Is there a term for this concept?įinally, are there obvious reasons that I'm not finding as much information about the above concepts as I am about Closed Cycle Gas Turbines? Is pre-cooling the Closed Cycle turbine exhaust just not a problem, even without water? Does it offer other benefits? Say that it has molten salt coming through a heat exchanger in the core, and then the gas turbine is located in a circuit of tunnel dug out of solid rock, where all the air has been replaced by CO2 for higher efficiency potential, and so essentially forms a closed circuit that cools down passively through the tunnel walls without requiring the active pumping or condensing of water. Is there also a name for the concept where you would locate this "open cycle" gas turbine within a an underground tunnel circuit or something like that, where you could potentially replace the air with a higher performance gas (and/or lower neutron cross section gas)? For example, imagine you have the abovedescribed gas turbine that uses a separate working fluid to provide heat. And you exchange the heat within the core of an open cycle gas turbine so as to evacuate the waste heat without requiring big active cooling infrastructure. What do you call such an open cycle gas turbine that uses a separate working fluid as the heat source? The other heat source might be molten salt or metal, nitrogen, helium, CO2, etc, it might be carrying heat from a Concentrated Solar Power tower or a nuclear reactor, for example. To me this seems like partially defeating the potential benefits of a gas turbine, if you had an open cycle you would be dumping the waste heat out the back with no need to run any water pumps, condensers, cooling towers, etc. Most of the concepts I am able to find for these applications are Closed Cycle Gas Turbines that require the remaining heat coming out of the end of the turbine to be pre-cooled before it gets compressed again. The concept that interested me is the idea that replacing steam turbine power generation with gas turbine power generation could have benefits in regions that have a lot of sun but not a lot of water, or in cases where there is a safety benefit to siting your nuclear plant farther away from major water sources to reduce risks of flooding or water contamination. I trying to read about gas turbines as they could apply to Concentrated Solar Power or nuclear power plants.
Is this because alloyed Zirconium is a better compromise with structural strength? but other solids such as Silicon (b=0.166), Lead (b=0.171), and Bismuth (B=0.034) are significantly lower, yet are not used. So why do some elements, such as oxygen, have such a small neutron cross section? What forces are at work here? I don't think it can be electric charge because neutrons are neutral.Īlso I've read that they use Zirconium (n=40) (b=0.184) in nuclear fuel rods because it has such a small neutron cross-section. The neutron cross sections of various elements are graphed here:Īs can be seen, there seems to be little correlation between neutron cross section and atomic number (and therefore nucleus size) I can't see how this is altered by anything else than the size of the nucleus, as the bigger the nucleus, the more nucleus there is to hit, right?
As I understand it, the neutron cross section of an element is the approximate surface area with which a stray neutron can collide.
0 kommentar(er)
