BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

[email protected]

On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 13:50:46 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 17:48:29 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:11:30 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 11:04:10 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 01:46:39 -0400, wrote:

Seems to me that if the water was released in a controlled fashion at
the beginning of the problem, there wouldn't be a requirement for that
vast an amount of water.

These reactors do not stop on a dime and the fuel rods continue to
generate heat long after the reactor is "scrammed"

Yes, I understand how they work. What I'm proposing is that there be a
reservoir that is gravity fed. If there's a backup pump failure, the
water in the reservoir would be deployed over a period of time until
either it ran out or the backup pumps came back online. It wouldn't be
perfect, but it would at least delay the over-heating. It would add
some time to the equation.

That is actually a pretty good idea but it still requires having a
lake. That might not be a bad idea when you are picking a site.

The whole Roman plumbing system was gravity fed and most "citizens"
had running water in their house.
The trick is having your aqueduct survive the earthquake.

I was thinking since many plants are not near the ocean, near a lake
would work.

If it were a closed system... lake water flows into the plant, cools
the reactor, then flows down hill, it could generate enough energy
(with a boost from the heat produced) to create enough power to pump
some of the water back to the lake. The water would be contaminated,
but it would be better than a meltdown.

I would have the plant very close to the lake... just down hill from
it.

The problem is most lakes are at the bottom of the hill. That is why
survival training teaches you, when in doubt, walk down hill. That is
where the water is and people congregate around the water.

It's a tough problem... we do have lakes formed by dams. Those spill
into rivers. There are several around here.