Technological breakthrough raises nuclear fuel utilization rate: below 1% to 95%

yusheng · Jun 11, 2017

a report issued 11 years ago, now seems all plan are going smoothly,
and you can see how much achieved in the last decade

jhungary · Jun 11, 2017

Han Patriot said:
Okay let me summarize your points:

1) Whether China really achieve this first in the world breakthrough of combining a proton linac effectively to an ADS system.

2) Whether proton linac is effective in building an efficient ADS.

3) Whether ADS itself is inherent safe and cost effective

Firstly, proton linac had been in existence since forever, proton linac is not the achievement here my friend. The achievement here is how you couple a proton linac into an ADS to produce an effective net power output, making sure it's safe and efficient.

1) Since you point out efficiency, how do we measure efficiency of the Chinese ADS or for that matter any kind of ADS?

2) Do you know the cost of the current test reactor and the future reactor? How do you measure cost effectiveness? Since not using the 95% of the remaining fuel would mean storing it for millions of years. And also the lost revenue of extracting the 95% energy left. Can you measure that? The cost of storing it for a million years?

3) How do you measure it's safeness? You are comparing a reactor which can not meltdown to a conventional reactor which can meltdown once the coolant system is down. The only other reactor with passive meltdown proof is the high temp gas cooled reactor which China is building. FYI, the only functioning passive meltdown proof reactor in operation is in China, HTR-10.

Lastly, you are not a nuclear scientist nor am I. Do you have the authority to decide whether this proton linac coupled ADS is effective? Please answer me with some credentials.

1.) China does NOT have an ADS system, China have a SPL that can be coupled to ADS system. In Fact, the world have YET TO HAVE AN ADS SYSTEM. China will have their in 2030, not 2017.

2.) It's not about the effectiveness of Uranium Cake (Even so, early stage ADS, if neutron is not properly available, is only trading the U235 density to Thorium/U233 density. Meaning you will have to depend on Thorium, instead of Uranium)

Effectiveness is on the SPL end, how effective they can be to provide a constant stream of Neutron. Amount of fuel (Thorium), quantity and quality of fuel, the output of the beam tube, the effectiveness of the protection barrier, the shape of the fuel, and the EM Strength all have a role in the SPL and its effectiveness of keep producing neutron. If this is not effective, you will burn the fuel as much as a conventional reactor burn Uranium.

Because the ADS reactor will have to depend on the SPL keep spitting neutron, the effectiveness of SPL to keep spitting neutron to the reactor will affect the effectiveness of the Reactor itself. Because when the SPL does not spit neutron, the reaction ends.

For that, the article does not mention the effectiveness of the SPL.

3.) ADS cannot melt down does not mean they are safe, MELT DOWN IS NOT THE ONLY CAUSE TO LEAK RADIATED MATERIAL. Neutron shoot out of the particle accelerator in an extreme speed, the dependent of the SPL in ADS would mean the Reactor have to be protected from the SPL. This can be done in two ways. 1.) By engaging in neutron reflector, however, it increase the power (as it reduces the critical size of the Uranium) of the output and if it got into a problem in the SPL, Bang, you got yourself a nuclear disaster 2.) by Containment Barrier, if the Containment Barrier fail, Boom, you have yourself a nuclear disaster.

The safety of the system depending on how we can harness the neutron spallation process, and at this point, no mention of how the System can prevent critical malfunction on each of the scenario above.

I am not a nuclear scientist, but I know people who work in the field, and as Part of my Military Service, I was tasked to provide security of a nuclear power station and have been briefed by the scientist, plus I read a lot.

May I ask your qualification to judge the matter at hand??

yusheng said:
this from where Chinese ADS is, several years ago.
as questioned above, to turn a conception into technique reality is difficult, however based on Chinese today's industry abilities, some fantastic parts were made out.
share some pictures of Chinese ADS parts if you can recognize them, and bear in mind all these parts have never appeared in human history.

Those are not ADS parts, those are Linear Accelerator Parts.

325MHz, 3MeV RFQ (Patented in 1994)

http://www.patentbuddy.com/Patent/5315120

HWR Cavity is also for Accelerator, not the reactor.

High current superconductingproton linac is being studied for Accelerator-driven System (ADS) Project hold by the Chinese Academic of Sciences (CAS). The injector II, which will accelerate proton beam from 2.1 MeV to 10 MeV, will be operated with superconducting cavity. At low energy part, there are two alternative choose, one is HWR cavity, the other is CH cavity. In this paper, the comparison of design with the two type cavitie

In fact, it said on the title, This is for ADS Linear Accelerator on top

Han Patriot · Jun 11, 2017

jhungary said:
1.) China does NOT have an ADS system, China have a SPL that can be coupled to ADS system. In Fact, the world have YET TO HAVE AN ADS SYSTEM. China will have their in 2030, not 2017.

Of course the C-ADS is not up and running, what I am stating is this SPL had been completed and designed to be coupled to the C-ADS. The point is how can you conclude that this is not a breakthrough towards building a full fledged ADS when none had been built before? How can you question the safety, cost effectiveness and efficiency? What benchmark are you using to do this?

The main constraint is the superconducting proton linac designed to couple with the ADS. The reactor itself is not rocket science, it's just a subcritical reactor.

jhungary said:
2.) It's not about the effectiveness of Uranium Cake (Even so, early stage ADS, if neutron is not properly available, is only trading the U235 density to Thorium/U233 density. Meaning you will have to depend on Thorium, instead of Uranium)

Effectiveness is on the SPL end, how effective they can be to provide a constant stream of Neutron. Amount of fuel (Thorium), quantity and quality of fuel, the output of the beam tube, the effectiveness of the protection barrier, the shape of the fuel, and the EM Strength all have a role in the SPL and its effectiveness of keep producing neutron. If this is not effective, you will burn the fuel as much as a conventional reactor burn Uranium.

IF? so you conclude this effort is futile when none had even been completed? So how constant should the steam of neutron be by your expert opinion? What should the correct quantity an quality of the fuel be genius? What shape should the fuel be? How do you design an effective protection barrier? Which kind of design barrier to use expert? Yet you conclude this can't be done when none had been done. Great.

jhungary said:
Because the ADS reactor will have to depend on the SPL keep spitting neutron, the effectiveness of SPL to keep spitting neutron to the reactor will affect the effectiveness of the Reactor itself. Because when the SPL does not spit neutron, the reaction ends.

For that, the article does not mention the effectiveness of the SPL.

Please tell me how you benchmark effectiveness of the SPL? And explain to me which is the effective range for an ADS to function since none had been made before.

jhungary said:
3.) ADS cannot melt down does not mean they are safe, MELT DOWN IS NOT THE ONLY CAUSE TO LEAK RADIATED MATERIAL. Neutron shoot out of the particle accelerator in an extreme speed, the dependent of the SPL in ADS would mean the Reactor have to be protected from the SPL. This can be done in two ways. 1.) By engaging in neutron reflector, however, it increase the power (as it reduces the critical size of the Uranium) of the output and if it got into a problem in the SPL, Bang, you got yourself a nuclear disaster 2.) by Containment Barrier, if the Containment Barrier fail, Boom, you have yourself a nuclear disaster.

The safety of the system depending on how we can harness the neutron spallation process, and at this point, no mention of how the System can prevent critical malfunction on each of the scenario above.

A leaked fuel rod can also lead to radiation leak, the point is the most serious risk is a meltdown. And using ADS or HTGR eliminates this major risk. Hell by your reasoning no nuclear reactor is ever safe. So prove to me how this system is less safe compared to a conventional since none had been built before.

jhungary said:
I am not a nuclear scientist, but I know people who work in the field, and as Part of my Military Service, I was tasked to provide security of a nuclear power station and have been briefed by the scientist, plus I read a lot.

May I ask your qualification to judge the matter at hand??

I am not a nuclear scientist, I am a google scientist just like you. You claim expertise from stealth to nuclear, heck why do we even need scientists in this case, just engage jhungary.

yusheng · Jun 11, 2017

jhungary said:
Those are not ADS parts, those are Linear Accelerator Parts.
HWR Cavity is also for Accelerator, not the reactor.

what is ADS?
what A means?
RFQ and HWR are necessary parts of ADS,
ADS is system
i don't understand what you are saying, you are free to say anything just don't quote me again.

Han Patriot · Jun 11, 2017

@jhungary, what is the difference between a normal SPL and an SPL designed for an ADS? The Chinese SPL here is designed specifically for an ADS system.

Actually an ADS had already been completed in China Venus-II but this is a zero power reactor. Means no net output power is produced, but the fuel was successfully transmuted.

yusheng · Jun 11, 2017

jhungary · Jun 11, 2017

Han Patriot said:
Of course the C-ADS is not up and running, what I am stating is this SPL had been completed and designed to be coupled to the C-ADS. The point is how can you conclude that this is not a breakthrough towards building a full fledged ADS when none had been built before? How can you question the safety, cost effectiveness and efficiency? What benchmark are you using to do this?

The main constraint is the superconducting proton linac designed to couple with the ADS. The reactor itself is not rocket science, it's just a subcritical reactor.

This is not a bench mark, this is the challenge they face, when there cannot be determined level of benchmark.

What is the bench mark of 7nm wafer? Can you tell me that, when 7nm wafer does not exist.

I say again, I am not saying this is not a progress toward ADS, A major step can be debatable, but to call it "Break Through"? I don't think how can you related the SPL into breakthrough of ADS, when most of the parts that SPL and technology already did exist in 1990s?

Can you elaborate HOW EXACTLY THIS IS A BREAKTHGOUH ON ADS?

IF? so you conclude this effort is futile when none had even been completed? So how constant should the steam of neutron be by your expert opinion? What should the correct quantity an quality of the fuel be genius? What shape should the fuel be? How do you design an effective protection barrier? Which kind of design barrier to use expert? Yet you conclude this can't be done when none had been done. Great.

Please tell me how you benchmark effectiveness of the SPL? And explain to me which is the effective range for an ADS to function since none had been made before.

Let me answer your question by asking you another question.

WHAT IS THE BENCHMARK, CONSTANT THE CHINESE IS SHOWING TO THE WORLD??

Before you ask other for the benchmark, you need to realise it is not the world claiming a breakthrough on ADS, it was the Chinese Scientist, so, if they can claim form making a SPL to couple with ADS, then they MUST HAVE SOME DATA on how this will work on ADS system, if any breakthrough was achieve.

So let me ask you what is the parameter, benchmark, data given out by the Chinese?

I can claim I made a Breakthrough of Time Travel by claiming I made the world first Magnetic Flux Capacitor, and when I am challenge to as whether or not I made a breakthrough, should I be the one providing the data, but not the person challenging me??

Also, just to answer your question, the answer you need is in www.world-nuclear.org and CERN webpage, go look for it.

A leaked fuel rod can also lead to radiation leak, the point is the most serious risk is a meltdown. And using ADS or HTGR eliminates this major risk. Hell by your reasoning no nuclear reactor is ever safe. So prove to me how this system is less safe compared to a conventional since none had been built before.

How do you know the most serious risk is meltdown?

In fact, there are less than 10 meltdown over the last 70 years according to CERN and federation of Nuclear Scientist, beside, meltdown is a result, not a clause of nuclear accident, meltdown can be triggered by many factor, not just control rod management. Do you know what is the most common and serious risk to Nuclear Reactor? Give you a hint. It is the same reason why airline crashed.

As I said before, just because ADS can never melt down, it does not mean it is safer or safe. In fact, Conventional Reactor only have 2 control parameter, fuel rod and temperature (Cooling). Where ADS have 6. Fuel, Temperature, Pressure, EM, Mechanical and Vacuum, in case of probability, more error would have been made in ADS than Conventional Reactor.

You need redundancy safety feature to prevent accident. safety is always measure BEFORE something was made, it depends on how much error-proofing and redundancy to make safe a concept, think about it, if you cannot control the safety before you actually make something, would you actually make it knowing you cannot control the safety factor?

I am not a nuclear scientist, I am a google scientist just like you. You claim expertise from stealth to nuclear, heck why do we even need scientists in this case, just engage jhungary. And what's with hiding behind the false flag. I am very sure you are an Indian by the way you talk. They are always experts in every subject but when it come to performing. It's zero.

DO TELL ME WHERE IN THIS, OR OTHER THREAD, I CLAIM TO BE AN EXPERT ON ANYTHING?

I am doing what you are doing, engage in a discussion, you are welcome to debate my point, which so far, you have not done so, instead, you have debate where was I from, my qualification and calling me an expert which I did not.

I am an expert in Military Tactics, and Military History, that is what I study and have practical experience, my brother is an expert in aviation, because he works as a Boeing Engineer. My sister is an expert of Fashion (Actually I don't know) because she own a boutique in Japan. My wife is an expert in Law because she is a Juris Doctor in Law and a PhD in International Relation.

I am doing what you are doing, expressing my opinion, did I question your expertise in any of my comment? Or do I need to be an expert in this field before I can post here? If that is the case, would it be okay for you if I ask my cousin who work in Oak Ridge and is actually a Nuclear Scientist to answer your concern? And I just shut up? But If I am doing it, then you need to shut up too, because you too, is not an expert in this field. You cannot have the cake and eat it.

yusheng said:
what is ADS?
what A means?
RFQ and HWR are necessary parts of ADS,
ADS is system
i don't understand what you are saying, you are free to say anything just don't quote me again.

Magnetic Coil is important for Magnetic Flux Capacitor which can be used to store and release enough energy to push an object outside the Space-Time Continuum, And Since Magnetic is in the Magnetic Flux Capacitor, so when I have a magnetic coil made, that must be a breakthrough of Time Travelling...lol.

Just because you made an accelerator, that does not mean you have a breakthrough on ADS, Accelerator was invented back in 1960, and accelerator is important for SPL and in turn important for ADS, can I say they made the breakthrough back in 1960??

It's been 8 posts, not one of the Chinese member pointing out how making a SPL is a breakthrough on ADS?

JSCh · Jun 11, 2017

Han Patriot · Jun 11, 2017

jhungary said:
This is not a bench mark, this is the challenge they face, when there cannot be determined level of benchmark.

What is the bench mark of 7nm wafer? Can you tell me that, when 7nm wafer does not exist.

I say again, I am not saying this is not a progress toward ADS, A major step can be debatable, but to call it "Break Through"? I don't think how can you related the SPL into breakthrough of ADS, when most of the parts that SPL and technology already did exist in 1990s?

Can you elaborate HOW EXACTLY THIS IS A BREAKTHGOUH ON ADS?

Let me answer your question by asking you another question.

WHAT IS THE BENCHMARK, CONSTANT THE CHINESE IS SHOWING TO THE WORLD??

Before you ask other for the benchmark, you need to realise it is not the world claiming a breakthrough on ADS, it was the Chinese Scientist, so, if they can claim form making a SPL to couple with ADS, then they MUST HAVE SOME DATA on how this will work on ADS system, if any breakthrough was achieve

So let me ask you what is the parameter, benchmark, data given out by the Chinese?

I can claim I made a Breakthrough of Time Travel by claiming I made the world first Magnetic Flux Capacitor, and when I am challenge to as whether or not I made a breakthrough, should I be the one providing the data, but not the person challenging me??

Damn I am asking you a question and in return you ask me the same question. I have repeated the same sentence a few times, this is a breakthrough, because the SPL for ADS had never been done by anyone before, can you prove me wrong? Now your turn, can you prove to me this isn't a breakthrough? Can you show me the progress of other countries in this regard? Now you are playing with semantics, major step, breakthrough, does it matter? It is a new achievement which had never been done before, and it is the critical step to achieving an ADS in the Chinese roadmap. Keep to the topic, don't fly to semiconductors. No goal post shifting.

Why are you asking me for a benchmark when you are the one claiming, it is unsafe, not cost effective and not efficient. For you to come up with such claims, you need to compare it to a benchmark. As for the Chinese, their proof of advancement is not bench marking to others, there are none to begin with. The only benchmark is either you created something or you didn't. Btw, the data of the SPL is in the previous research paper, now tell me why this SPL to be applied to an ADS is unsafe, not cost effective and efficient. What are you comparing to? An imaginary friend? It's not even constructed yet. :partay:

Explain to me how an SPL designed specifically for an ADS is different from a normal SPL not coupled to an ADS, since you are telling me it had been in existence since the 60s and yet no one ever thought of using it on an ADS?

jhungary said:
How do you know the most serious risk is meltdown?

In fact, there are less than 10 meltdown over the last 70 years according to CERN and federation of Nuclear Scientist, beside, meltdown is a result, not a clause of nuclear accident, meltdown can be triggered by many factor, not just control rod management. Do you know what is the most common and serious risk to Nuclear Reactor? Give you a hint. It is the same reason why airline crashed.

As I said before, just because ADS can never melt down, it does not mean it is safer or safe. In fact, Conventional Reactor only have 2 control parameter, fuel rod and temperature (Cooling). Where ADS have 6. Fuel, Temperature, Pressure, EM, Mechanical and Vacuum, in case of probability, more error would have been made in ADS than Conventional Reactor.

You need redundancy safety feature to prevent accident. safety is always measure BEFORE something was made, it depends on how much error-proofing and redundancy to make safe a concept, think about it, if you cannot control the safety before you actually make something, would you actually make it knowing you cannot control the safety factor?

Genius, It is precisely because reactor meltdown is so catastrophic that people try to prevent it from happening. You really have some warped logic here, just because it didn't occur, you concur it is not the greatest risk? Put it this way, there were no nuclear bombs used since 1945, does it make a nuclear war less catastrophic?

I am a controls engineer, and the PLC/DCS used to control nuclear power plants are basically the same with the oil and gas industry except for certification to IAEA standards. All nuclear control systems are REDUNDANT genius, from processor, power supply to I/O modules. If you are talking about process redundancy, explain to me why it is less safe? How does a reactor having no probability of meltdown be less safer? Tell me genius.

Can you tell me from history any other form of failure more serious than a meltdown?

jhungary said:
DO TELL ME WHERE IN THIS, OR OTHER THREAD, I CLAIM TO BE AN EXPERT ON ANYTHING?

I am doing what you are doing, engage in a discussion, you are welcome to debate my point, which so far, you have not done so, instead, you have debate where was I from, my qualification and calling me an expert which I did not.

I am an expert in Military Tactics, and Military History, that is what I study and have practical experience, my brother is an expert in aviation, because he works as a Boeing Engineer. My sister is an expert of Fashion (Actually I don't know) because she own a boutique in Japan. My wife is an expert in Law because she is a Juris Doctor in Law and a PhD in International Relation.

I am doing what you are doing, expressing my opinion, did I question your expertise in any of my comment? Or do I need to be an expert in this field before I can post here? If that is the case, would it be okay for you if I ask my cousin who work in Oak Ridge and is actually a Nuclear Scientist to answer your concern? And I just shut up? But If I am doing it, then you need to shut up too, because you too, is not an expert in this field. You cannot have the cake and eat it.

On the internet many people talk everything about themselves, who believe, or even care? So someone claimed to be expert in military tactics and history is now suddenly a nuclear scientist? Google is great ..... :lol:

Get back on the topic, let's not get personal about me, or yourself.

jhungary said:
Magnetic Coil is important for Magnetic Flux Capacitor which can be used to store and release enough energy to push an object outside the Space-Time Continuum, And Since Magnetic is in the Magnetic Flux Capacitor, so when I have a magnetic coil made, that must be a breakthrough of Time Travelling...lol.

Just because you made an accelerator, that does not mean you have a breakthrough on ADS, Accelerator was invented back in 1960, and accelerator is important for SPL and in turn important for ADS, can I say they made the breakthrough back in 1960??

It's been 8 posts, not one of the Chinese member pointing out how making a SPL is a breakthrough on ADS?

So tell me what is the difference between an SPL designed for an ADS compared to the others. If it was invented in the 60s, why don't someone use a SPL for an ADS? Enlighten me.

It's been 8 posts and you still can't tell me why this isn't a breakthrough?

Daniel808 · Jun 11, 2017

JSCh said:
View attachment 402994
View attachment 402995

Thanks for the paper. @JSCh

It tell us many things, about China's Breakthrough in ADS PROJECT.
ADS itself has been evolving as China ADANES (Accelerator Driver Advance Nuclear Energy System)

Like I said, In the Previous paper I post.
This 25 MeV ADS from China is the FIRST in the World !
This is a Breakthrough that can change our Future.

Congratulations for China, one more time :china:

@Han Patriot @yusheng

jhungary · Jun 11, 2017

Han Patriot said:
Damn I am asking you a question and in return you ask me the same question. I have repeated the same sentence a few times, this is a breakthrough, because the SPL for ADS had never been done by anyone before, can you prove me wrong? Now your turn, can you prove to me this isn't a breakthrough? Can you show me the progress of other countries in this regard? Now you are playing with semantics, major step, breakthrough, does it matter? It is a new achievement which had never been done before, and it is the critical step to achieving an ADS in the Chinese roadmap. Keep to the topic, don't fly to semiconductors. This is typical of Indian posters, they start talking about their grandmother when they panic.

A.) We do not know whether or not Chinese actually successfully tested SPL Coupling with ADS, because 1.) ADS system is lacking, you cannot know if the coupling is successful, you can only test it when you have a working ADS reactor. 2.) China is not releasing any data.

I can claim I have successfully tested a magnetic core flux capacitor, if I do not release any detail on it, would you believe me??

B.) The problem regarding the ADS system is not limited on SPL. SPL is not the reason why ADS system cannot be progress at this stage. This is listed on the 2008 report from CERN

Again, who I am does not matter, I will suggest to @Shotgunner51 or @waz to delete your "Indian" Comment.

And to answer your question

ADS research and development
What was claimed to be the world’s first ADS experiment was begun in March 2009 at the Kyoto University Research Reactor Institute (KURRI), utilizing the Kyoto University Critical Assembly (KUCA). The research project was commissioned by Japan’s Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) six years earlier. The experiment irradiates a high-energy proton beam (100 MeV) from the accelerator on to a heavy metal target set within the critical assembly, after which the neutrons produced by spallation are bombarded into a subcritical fuel core.

http://world-nuclear.org/informatio...ration/accelerator-driven-nuclear-energy.aspx

So, yes, 100MeV SPL for ADS DID EXIST, or the Japanese is lying about that...(Notice the highlight in red is describing a Accelerator Driven Sub Critical Process, which is the basic principal for ADS. Just that the reactor core is not present)

Full report on here

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/18811248.2009.9711605?needAccess=true&

Hence if China is claiming breakthrough becausde the Chinese have made a SPL coupling to ADS, either they have a Functioning ADS reactor to actually linking it, then it would have been a breakthrough, otherwise what the Chinese has done, the Japanese had already done it in 2009

On the other hand, the Belgium is focusing on the Reactor Core

The Belgian Nuclear Research Centre (SCK.CEN) is planning to begin construction on the MYRRHA (Multipurpose Hybrid Research Reactor for High-tech Applications) research reactor at Mol in 2015. Initially it will be a 57 MWt ADS, consisting of a proton accelerator delivering a 600 MeV, 2.5 mA (or 350 MeV, 5 mA) proton beam to a liquid lead-bismuth (Pb-Bi) spallation target that in turn couples to a Pb-Bi cooled, subcritical fast nuclear core (see Research and development section in the information page on

So, either Chinese have made and tested a ADS reactor core, the so-called "Breakthrough" does not exist. Is that clear? Or are you claiming something the Japanese has already done is a Breakthrough??

Why are you asking me for a benchmark when you are the one claiming, it is unsafe, not cost effective and not efficient. For you to come up with such claims, you need to compare it to a benchmark. As for the Chinese, their proof of advancement is not bench marking to others, there are none to begin with. The only benchmark is either you created something or you didn't. Btw, the data of the SPL is in the previous research paper, now tell me why this SPL to be applied to an ADS is unsafe, not cost effective and efficient. What are you comparing to? An imaginary friend? It's not even constructed yet.

Did I claim I make a breakthrough on ADS??

I don't believe I said so.

There are safety CONCERN you need to address before you put something in trial, as of this moment, not one Chinese publication have addressed these concern set out by Federation of Nuclear Scientist.

Again, if you can send me a report saying these obstacle are gone in any language, I am more than Happy to retract what I said, the fact is CHINA DOES NOT RELEASE ANY INFO ON ANYTHING.

Explain to me how an SPL designed specifically for an ADS is different from a normal SPL not coupled to an ADS, since you are telling me it had been in existence since the 60s and yet no one ever thought of using it on an ADS?

See answer above.

Genius, It is precisely because reactor meltdown is so catastrophic that people try to prevent it from happening. You really have some warped logic here, just because it didn't occur, you concur it is not the greatest risk? Put it this way, there were no nuclear bombs used since 1945, does it make a nuclear war less catastrophic?

I am a controls engineer, and the PLC/DCS used to control nuclear power plants are basically the same with the oil and gas industry except for certification to IAEA standards. All nuclear control systems are REDUNDANT genius, from processor, power supply to I/O modules. If you are talking about process redundancy, explain to me why it is less safe? How does a reactor having no probability of meltdown be less safer? Tell me genius.

Can you tell me from history any other form of failure more serious than a meltdown?

You do know the most critical nuclear related incident (By contamination, Not by death rate) is an accidental theft and release of Caesium 137 from an abandoned Hospital in brazil, Goiânia accident

In term of effect, not death, this incident surpassed even Chernobyl disaster, it killed 4, but contaminated 247 person, Chernobyl disaster on the other hand, killed 31 but only 237 was contaminated in the incident. Considering Chernobyl is a full blown nuclear reactor, but Goiania only ever leaked a Caesium medical capsule that's 55mm x 27mm, the death would have much worse if the medical capsule was a more potent form of radioactive material.

There are no reaction, no explosion, yet 247 people are contaminated and 4 killed. Are you saying this is not serious??

Also, Human Error is to blame for the Chernobyl Disaster as well, hence Human Error is the major risk of Nuclear Material.

Meltdown is not the clause, rather it is an end result from several factor, and a ADS sub-critical core can leak, and once it leak, it would still be as dangerous as meltdown. And since there are more control variable between an ADS and Conventional Reactor, more things can go wrong, and hence the probability of something went wrong in an ADS is greater than a conventional reactor. This is simple logic.

And LOL on you. if ALL NUCLEAR REACTOR ARE REDUNDANT, then there WOULD NOT BE ANY ACCIDENT. Meltdown or Not, what you said is really genius.

See, I told you. Typical Indian, they start talking about their grandmother. Until today you still haven't tell me why you are hiding behind a false flag. So someone well versed in military tactics and history is now suddenly a nuclear scientist? Great.....

Great now your cousin is in Oak Ridge, and this super duper expert with a cousin in Oak Ridge is lurking in PDF.

I NEVER CLAIM TO BE A NUCLEAR SCIENTIST, again, please point to where I said I am a nuclear scientist in this post or any other post? I will issue an apology immediately.

Yes, I studied in Colorado, and in case you do not know, there is a very large nuclear testing site in Whiteman AFB, a lot of my schoolmate ended up in nuclear science. And yes, one of my cousin are a nuclear scientist and work in Oak Ridge, do you want his e-mail so you can communicate with him and so he can humiliate you??

So tell me what is the difference between an SPL designed for an ADS compared to the others. If it was invented in the 60s, why don't someone use a SPL for an ADS? Enlighten me.

It's been 8 posts and you still can't tell me why this isn't a breakthrough.

Gunpowder was invented during 11th century in China, why the world first musket does not exist until 300 years later in 15th century? You ask some dumb question buddy.

And do tell me how the SPL is a breakthrough on ADS? When A.) SPL is not the problem, B.) SPL used in ADS was already tested in Japan in 2009?

Globenim · Jun 11, 2017

Shajida Khan said:
, I can say that title is indeed misleading, these advantages of ADS were known for quite long and not exactly novel. I am still trying to understand the breakthrough or Chinese contribution here. I guess it is in accelerator design or scaling of accelerator.

No one and nothing from "China" has even claimed or implied the advantages of ADS to be completely novel or yet unknown though, so I am trying to understand what you are trying to suggerate here would be missleading. Its "new ADS" as in "this implementation of ADS is new" not "ADS as a new concept". Chinas ADS research and program has been public for quite a long time as well now. So what was the breaktrough then? All the key technologies including new concepts have been set up seperately. If you are looking for some read the Cern introductions to the Chinese ADS program:

The new concept of the granular target had been introduced , in which millimeter size solid grain, which is made by target material, driven by gravity, the beam bombarding the grains from top to down to produce intensive neutron, and the deposited heat fluid with the grain out of target chamber, then treated off line. Therefore, the granular target power should be jump to 10~100MW, and withstand the impact by high power CW beam trip within 10 sec. as grain is discrete medium and selectable the different material of target. The prototype
of 10~100 kW granular target has been test and preliminary results shownthe agreement with design.

The new SCL design is just part of the entire new concept built on top of the traditional ADS theory and only the first or four milestones to complete the ADS/ADANES burner program. Next one will close the fuel cycle. Now its doesnt matter that the first "true" ADS facility will take till 2022 and practial one till 2030 when everyone else is no step further, no fucks about "my guess" and "my secrit underground projects" given.

Han Patriot said:
Ok, let us ask our expert Jhungary, what is the difference between a normal SPL and an SPL designed for an ADS? The Chinese SPL here is designed specifically for an ADS system

No the question should be what to the others even have that even compares to the SCL design for the Chinese ADS/ADANES burner? Its the other way around. A mere "We had an SCL before" doesn't suffice. Whats their solution to make ADS viable for the industry? Bring some up first and dont cry its going to be deleted, while just hiding behind that excuse to dismiss a project because its Chinese with no substance for the last 3 pages.

Jlaw · Jun 11, 2017

Daniel808 said:
Thanks for the paper. @JSCh

It tell us many things, about China's Breakthrough in ADS PROJECT.
ADS itself has been evolving as China ADANES (Accelerator Driver Advance Nuclear Energy System)

Like I said, In the Previous paper I post.
This 25 MeV ADS from China is the FIRST in the World !
This is a Breakthrough that can change our Future.

Congratulations for China, one more time

@Han Patriot @yusheng

Youre right. Good catch . the viet refugee is writing about something else trying to trick non tech members . this is a game changer for China and the world .

grandmaster · Jun 12, 2017

Han Patriot said:
Damn I am asking you a question and in return you ask me the same question. I have repeated the same sentence a few times, this is a breakthrough, because the SPL for ADS had never been done by anyone before, can you prove me wrong? Now your turn, can you prove to me this isn't a breakthrough? Can you show me the progress of other countries in this regard? Now you are playing with semantics, major step, breakthrough, does it matter? It is a new achievement which had never been done before, and it is the critical step to achieving an ADS in the Chinese roadmap. Keep to the topic, don't fly to semiconductors. No goal post shifting.

Why are you asking me for a benchmark when you are the one claiming, it is unsafe, not cost effective and not efficient. For you to come up with such claims, you need to compare it to a benchmark. As for the Chinese, their proof of advancement is not bench marking to others, there are none to begin with. The only benchmark is either you created something or you didn't. Btw, the data of the SPL is in the previous research paper, now tell me why this SPL to be applied to an ADS is unsafe, not cost effective and efficient. What are you comparing to? An imaginary friend? It's not even constructed yet.

Explain to me how an SPL designed specifically for an ADS is different from a normal SPL not coupled to an ADS, since you are telling me it had been in existence since the 60s and yet no one ever thought of using it on an ADS?

Genius, It is precisely because reactor meltdown is so catastrophic that people try to prevent it from happening. You really have some warped logic here, just because it didn't occur, you concur it is not the greatest risk? Put it this way, there were no nuclear bombs used since 1945, does it make a nuclear war less catastrophic?

I am a controls engineer, and the PLC/DCS used to control nuclear power plants are basically the same with the oil and gas industry except for certification to IAEA standards. All nuclear control systems are REDUNDANT genius, from processor, power supply to I/O modules. If you are talking about process redundancy, explain to me why it is less safe? How does a reactor having no probability of meltdown be less safer? Tell me genius.

Can you tell me from history any other form of failure more serious than a meltdown?

On the internet many people talk everything about themselves, who believe, or even care? So someone claimed to be expert in military tactics and history is now suddenly a nuclear scientist? Google is great .....
Get back on the topic, let's not get personal about me, or yourself.

So tell me what is the difference between an SPL designed for an ADS compared to the others. If it was invented in the 60s, why don't someone use a SPL for an ADS? Enlighten me.

It's been 8 posts and you still can't tell me why this isn't a breakthrough?

You should not wait time and effort to explain anything to your or China haters. Their minds are full of hatred and jealousy. In their mind, only Vietnam and Japanese were all good. Anything related to China was all bad. Even saints cannot transform all demons, why waste time for them? Just keep doing all good and make them always feel jealous.