Slashdot Mirror


Samurai-Sword Maker May Cool Nuclear Revival

NobleSavage sends a story from Bloomberg about Japan Steel Works Ltd., a company that still makes Samurai swords, and how it may control the fate of the global nuclear-energy renaissance. "There stands the only plant in the world, a survivor of Allied bombing in World War II, capable of producing the central part of a nuclear reactor's containment vessel in a single piece, reducing the risk of a radiation leak. Utilities that won't need the equipment for years are making $100 million down payments now on components Japan Steel makes from 600-ton ingots. Each year the Tokyo-based company can turn out just four of the steel forgings that contain the radioactivity in a nuclear reactor. Even after it doubles capacity in the next two years, there won't be enough production to meet building plans."

74 of 317 comments (clear)

  1. Hm by scubamage · · Score: 4, Funny

    So what I want to know is... can they make me a sword out of uranium? Now THAT would be sweet.

    1. Re:Hm by steveo777 · · Score: 4, Funny
      True, a uranium sword would be sweet, but what happens when you grow that third and fourth arm? Sure, you'd think the extra gripping power would be 'handy' on your sword now. But what happens when they deliver that bad boy and in your first uranium sword fight they both go critical mass... Did you ever think of THAT?!

      Maybe depleted uranium.

      --
      This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
    2. Re:Hm by n3tcat · · Score: 3, Informative

      Depleted uranium is still bad for you. See this.

    3. Re:Hm by scubamage · · Score: 5, Funny

      Psh, you're missing the point. URANIUM SWORD! And we could create uranium sword wielding robots. This has badass written all over it and highlighted with AWESOME.

    4. Re:Hm by steveo777 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, I read that article. But if you honestly think that I was replying to an earnest post with anything but jest, you should really find a new sense of humor. Also, having a density of about 19.1g/cm3, it tends to be just over twice as heavy as sword steel (at 7.8g/cm3). Your 2kg sword would be 4.8kg and tire you and your four arms out quite nicely.

      --
      This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
    5. Re:Hm by QuantumPion · · Score: 3, Informative

      The wiki article you linked states itself that DU is less toxic then many other common materials like arsenic. The statistical evidence linking birth defects to soldiers is dubious at best. This is pretty much a case of DHMO-itis, i.e., irrational fear over something not inherently dangerous. DU, like DHMO, are feared because of their mystique (in the case of DHMO-a ominous sounding acronym).

    6. Re:Hm by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Funny

      It'd still make a sweet mace.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    7. Re:Hm by scubamage · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's incorrect. The US Military admitted there were 'some unknown dangers' associated with DU after Dr. Doug Rokke (US Army Physicist) got cancer and is suffering numerous other ill effects from radiation poisoning whilst leading efforts to clean up the radiation after the first Iraq war. He also has explained that the US Military actively suppressed a WHO study which showed DU has the same effects as normal uranium on the human body. I only know because his brother, General Irving Rokke was the Dean of my college and I got to speak with him. I also learned about how the US and UK have been pressed about the issue numerous times in the UN and have used their comfy chairs on the UN Security Council to veto any sort of punitive action.

    8. Re:Hm by rcw-home · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you really need a heavy sword, use a little Tungsten filler. It's 19.25 g/cc, has a high tensile strength, and makes steel stronger as an alloy. It lost out to DU because it typically has to be imported from China (and the US wanted to use the DU, not store it indefinately). DU is also pyrophoric.

    9. Re:Hm by ACDChook · · Score: 3, Funny

      having a density of about 19.1g/cm3, it tends to be just over twice as heavy as sword steel (at 7.8g/cm3). Your 2kg sword would be 4.8kg and tire you and your four arms out quite nicely
      But if you have 4 arms, then you'll have twice as much strength to heft the sword, so you will get tired at an equal rate as if the sword was a normal weight with only two arms. So by making you sprout those extra arms, the sword solves its own problems!
    10. Re:Hm by webrunner · · Score: 5, Informative

      So.. it's less toxic than one of the world's most famous deadly poisons

      That's really reassuring.

      --
      ADVENTURERS! - ANTIHERO FOR HIRE - CARDMASTER CONFLICT
    11. Re:Hm by misleb · · Score: 3, Funny

      Not to mention the +5 Nuclear Damage you get. Unfortunately, you get a -3 Dex modifier when wielding. :(

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    12. Re:Hm by jameskojiro · · Score: 2, Informative

      Depleated Uranium would have the same effect as lead poisoning, but at least lead is harder to get into the air as it is more ductile and lead bullets tend to break into a few small pieces and deform, whereas Uranium is harder and will shatter causing smaller bits to flake off and become airborne.

      We are talkign the "chemical" properties of Uranium, not the radioactive properties, so many people think nuclear when they think of uranium, they forget uranium has chemical properties and can form checmical compounds like every other element.

      The main problem with Depleted Uranium is heavy metal poisoning. We should use Bismuth instead that way we shoot someone in their gut and we cure their stomach ache, but they die of blood loss, Bismuth is the main ingredient of Pepto-Bismal and is one of the few heavy metals that is non-toxic in it's metalic form. It is also quite dense and can be used like lead, but again it is brittle like Uranium.

      --
      Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
    13. Re:Hm by keineobachtubersie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "The evidence suggests you're just being an arrogant idiot. Slinging insults is for the weak minded..."

      Thanks, I enjoyed that.

    14. Re:Hm by ichigo+2.0 · · Score: 2, Funny

      But if you have 4 arms, then you'll have twice as much strength to heft the sword, so you will get tired at an equal rate as if the sword was a normal weight with only two arms. So by making you sprout those extra arms, the sword solves its own problems!
      It truly is a miraculous substance! Buy now and you get a free graphite rod with your purchase!
  2. sounds like a way to re-start by gravesb · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This sounds like an area where American metal working could enjoy some sort of renaissance. I wonder what the start-up costs for such an endeavor are, what the future growth and profit margins are, and where such competency could be applied outside of reactors and and swords. But, with low skill metal working being outsourced, such specialized skills might be a place for America to specialize, especially as the dollar continues to fall.

    --
    http://bgcommonsense.blogspot.com
    1. Re:sounds like a way to re-start by Overzeetop · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If there are multiple companies putting up $100M a pop for future production, I'd say there ought to be a solid business model in there somewhere.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    2. Re:sounds like a way to re-start by maxume · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They might be busy:

      http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/4249332.html

      (and I did hesitate to link to Popular Mechanics, as they are a bit rah rah patriotic for this here, but I doubt very much that they are outright lying)

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    3. Re:sounds like a way to re-start by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This sounds like an area where American metal working could enjoy some sort of renaissance.

      How? We have no industrial base anymore. It's the "information age", we're a "service economy", remember? Actually making steel is, like, so 1970s.

      U.S. Steel now makes about as much steel now as it did in 1902. The once-mighty Bethlehem Steel? Gone. National Steel? Kaput.

      We traded our ability to make stuff, for our ability to by cheap imports at Wal*Mart.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    4. Re:sounds like a way to re-start by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2, Funny

      There will be no revival. Too many environmental restrictions to building such plants!
      I am the dread samurai Robert-san. There will be no revival. I have come for your swoooord!

      (Though a bit late for a Holocaust cloak, one would think, and perhaps the component is a little large for a wheelbarrow)
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    5. Re:sounds like a way to re-start by maxume · · Score: 5, Insightful

      On the other hand, the steel that U.S. Steel makes now is high quality, special purpose alloys, and Alcoa is refining quite a bit more aluminum than they were in 1902 and Caterpillar is doing 'OK' globally. No one scoffs at Intel chips, and they are among the most intensely manufactured objects in existence.

      It really doesn't matter where cheap steel is coming from; it isn't particularly profitable to make, and it is the easiest capacity to add, so why should anybody be surprised that American companies aren't trying to compete with cheaper foreign labor for the title of biggest steel company?

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    6. Re:sounds like a way to re-start by sumdumass · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, there might be a few plants not in commission but that have never been destroyed that could ease the cost of going this route. And a couple of billion dollars isn't all that much to the type of people who wold fund something like this. It would probably a couple investment groups and so on. Keep in mind, the 100 million is only a down payment. The final product will costs more. But EPA regulations and unions wold probably still make it a non-starter in the US.

    7. Re:sounds like a way to re-start by elwinc · · Score: 2, Informative
      Here's an abstract that contains a little more info:

      The EPR (European Pressurised Water Reactor) developed by AREVA is a new nuclear reactor designed to achieve greater output (1600 MW) and longer plant life (60 years) than conventional nuclear reactors. The first one is currently under construction in Finland at Olkiluoto. For this new design, an integrated forging was applied for the nozzle shell, including an integral flange (Fig. 1). A 500 t ingot is necessary to manufacture this part, which was the first large part manufactured on a new 14 kt press installed at JSW in 2003. The part was completed 11 months after pouring. The technologies of each manufacturing step and the properties of the part are described.
      The full text costs $48 to purchase.

      According to this, Russia can produce two reactor pressure vessel forgings per year, with plans to double by 2011.

      But all this delay in "evolutionary" boiling water reactors could be good news for pebble bed reactors. This Blog has a handy summary of the advantages and disadvantages of pebble beds. Last November, Westinghouse bought a pebble bed company called IST Nuclear. Some nice diagrams.

      --
      --- Often in error; never in doubt!
  3. Japan, WWII, allied bombing, and nukes by rjamestaylor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    These story elements (Japan, WWII, Allied bombing and nuclear technology) usually have a different theme than protecting the world from the hazards of nuclear fission gone awry.

    +1 Ironic

    --
    -- @rjamestaylor on Ello
    1. Re:Japan, WWII, allied bombing, and nukes by morari · · Score: 4, Funny

      Godzilla only serves as a warning of the hazards of nuclear fission gone awry, right?

      --
      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    2. Re:Japan, WWII, allied bombing, and nukes by discogravy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      this is ha-ha-only-serious in a way; the godzilla movies serve as a kind of metric for japanese societal attitudes towards nuclear power. immediately post-war, gojira is a monster created by radiation that comes and terrorizes tokyo but within 20 years or so, he's japan's protector from outside alien monsters (mothra, gamera, etc) and is japan's big scaly mascot (with annoying "go-get-'em-pop!" godzilla-baby, godzuki.)

  4. May be a stupid question... by Tom90deg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But can't you make more places to build them? I realize that you may need specific hardware to forge this stuff out of one piece of steel, but seems to me that if you really needed them, you could make more than one factory.

    1. Re:May be a stupid question... by ivan256 · · Score: 2
      The story says the following:

      Areva would be able to produce the ingot itself with an investment of about 100 million euros ($155 million), he said as workers coated the inside of a Japan Steel reactor shell part with stainless steel to prevent rust.


      It also says companies are making $100 million down payments...

      Something tells me that this will rapidly develop into a non-story from its current status as an advertisement for the solicitation of venture capital.
  5. That's nothing by Ilan+Volow · · Score: 3, Funny

    The guys who make Swiss Army knives have nearly perfected fusion reactors. That can open wine bottles.

    --
    Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
  6. Re:4 per year by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 3, Informative

    Swords are not exactly a growth industry. If they are genuine samurai swords, they can't be exported, and if they aren't, they are practically worthless (about the same price as the cheap Spanish ones they sell on QVC).

    The 5 year gap is important because during that 5 years, they'd expect to be able to increase capacity while other forgers would still be getting started.

    However, the problem is China and its vast natural resources. Japan, unfortunately doesn't have the natural resources to do this cheaply for very long. As China (and I suppose Korea) get their furnaces running, the customers will start looking to cheaper pastures.

  7. Candu by BlueParrot · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As I understand it CANDU reactors don't even use a pressure vessel as such, but instead uses an assembly of pressurized tubes. One for each fuel bundle. This design was chosen precisely because it eliminated the need for this type of technological bottleneck and it is still in use today. I think tfa neglects to mention that there are several reactor designs that aren't dependent on this particular company.

    1. Re:Candu by lju · · Score: 4, Funny

      A series of tubes? So it works like the internet, then?

    2. Re:Candu by QuantumPion · · Score: 4, Informative
      A CANDU reactor still has a large steel Calandria surrounding the pressure tubes. I'm not sure off the top of my head of its dimensions but I imagine it is bigger but less thick then a typical PWR pressure vessel.

      And the reason why the CANDU was designed was because it runs on natural, unenriched uranium. It had nothing to do with the design of the pressure vessel. When the first CANDU's were being built, the US was still manufacturing PWR pressure vessels and there was no problem in that area.

    3. Re:Candu by some_hoser · · Score: 3, Informative

      The CANDU was designed with two main differences: Heavy Water Moderator -Lets you use natural uranium -Safer than graphite Pressure Tube Design -To avoid needing heavy manufacturing capabilities -This has nothing to do with ability to use natural uranium The Caladria is indeed big but does not need to be forged in one piece (or be as thick) as it does not have to hold in a significant amount of pressure (unlike the pressure vessel, naturally).

    4. Re:Candu by Froster · · Score: 2, Informative

      Exactly right. The reason that CANDU uses pressurized tubes rather than a large reactor vessel is because Canada lacks the ability to manufacture a large vessel. It hasn't been too much of an issue though because Canada has built enough CANDU reactors for a peak of 100+ TWh of power, and currently around 85 TWh of power

    5. Re:Candu by Cecil · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Partially, I think the idea was that they could sell this reactor to other countries without the risk of nuclear proliferation associated with enriched uranium, although the relatively difficulty of attaining enriched uranium was also a factor I think it had more to do with the proliferation risks than the actual sourcing of the material. This was unfortunately justified when India used their Canadian/US-built CIRUS research reactor to create enough plutonium for their first nuclear bomb. Being strongly against nuclear weapons in any form, Canadians generally felt pretty betrayed by this, and the concept behind the CANDU reactor was cemented.

    6. Re:Candu by mks113 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The outer Calandria is a Steel Vessel with a low pressure rating -- rupture disks that blow at 35 kPa or so. It is about 10 meters in diameter. It is full of heavily tritiated heavy water, so it is well sealed for personnel safety. The Calandria is on its side, so fuel is loaded from one side, and pushed out the other.

      There are 380 (or so, depending on model) pressure tubes (6" diameter?) made of Zirconium/Niobium Alloy that will withstand the 13 MPa and contain 12 (again, or so) fuel bundles that can be changed out online.

      A straight pressure tube is much easier to make, but the alloys are a pain to work with, and the QA/QC for Nuclear class 1 materials are very rigorous. /in Candu land

  8. old article by SecretSquirrel321 · · Score: 4, Informative

    This article is from 2006. Surely there's more recent news, even about this topic?

    1. Re:old article by ThirdPrize · · Score: 5, Informative

      There is, that is why it (the article) was updated this week.

      --
      I have excellent Karma and I am not afraid to Troll it.
  9. Re:4 per year by Foolicious · · Score: 5, Interesting

    However, the problem is China and its vast natural resources. I honestly don't know about China's natural resources, but they seem to be consuming so much that they need to import steel and metals in scrap form from the US like gangbusters. I think this is because it's currently cheaper to refine it from scrap than mine it, but at this point China's resources, whether vast or otherwise, aren't as big of a sticking point as some people would think. Of course, their labor -- now that's definitely a cheaper pasture!
    --
    Please don't use "umm" or "err" or "erm".
  10. Re:4 per year by BosstonesOwn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Major questions , with the track record as of late from China would you trust a major piece of a nuclear puzzle to them ? I mean it really. And with Korea , I don't know if I would trust them as well.

    The Japanese firms for steel have a really good reputation for forging some of the best parts in the world. Even the Spaniards and Americans can not produce such quality steel.

    I don't think I would want to be near a Chinese forged reactor core any time in my life. QC does not seem to be their strong point.

    --
    This package Does Not Contain a Winner
  11. The only one for sure? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I am puzzled. In last thirty years, our country in the heart of Europe has independently manufactured about twenty five complete reactor units. And we're not exactly the pinnacle of the world's engineering, even though compared to our neighbours, we might be pretty good. I would expect USA and other western countries having much more resources than us to be more independent in this respect. Now it may be that the qualiry criteria have been tightened up a little, but still, USA, for example, is a huge country. Don't tell me that a country capable of delivering people to Moon and space probes to the outer Solar system can't manufacture even a single bloody reactor vessel.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
    1. Re:The only one for sure? by dotancohen · · Score: 3, Informative

      The JSW's containment vessel is a one-piece unit. Containment vessels made from more than one piece can (and are) manufactured all over the world. The advantage of the one-piece unit is that it has no seems, preventing radiation leaks. There are other methods of controlling radiation for the multiple-piece CVs.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    2. Re:The only one for sure? by GiMP · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There isn't a market in the USA for nuclear reactors, the last one was built in the 1970's, our labor is too expensive, and from what I understand, our steel industry is suffering. Being from Pennsylvania, I personally know people who were laid-off from steel mills. No, I'm really not surprised that we're not masters of manufacturing.

      As others have said, the USA is a place of ideas. Intellectual property and services are our business. It is just a shame that it won't last forever. We are now in a global market place where services and IP can be created and hosted anywhere in the world, for anyone in the world. I fear that the countries with less restrictive laws will become data havens and will overtake the USA in these markets. When that happens, we won't have manufacturing, IP, or services... I guess there is always litigation, time to buy stock in SCO!

  12. A touch sensationalist by Illserve · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There weren't any factories that built Apollo's when we decided to go to the moon but somehow we managed.

    I think someone will be on top of this problem when the money is there.

  13. Slightly sensationalist summary I feel by hairykrishna · · Score: 4, Informative
    There are alternatives. Most of the current running PWR pressure vessels were cast in multiple (2 or 3) pieces and welded together. The Russians cast their own pressure vessels. There are also other reactor designs despite PWR being the overwhelming favourite for new build.

    New nuclear build is not going to grind to a halt because this plant can't keep up.

    --
    "Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
    1. Re:Slightly sensationalist summary I feel by QuantumPion · · Score: 3, Insightful

      New nuclear building will not grind to a halt, but it may be slowed/delayed a few years until more of these factories come online. And when the decision makers are trying to decide what kind of power plant to build to meet energy needs, a 2 year delay for the queue to get your pressure vessel because China has dibs on the next 40 may lead you to conventional sources (gas/coal/etc).

  14. Re:4 per year by Zerth · · Score: 5, Funny

    >I don't think I would want to be near a Chinese forged reactor core
    >any time in my life. QC does not seem to be their strong point.

    On the plus side, it is very likely to come coated in lead.

    That's good in this case, right?

  15. fission is a bad idea anyway by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Nuclear fission is a poor solution anyway. Inherent safety problems, limited fuel supply (on the order of a century or two at most, perhaps much less), security concerns (both weapons technology proliferation and terrorist targeting concerns), unsolved waste disposal problems - the only reason this gets the support it does is because the military-industrial complex loves nuclear technologies, and some technical types who grew up on science fiction have a romantic attachment to Harassing the Power of the Atom.

    We should be devoting our resources to efficiency, renewables (including orbital photovoltaic), accelerator-based thorium reactors, and fusion. Building new fission reactors is a distraction from the real solutions.

    --
    Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
    You cannot wash away blood with blood
    1. Re:fission is a bad idea anyway by argent · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And if it takes a century to develop the replacement technology, do we freeze in the meantime?

    2. Re:fission is a bad idea anyway by Fierlo · · Score: 2, Informative
      I can't speak to every point, but a terrorist target?

      Have you ever tried to destroy a nice big steel vessel inside of a 3 foot steel reinforced concrete containment building?

      From the wikipedia article...

      In 1988, Sandia National Laboratories conducted a test of slamming a jet fighter into a large concrete block at 481 miles per hour (775 km/h) [10][11]. The airplane left only a 2.5-inch deep gouge in the concrete. Although the block was not constructed like a containment building missile shield, it was not anchored, etc., the results were considered indicative. A subsequent study by EPRI, the Electric Power Research Institute, concluded that commercial airliners did not pose a danger. [12]

      The Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station was hit directly by Hurricane Andrew in 1992. Turkey Point has two fossil fuel units and two nuclear units. Over $90 million of damage was done, largely to a water tank and to a smokestack of one of the fossil-fueled units on-site, but the containment buildings were undamaged [13][14].

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Containment_building

      I can think of far easier targets...

  16. Change the design by dj245 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I work reasonably closely with manufacturers of all sorts of marine equipment. Lifeboat davits, cranes, winches, diesel engines, etc. The most common thing they do when they can't source a part is change the design. This encourages innovation, and usually the new design is safer than the old one anyway. If you're waiting on a part for 2+ years for a crane, are you going to wait and see if someone else starts manufacturing them? No. You're going to change that design (maybe 6 months, probably less) and build it.

    Nuclear engineering may be a lot different since everyone wants to stick with what has worked in the past, but can't getting the parts to build something usually results in a new design in my experience.

    --
    Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    1. Re:Change the design by rbanffy · · Score: 5, Informative

      The problem here is not wanting to stick with currently proven designs, but the hideous cost of certifying a new design. It is so expensive to re-certify a project after a design change people really don't want to do it often.

      The certification process probably makes the design safer, but it also disincentives innovation in ways that would horrify someone used to the rapid pace of consumer electronics.

      On the other hand, the kind of reliability standards we see on consumer electronics would horrify me if they ever happened be applied to a nuclear facility or an airplane.

    2. Re:Change the design by es330td · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The certification process probably makes the design safer, but it also disincentives innovation in ways that would horrify someone used to the rapid pace of consumer electronics This is a HUGE problem we have in General Aviation. A plane like a Cessna 310 twin engine airplane first flew in 1953 with engines that are extremely inefficient and underpowered relative to today's engines. Everybody (pilot, owner, passengers, world) would be better served by replacing the original engines with some that are of newer design that are safer, more powerful and burn less fuel, but since the plane was certified by the FAA in a particular configuration that is how it has to stay. Newer models can be produced but retrofitting is not looked upon kindly by the people who get to say whether or not a plane may leave the ground.
  17. But by vandit2k6 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Does the sword run Linux?

    --
    Its nice to be important but its more important to be nice
  18. Nice, but how does it compare by edmicman · · Score: 2, Funny

    to a Hanzo Hattori sword?

    1. Re:Nice, but how does it compare by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2, Funny

      And afterwards, it can still slice this tomato clean as a whistle!

  19. Re:4 per year by PONA-Boy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If they are genuine samurai swords, they can't be exported That is incorrect. Nihonto, swords MADE in Japan can be exported following specific procedures as outlined HERE. It is more difficult, I've found, to IMPORT a sword into Japan. This is especially true if you are importing Nihonto.

    The "practically worthless" swords, from a Japanese perspective, would be anything NOT made in Japan. Most of the cheap wallhangers that you see out there in the marketplace are from China, believe it or not.

    --
    +that's funny...I don't FEEL tardy.+
  20. Doesn't add up by hcdejong · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If it takes three weeks to forge one vessel, why can they only produce four vessels per year?

    Also, the forging is described as a cylinder, which leaves the top and bottom of the pressure vessel. How do you weld 30 cm thick steel? ISTR reading about submarine construction (which use a pressure hull maybe a few cm thick) where welding the hull sections had to take place at night because daytime operations would overload the local power grid. These vessels would be even more difficult to weld correctly.

  21. Aerospace plants are one thing.... by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 2, Interesting

    , they are relatively "clean", and employ lots of white collar/upper middle class workers. Most communities were glad to have them built nearby. Especially, when they were helping "beat those commies to the moon".

    A heavy steel forging operation, OTOH, would face opposition because of the smokestack emissions, and the ingrained idea that we don't need workers who actually MAKE anything anymore, when we can base our entire economy on shuffling money around and suing each other.

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
  22. REACTOR vessel vs. CONTAINMENT vessel by dpbsmith · · Score: 4, Informative

    I think the article confuses the reactor vessel with the containment vessel.

    A reactor vessel is a large-room-sized steel vessel, that holds the fuel and steam transfer pipes and so forth and is subjected to huge internal pressures in normal operation.

    A containment vessel is the building-sized concrete structure that gives many reactors buildings their impressive dome shape. It is only important in the case of an accident, when it might be subjected to pressures on the order of an atmosphere or so. It is intended to hold in or contain any radioactive materials released after an accident has occurred.

    Interestingly enough, in light of his demonization by anti-nuclear factions, it was Edward Teller who was largely responsible for insisting on containment vessels, a nice simple brute-force protection measure.

    Every reactor has a reactor vessel, but not all reactors have containment vessels. Some reactors, such as Chernobyl, and, in the United States, GE boiling-water reactors such as the one in Plymouth, Massachusetts have very ordinary-looking block-like buildings rather than containment domes. These reactors are designed to "suppress" pressure in an accident rather than "contain" it, by the use of engineered mechanisms that open valves at the right time and direct steam through big tanks of water, cooling it down and condensing it.

  23. Re:Toshiba's small reactors by jbeaupre · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Check out your neighbors' back yards. Based on even that superficial check, how many of them would you trust to maintain a small nuclear power plant?

    --
    The world is made by those who show up for the job.
  24. Ok, so let China produce them by HeWhoMustNotBeNamed · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm sure China is capable of certifying and delivering these new designs at a lower cost.

  25. they're not building the containment vessels by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Funny

    for nuclear reactors. they're building them to ENSLAVE WHALES

    maybe the japanese are trying to NUKE THE WHALES?

    first fake scientific research, now this?

    will the japanese stop at nothing to satisfy their insatiable whale flesh thirst?

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  26. Re:4 per year by tbannist · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It is cheaper for now. China's got problems, possibly big problems. They got huge pollution problems, and they've got run away inflation, plus the standard of living is rising in the cities. Effectively the cost advantage of "Made in China" is rapidly eroding. Some of the cheap manufacturers are now looking to relocate to different Asian countries where the labour costs are now lower than China.

    --
    Fanatically anti-fanatical
  27. Background info by doctor_no · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They have tours of Japan Steel Work's sword factories, following link has some pictures:
    http://ameblo.jp/machizukuri-engineer/entry-10070632943.html

    An older example of the swords they make (from the Russo-Japanese war):
    http://www.e-sword.jp/sale/0650/0650_1006syousai.htm

    The company also uses sword-making as a source of research that they apply to other field's of forging
    http://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/110001457129/

  28. Japan Steel Works a sword maker by ShinmaWa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    To call Japan Steel Works a "sword maker" is like referring to Microsoft as "that company that makes Minesweeper". Japan Steel Works is a very large steel company that makes a very wide variety of products (of which swords are a very, very small part) and did $2 billion worth of sales in 2007 alone.

    I mean seriously, Slashdot, isn't this story cool enough without adding misleading sensationalist crap onto it?

    --
    The /. Effect: Thousands of users simultaneously accessing a site to not read its content.
  29. All makes perfect sense, until by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Until you actually read the article and see that your cheap foreign labour is in Japan? Japan hasn't been cheap in decades.

    Oh and where are those Intel chips actually produced?

    Read up on Henry Ford and exactly why he allowed his factory workers special loans to buy the cars they produced. If a rabid capatalist understood, why don't you?

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:All makes perfect sense, until by maxume · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Understand what? That we haven't lost our industrial base? That we have a huge export economy?

      (and Alcoa and Intel make stuff all over the world; this doesn't change the fact that they have significant production operations in the United States)

      I'm wasn't responding to the lamentation that the U.S. is apparently incapable of producing one of these giant forgings, I was responding to the ridiculous idea that all the economic activity of whatever golden age of American industry up and disappeared. It didn't disappear, it shifted to other activity, and when you count things up, there is more industry here than there was 25 or 50 years ago. So yes, as a percentage of our overall economy, heavy industry has dropped, but the economy has grown so much that the actual amount of heavy industry has increased, and instead of just paying people to work in steel mills, we can pay them to do silly things like program computers.

      And the U.S. is actually a pretty popular place to do heavy industry. We are politically stable, have cheap, available energy(Coal!) and a good portion of the workforce is highly skilled. We certainly don't have a monopoly on any of those things, but it's hard to argue that we should.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  30. Not an unexpected fact considering... by arthurpaliden · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Just a note: But you did realize that the natural background radiation in that part of the world is in some places several times over the safe legal limit in all contries that have such a law. If fact one of the hotest places is in nothrern Iraq/ Iran.

  31. More on pressure vessels by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative

    Nuclear reactor pressure vessels are a real problem. Most of the larger ones are in fact built up from welded sections. This isn't an easy welding job, and inspection of welds is a big headache. Several Japanese nuclear plants have had problems with cracks in pressure vessel welds, although in internal reactor components welded to the shell, not the shell itself. So making the pressure vessel and its internal support structures from one big forging makes a better product.

    The environment of a reactor pressure vessel is tough. First, there's "embrittlement". Neutrons are constantly blasting apart the atoms in the pressure vessel, and over a period of years, this structural damage adds up. Then there's corrosion. There have been major corrosion problems requiring reactor shutdowns from carbon dioxide and boric acid corrosion inside the pressure vessel. Remember, this is a steam pressure vessel; at steam temperatures and pressures, minor corrosive effects at room temperature become big problems.

    High quality welding of thick steel sections is a tough problem. Many approaches have been tried. The general idea is to make a V-shaped notch and fill it in during the welding process. Doing this in a way that's no weaker than the surrounding material is hard. Electric arc welding under an inert gas is the usual approach. Electron beam welding and laser welding have been tried. Then there's the problem of approach angle - welding on a vertical surface is not easy. Quality control requires X-rays, ultrasonic tests, and regulators that aren't corrupt.

    So there's much to be said for building the pressure vessel as one big forging. Of course, then there's the problem of delivering a 550-ton object to the job site. There are companies that can do that, if you can find them a clear path from a seaport.

    Sword making technology is relevant to the making of big forgings. Swords are built-up forgings. This is unusual in modern metalworking; most modern forged objects, like tools, are banged out in one piece by equipment much larger than the thing being manufactured. Big pressure vessels are built-up forgings; the scale requires it. In Japan, it's considered a good doctoral thesis in metallurgy to improve on sword making technology. So smart people are still thinking about the technology of built-up forgings. Nobody else bothers much.

    Here's a US NRC fact sheet. on pressure vessels, and a similar European document.

    1. Re:More on pressure vessels by doom · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Doing this in a way that's no weaker than the surrounding material is hard.

      If I may pick a nit here, if I understand this right, on average a weld will be stronger than the surrounding metal, the difficulty lies in being certain that that's the case for all of your welds. The problem isn't getting the strength up, but getting the variation down -- and as you point out earlier, non-destructive inspection of welds is a tough problem.

      This is the reason that aircraft are still assembled using bolts and rivets -- in theory you could make a lighter aircraft using welds, but there isn't any way to be certain that any particular weld was done right, so we usually stick with a slightly inferior, but more dependable way of doing it.

      (Or at least that was the case some years back... it would seem like there must be some way of cracking this problem.)

  32. Depleted Uranium == Normal Uranium by gnuman99 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Of course depleted uranium and "regular" uranium have the same effect on the body - they are the SAME thing. It would be like saying that there is this regular Oxygen that is different from the special Oxygen-16 and Oxygen-18. Chemically, they are identical, just like Uranium vs. U-235 vs. U-238.

    Furthermore, "regular" Uranium and "depleted" Uranium and "enriched" Uranium have nothing to do with it being Uranium or not. It only has to do with Uranium-235 abundance. Regular just has under 1% of the U-235 and the depleted has "less". But it is still Uranium!!! Heck, the two types have virtually identical radioactivity (depleted vs. natural)

    And chemically, they pose the same problems because they have identical chemical properties (because both are Uranium!)

    Anyone saying that DU is safe is full of *shit*. We all know that Uranium mining and smelting can be hazardous tasks. Spreading it around in dust form and saying the opposite in light of the truth and past experiences is criminal.

  33. Depends on the velocity... by Joce640k · · Score: 2, Funny

    The lethality of DU is directly proportional to the delivery velocity.

    --
    No sig today...