On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 00:13:42 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 20:09:33 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Gene Kearns wrote:
On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 19:45:34 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:
We have a well-run nuke plant in the mid-bay area. There's talk of
building another reactor on the site. I'm not opposed to that. I wonder
if some sort of huge 24-7 oxy generating plant and pump could be
developed and powered by the waste heat in the coolant water pipes. I
appreciate your comment about scale, but I wonder if something large and
dramatic might not help even a little.

Bottom line is that hot water will not hold enough oxygen... IOW you
could put all the bubblers in that you want, but the warmer water
won't hold enough oxygen.... additionally, really warm water. Locally,
we have a lake that is used by a coal fed power plant and the water
close to the to the generating facility was 91 degrees last Thursday.

At the coast we have a nuclear plant that releases the hot water some
distance from shore... thus mitigating some of the detrimental
environmental issues.

Now.... if somebody could explain to me why the nuclear cost keeps
pace with the fossil fuel cost..... I'd know something!

Well, there must be some sort of relief available from our wonderful
technology.

You could reduce oxygen depletion by one simple act - ban the use of
lawn fertilizer within 10 miles of the coast line.

Really. URI did a study about five years ago which attracted some
attention at the time because the research seemed to indicate that the
simple act of fertilizing lawns in proximity to bodies of water caused
almost 40% of the oxygen depletion near shore.

The problem is more from the rivers feeding the bay. Banning fertilizer along
all those creeks and rivers sounds good, but it isn't going to happen.

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes