putonium isotopes for use as bomb material(it is not bomb grade plutonium)(that is thereason for CANDU-reaktor and RBMKtype (Tjernobyl-type), they can be reloded whithout stopping power production, also the reason for Swedish Marviken reactor, never started but built with reloding capability under power. By reloding after short productiopn (weeks at most) you can get usable bomb grade plutonium!)(There is no other reason for reloading under power since you have to stop the steam system repeatedly, max power period about 18 months or parts of the steam system will weld together and must be scrapped if you need to open up a valve as an example!) Low preassure reactors ar easily realoded under power and are therefore a risk for bomb profilation. BUT, since centrifuge enrichment works so well it is easier and cheaper to make uranium bombs, also "safer" (kind of), you can trust Hiroshima type U235 bomb to eplode whithout testing, plutomium bombs are trickier, both USA and Sviet have had duds when testing!

2) For plutonium bombs you need Tritium for igniter (to produce neutrons). It is true that heawy water will produce tritium, but miniscule. Normal metod is neutron iridation of Litium! High production! Easy to concentrate!Seniorsag (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

E. Macron etc. informiert ?

Wen Reaktoren gleichzeitig sicherer und effizienter werden mit ca. 30 Jahren Brennstoff Laufzeit da genug brütend ?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressurized_heavy-water_reactor

Improved core catching for EPR etc. RBN fuel pebbles inside chromium tube melting

about 1900*C then with still closed RBN pebles out rolling down the ramp to 170m² spreading area both with ZrB2 instead ZrO2 or sacrifice concrete then mich sand coolant for RBN

upon that. RBN is cubic boron nitride isotopes B-11 & N-15.

All pressurized water reactors with D2O in the primary circuit and RBN probably start up without enrichment like CANDU and thus breed enough for around 30 years of RBN fuel rod life and safe strong D2O bubble waste.

Lead bismuth eutectic boiling point 1670 °C is definitely 3 times the reactor overtemperature at Thor approx. 2700 °C then MgO melts but not ZrC UO2 inclusion and tungsten at white heat stable heat without He/Li cooling radiating into melted concrete like the filament in a light bulb  .

Pb then captures very few neutrons at a very slow boiling point.  Bi captures fast neutrons E^1 when very slow E^0 is definitely reducible.  Very slow neutrons also capture U-238 more gradually than U-235 total fission but long fast neutrons make U-238 metastable for capture.

Concrete's melting point can be significantly reduced, even with expensive additions or with iron 1550°C?  etc. as a buffer on the outside in a Mo double steel wall on the inside SiC cladding and RBN with keiviite (Yb) control rods.
Material must also withstand high expansion of Pb Bi upon solidification.

Thor 1 GWth globular cluster about the same size as EPR Core with 4.5 GWth but then compact on the outside with tungsten reflector helium downward channel behind then 1.6m steel concrete W double steel wall with Li separated on the inside to turbine more stable than EPR 2.6m concrete and steel on the inside  Much smaller round dome houses large WW II 1000kg TNT bomb and A380.
Steel-tight welded inside and outside in argon with diving equipment.  Lithium to He cooling surface customizable

Cr-52 better than Fe-56 for EPR fuel cladding or Zirkalloy Zr for CANDU not rusting and less H2 for core meltdown etc

CO2 turbine circuit also subsequently with H2O from condenser cooling and turbine surface heat
Can be operated at the rear with FK compressor CO2 return cooling th.  fully insulated
Efficiency at 100 instead of 37%.

Future CANDU HTR is best started with natural uranium without enrichment 30 years RBN UO2 fuel life, also highly safe with ND3 (N-15) unheated, between RBN tubes with Li-7, pressure drop also quasi passive when Li-7 over approx. 1000°C  ND3 valve to normal with pressure bubble control and Li-7 bubble drop 180 - 1340°C without pressure plus if necessary 1 floor SiO2 sand emergency coolant for RBN down below cheaper MgO.
Small or simply large with more parallel tubes
With control rods also in 2s from RBMK approx. 16s from below Cooling pipe length high at the time of the accident still wrong with positive VOID boiling bubble coefficient after roller coaster test ride until Rōhten burst and ceiling was gone then graphite smoke fire main spread.

No tungsten necessary with Future CANDU HTR and less RBN required than with Thor globular cluster HTR. ND3 & Li-7 coolant instead of H2O is also used optimally
Final costs are the lowest and can be built up quickly.

D-D in electrolysis etc. Hydrogen separated from H-H in gas centrifuge H-D with Li-7 LD + LH in melting centrifuge- separated hot decomposed.
Separated with H-H without D N-15 in ammonia.
B-11 is waste separated from B-10 enrichment in BF3 gas centrifuge cheaper in BH3/B2H6 borane production.
A good 1 billion t of boron reserve with 80% B-11 and 80% of air is N2 of which 0.4% (CO2 0.04% 3000Gt in air) so a lot of ammonia NH3 in the world is also made mostly Li-7 little Li-6  in Li. UO2 as granules in BN (B-11 & N-15 baked to RBN (CBN) without Triso.
CBN tubes can be connected by clamping with one-time expansion after baking with heat and pressure.
RBN remains hard up to approx. 2800°C, incombustible, insoluble in water, chemically stable and with a lot of neutrons, graphite remains a plastically deformable spherical bed from 2500°C.

Li-7 absorbs very few neutrons if <1s then decays to He binds T to LiT etc. can be separated in a centrifuge least reactive alkaline earth metal hot only approx. 0.5g/ccm excellent coolant for HTR and super moderator.

Superphenix Na breeder can also be reactivated with Li-7 & RBN also breeds and safely through bladder waste? 2.200.189.85 (talk) 13:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]