Hallam Nuclear Power Facility - the Sodium Graphite Reactor in Nebraska (1963)
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 07. 2024
- This film shows the setting and location of the reactor built jointly by USAEC and the Consumers' Public Power District of Nebraska. An explanation of this type of reactor, using a liquid metal coolant, is given, stressing its advantages. The working of the plant is shown in animation. Live footage shows construction of the reactor containment vessel, its transportation from Philadelphia to Hallam, moderator fabrication and installation, installation and operation of safety rods, use of an intermediate heat exchanger, installation of steam piping and the installation of the turbine and generator. Also shown is fuel handling, cleaning and storage cells, fuel fabrication, and testing.
20 minutes, color. Produced by USAEC's Chicago Operations Office.
Huge thanks to the Nebraska Public Power District for funding the digitization of this gem!
Digitized from 16 mm film. Coordinated by Nick Touran of whatisnuclear.com. More info here: whatisnuclear.com/news/2023-0...
Courtesy of the National Archive
00:00 Film noise
00:23 Introduction
01:45 Intro credits
02:12 Description of buildings
03:00 Construction
04:00 Other liquid metal reactors
04:27 Sodium Reactor Experiment
04:55 Contracting, siting, groundbreaking
05:18 Description of nuclear
05:40 Integration of coal and nuclear sides
06:37 Animations of core and plant
07:55 More construction
09:20 Vessel support and transport
11:16 Containment and piping
12:10 Core internals, graphite moderators
13:49 Top shield head
14:18 Fuel elements
15:36 QA testing and control systems
16:33 Intermediate loop and steam generators
18:20 Turbine-generator and substation
19:01 Fuel handling
21:44 Test program and criticality
23:00 Outro - Věda a technologie
One of the best videos on nuclear power plants that I have encountered,
Hey there little Jimmy, it seems like you'd like to learn about sodium cooled, graphite moderated nuclear reactor.
I often wonder who these films were actually made for. 🤔
Its Timmy
@@NOBOX7no Jimmy
@@mattpierre891To get kids, and their parents, wanting to make kids interested in being nuclear engineers. Back then, it was just as noble as being a doctor.
And how!
Looks like they have a nice shot of the Kramer Steam Plant at Bellevue. The two unit C.C. Sheldon Steam Plant is still operating in 2023. I also liked the lattice steel tower line that ran northwest from the 2nd and N street substation to NW 48th Street just south of the air park (now gone).
The point of a 60 years of research in Nuclear Power Generation has been made, again, and again.
Not very long lived... (from wikipedia) " The facility operated for 6,271 hours and generated 192,458,000 kW-hrs of electric power." It was completly decomissioned in 1969
Produced atomic generated power for about a year. It must be entombed and monitored through 2090.
The problems of trying to work with molten sodium I wonder ...
I mean, they did say this was an experimental plant.
@@damienhill6383
Gen IV reactors are truly a wonder indeed.
This CZcamsr co-wrote the wikipedia article.
Great educational film! Thank you...
More please:
how can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat
@2:36 "waste storage building". Little stone block garage 😂
Who were these old govt filmed made for? Who would’ve seen then in 1963?
And do they still make these kinda films today?
Why make these films? To make us all believe that nuclear energy would be safe and the electricity it generated "too cheap to meter." Yes, that was the AEC/NRC bullshit to cover the truth that the gov't wanted a lot of plants built real fast so we could generate a LOT of waste to reprocess for bombs. But, oops, then they figured out how to build smaller bombs, so the need decreased. But the nuclear industry forged ahead anyway with untried, untested, poorly designed, cheaply built/maintained/operated, INCREDIBLY EXPENSIVE plants. Plants that routinely and almost without exception leaked, failed, or otherwise caused dangerous trouble. The first generation of nuke electric plant designs were SOOOO bad they didn't dare build them in the US, so they sold them offshore. Got to recoup SOME of that half-assed engineering investment, eh? This is why Fukashima blew up, go look it up. GE sold the bullshit GE Mark1 plant designs to TEPCO, who ran them half-assed and, for DECADES, didn't listen to the safety engineers. Wish I were making this up.
The rest is history that the ratepayer is still paying for, and will CONTINUE TO PAY FOR through decommissioning (which nobody knows how long will take or how much it will cost). Electric ratepayers paying for nuke plant decommissioning is the modern century version of "paying on a dead mule". Look up WPPSS, aka "Whoops": You'll stop laughing.
How do I know? I've been laughing myself sick at these liars since the Rasmussen report in 1975, and the nuclear power industry hasn't stopped lying since. Ask Karen Silkwood. Oh, wait: you can't (see also, rear-end damage on her car that hit a culvert head-on. Hmmm...maybe it spun supersonically during the collision.)
Check out the bullshit CA Edison's subsidiary spews about why they had to decommission San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS, love the pure-Orwell name) after they screwed up TWICE "fixing" THE SAME FAILURE DUE TO A KNOWN DESIGN ISSUE (for about several billion dollars in total) but had to shut it down less than two years after the second, 20-year-guaranteed fix. FFS. Who's paying to decommission the plant? Sure as Hell not that subsidiary: YOU ARE.
Yes, we need nukes for the future, but how about safety engineering over speed and profit when the downside is ratepayers getting soaked for a big radioactive bang and/or widespread longterm poisoning?
ב''ה, mostly just siphon DoD's cold-weather gear funds for other purposes, with faith put in global warming.
That's right we watched these in school on those 16mm film projectors. We learned about the subject so we knew Hanoi Jane was a commie and didn't know sqaut about subatomic nuclear theory. didja know the fundamentally flawed reactors at Chernobyl ran for another twenty-four years after the 1986 accident? 😂
If the average person knew the facts they'd be clamoring for nukes.
Sodium explodes if it contacts water.
And spontaneously catches fire in open air, hence the helium purging.
same with plutonium
@@markae0 Actually, they declassified glovebox video of plutonium flammability tests. I highly recommend searching it up. *Burning and Extinguishing Characteristics of Plutonium Metal Fires* on CZcams. Short story: unless it is powdered or shavings it is hard to ignite... But once it is ignited, it is extremely hard to extinguish.
Holy crap that opening made me jump, headphone warning
yep, the graphite rods rapidly cracked, absorbed sodium and failed. Years of decommissioning for a few months of just a bit electricity. Total rip off for rate payers of Nebraska.
The leaking graphite cans were analyzed and Atomics International had a plan to fix them by outfitting them with snorkels. But the utility declined their option to buy the reactor. The Federal Atomic Energy Commission paid for the reactor and decommissioning through the Power Demonstration Reactor Program, not ratepayers.
@@whatisnuclear so for Hallam it was the taxpayers? Fairly certain Scanna was the ratepayers. Wonder what was different.
@rogermorey ..That's "sour grapes", based on disinformation.👎🏿👎🏿
@@lilblackduc7312 Sour Grapes is Woulda Coulda Shouda done due dilligence in understanding the chemistry and physics of the radiated rods in sodium. If they went from crack to break, they may have blocked reinsertion, rapidly leading to catastrophic meltdown. It was bad engineering in the first place.
@@whatisnuclear Just all the U.S. Taxpayers covered the cost !
love these old propoganda films.
I love them too. As a nuclear engineer, I consider them technological showcase films. Super useful and interesting from a technological POV.
@@whatisnuclearI'm an electrical engineer, so I always enjoy seeing the control rooms full of instruments.
@@whatisnuclear kinda missed the point, "PROPAGANDA" Oxford states " biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view."
@@rogermorey It's hard to make a technical film describing a sodium graphite reactor too political.
@@whatisnuclear The push for nuclear power in the days of Larry Householder is part of why this is on youtube now. If this was presented by a historian, it would look very different. Cheapest and safest for the consumer is definitively not nuclear. However nuclear is most profitable for the provider. That's supply side economics, this is indeed propaganda.