|
Nuclear power anyone??
On 3/16/11 12:26 AM, I_am_Tosk wrote:
In , says... On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 21:10:12 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 14:42:48 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:11:19 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:37:00 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 02:19:14 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:35:01 -0400, wrote: I haven't been opposed to nuclear power. I live about 20 miles from one. But this latest incident in Japan sure gives one pause. I think the significant thing is that the problem wasn't the 9.0 earthquake, it was the tsunami. That makes most of the US reactors somewhat immune to the biggest problem. It does highlight how vulnerable the cooling systems are to unexpected second order effects. The Japanese had diesel generators for backup power and then the diesels got knocked out by the tsunami. There are a lot of other things that can knock out diesel generators however. The track record of standby diesels performing reliably in an emergency is spotty at best. It takes an extremely rigorous maintenance and testing regime starting with fuel storage, filtration practices, etc. Why not just put a big water tank on top of the building... then all you need is gravity. The size of the tank. How big would it have to be? Seems like you could build a pretty big one that would work for at least some period of time... long enough to get the backup online. They have been pumping sea water into those reactors for days using big barge mounted pumps and it is still hot. You are talking about a good sized lake, not a tank. 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. It "seems to you"?? Holy crap, watch a newscast before you make such a stupid statement. You don't care about Florida, you don't care to even inform yourself at all about the situation in Nippon, you just blather on about Righties this and Conservatives that, and wait for someone to follow you down your yellow brick road.. Greg is catching on, and from what we have learned about you lately, I am sure once he stops playing you will move along, change your handle and infect some other group... Pffft... Dork.. There's an idea, snotty...change your handle (again) and infect some other group. |
Nuclear power anyone??
On 3/16/11 12:31 AM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 15/03/2011 7:05 PM, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 14:43:27 -0600, wrote: You stupid ****! Do you realize that in the U.S. the standard design for nuke plants for sunamis, earthquakes, flood, etc. is to use a 10,000 year event span? So does Japan claim the same. You trust these *******s to tll the truth? I have some beach front land for sale cheap too... You probably should not put a nuke plant there. If it was 25 miles up the river it would not be knocked out by a tsunami. BTW has there EVER been a tsunami in the Atlantic? Keep in mind the Japanese nuke facility was designed by non-other than General Electric of the USA. So how many of these problematic reactors are there? Probably more than a few utility companies wanting to ignore this imutable fact. How many of these reactors ARE in your back yard? The nukes in our neighborhood were designed by Combustion Engineering, now owned by Westinghouse. They're close to 40 years old. |
Nuclear power anyone??
On 3/16/2011 12:26 AM, I_am_Tosk wrote:
In , says... On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 21:10:12 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 14:42:48 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:11:19 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:37:00 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 02:19:14 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:35:01 -0400, wrote: I haven't been opposed to nuclear power. I live about 20 miles from one. But this latest incident in Japan sure gives one pause. I think the significant thing is that the problem wasn't the 9.0 earthquake, it was the tsunami. That makes most of the US reactors somewhat immune to the biggest problem. It does highlight how vulnerable the cooling systems are to unexpected second order effects. The Japanese had diesel generators for backup power and then the diesels got knocked out by the tsunami. There are a lot of other things that can knock out diesel generators however. The track record of standby diesels performing reliably in an emergency is spotty at best. It takes an extremely rigorous maintenance and testing regime starting with fuel storage, filtration practices, etc. Why not just put a big water tank on top of the building... then all you need is gravity. The size of the tank. How big would it have to be? Seems like you could build a pretty big one that would work for at least some period of time... long enough to get the backup online. They have been pumping sea water into those reactors for days using big barge mounted pumps and it is still hot. You are talking about a good sized lake, not a tank. 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. It "seems to you"?? Holy crap, watch a newscast before you make such a stupid statement. You don't care about Florida, you don't care to even inform yourself at all about the situation in Nippon, you just blather on about Righties this and Conservatives that, and wait for someone to follow you down your yellow brick road.. Greg is catching on, and from what we have learned about you lately, I am sure once he stops playing you will move along, change your handle and infect some other group... Pffft... Dork.. She's been spotted over on rec.boats cruising using the handle Jessica B. What a dope. |
Nuclear power anyone??
On 3/16/2011 8:53 AM, Ernie wrote:
On 3/16/2011 12:26 AM, I_am_Tosk wrote: In , says... On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 21:10:12 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 14:42:48 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:11:19 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:37:00 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 02:19:14 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:35:01 -0400, wrote: I haven't been opposed to nuclear power. I live about 20 miles from one. But this latest incident in Japan sure gives one pause. I think the significant thing is that the problem wasn't the 9.0 earthquake, it was the tsunami. That makes most of the US reactors somewhat immune to the biggest problem. It does highlight how vulnerable the cooling systems are to unexpected second order effects. The Japanese had diesel generators for backup power and then the diesels got knocked out by the tsunami. There are a lot of other things that can knock out diesel generators however. The track record of standby diesels performing reliably in an emergency is spotty at best. It takes an extremely rigorous maintenance and testing regime starting with fuel storage, filtration practices, etc. Why not just put a big water tank on top of the building... then all you need is gravity. The size of the tank. How big would it have to be? Seems like you could build a pretty big one that would work for at least some period of time... long enough to get the backup online. They have been pumping sea water into those reactors for days using big barge mounted pumps and it is still hot. You are talking about a good sized lake, not a tank. 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. It "seems to you"?? Holy crap, watch a newscast before you make such a stupid statement. You don't care about Florida, you don't care to even inform yourself at all about the situation in Nippon, you just blather on about Righties this and Conservatives that, and wait for someone to follow you down your yellow brick road.. Greg is catching on, and from what we have learned about you lately, I am sure once he stops playing you will move along, change your handle and infect some other group... Pffft... Dork.. She's been spotted over on rec.boats cruising using the handle Jessica B. What a dope. I've been trying to "spot" a decent boating-related post from you. Can't seem to find any. So, whose sock puppet are you? |
Nuclear power anyone??
In article ,
says... On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:37:00 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 02:19:14 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:35:01 -0400, wrote: I haven't been opposed to nuclear power. I live about 20 miles from one. But this latest incident in Japan sure gives one pause. I think the significant thing is that the problem wasn't the 9.0 earthquake, it was the tsunami. That makes most of the US reactors somewhat immune to the biggest problem. It does highlight how vulnerable the cooling systems are to unexpected second order effects. The Japanese had diesel generators for backup power and then the diesels got knocked out by the tsunami. There are a lot of other things that can knock out diesel generators however. The track record of standby diesels performing reliably in an emergency is spotty at best. It takes an extremely rigorous maintenance and testing regime starting with fuel storage, filtration practices, etc. Why not just put a big water tank on top of the building... then all you need is gravity. The size of the tank. And the weight. |
Nuclear power anyone??
|
Nuclear power anyone??
In article , payer3389
@mypacks.net says... On 3/15/11 9:05 PM, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 14:43:27 -0600, wrote: You stupid ****! Do you realize that in the U.S. the standard design for nuke plants for sunamis, earthquakes, flood, etc. is to use a 10,000 year event span? So does Japan claim the same. You trust these *******s to tll the truth? I have some beach front land for sale cheap too... You probably should not put a nuke plant there. If it was 25 miles up the river it would not be knocked out by a tsunami. BTW has there EVER been a tsunami in the Atlantic? Portugal, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands have experienced them. There probably have been other tsunamis in the Atlantic. Maybe when your father made his trans-Atlantic trip in a 22' runabout?? |
Nuclear power anyone??
In article ,
says... On 3/16/11 12:31 AM, Canuck57 wrote: On 15/03/2011 7:05 PM, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 14:43:27 -0600, wrote: You stupid ****! Do you realize that in the U.S. the standard design for nuke plants for sunamis, earthquakes, flood, etc. is to use a 10,000 year event span? So does Japan claim the same. You trust these *******s to tll the truth? I have some beach front land for sale cheap too... You probably should not put a nuke plant there. If it was 25 miles up the river it would not be knocked out by a tsunami. BTW has there EVER been a tsunami in the Atlantic? Keep in mind the Japanese nuke facility was designed by non-other than General Electric of the USA. So how many of these problematic reactors are there? Probably more than a few utility companies wanting to ignore this imutable fact. How many of these reactors ARE in your back yard? The nukes in our neighborhood were designed by Combustion Engineering, now owned by Westinghouse. They're close to 40 years old. Ooops, you said yesterday that all were built by GE..... |
Nuclear power anyone??
On 3/16/11 9:43 AM, paul@byc wrote:
On 3/16/2011 8:53 AM, Ernie wrote: On 3/16/2011 12:26 AM, I_am_Tosk wrote: In , says... On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 21:10:12 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 14:42:48 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:11:19 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:37:00 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 02:19:14 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:35:01 -0400, wrote: I haven't been opposed to nuclear power. I live about 20 miles from one. But this latest incident in Japan sure gives one pause. I think the significant thing is that the problem wasn't the 9.0 earthquake, it was the tsunami. That makes most of the US reactors somewhat immune to the biggest problem. It does highlight how vulnerable the cooling systems are to unexpected second order effects. The Japanese had diesel generators for backup power and then the diesels got knocked out by the tsunami. There are a lot of other things that can knock out diesel generators however. The track record of standby diesels performing reliably in an emergency is spotty at best. It takes an extremely rigorous maintenance and testing regime starting with fuel storage, filtration practices, etc. Why not just put a big water tank on top of the building... then all you need is gravity. The size of the tank. How big would it have to be? Seems like you could build a pretty big one that would work for at least some period of time... long enough to get the backup online. They have been pumping sea water into those reactors for days using big barge mounted pumps and it is still hot. You are talking about a good sized lake, not a tank. 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. It "seems to you"?? Holy crap, watch a newscast before you make such a stupid statement. You don't care about Florida, you don't care to even inform yourself at all about the situation in Nippon, you just blather on about Righties this and Conservatives that, and wait for someone to follow you down your yellow brick road.. Greg is catching on, and from what we have learned about you lately, I am sure once he stops playing you will move along, change your handle and infect some other group... Pffft... Dork.. She's been spotted over on rec.boats cruising using the handle Jessica B. What a dope. I've been trying to "spot" a decent boating-related post from you. Can't seem to find any. So, whose sock puppet are you? Paul, I've been trying to "spot" a decent boating-related post from you. Can't seem to find any. So, whose sock puppet are you? |
Nuclear power anyone??
In article ,
says... On 3/16/11 9:43 AM, paul@byc wrote: On 3/16/2011 8:53 AM, Ernie wrote: On 3/16/2011 12:26 AM, I_am_Tosk wrote: In , says... On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 21:10:12 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 14:42:48 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:11:19 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:37:00 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 02:19:14 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:35:01 -0400, wrote: I haven't been opposed to nuclear power. I live about 20 miles from one. But this latest incident in Japan sure gives one pause. I think the significant thing is that the problem wasn't the 9.0 earthquake, it was the tsunami. That makes most of the US reactors somewhat immune to the biggest problem. It does highlight how vulnerable the cooling systems are to unexpected second order effects. The Japanese had diesel generators for backup power and then the diesels got knocked out by the tsunami. There are a lot of other things that can knock out diesel generators however. The track record of standby diesels performing reliably in an emergency is spotty at best. It takes an extremely rigorous maintenance and testing regime starting with fuel storage, filtration practices, etc. Why not just put a big water tank on top of the building... then all you need is gravity. The size of the tank. How big would it have to be? Seems like you could build a pretty big one that would work for at least some period of time... long enough to get the backup online. They have been pumping sea water into those reactors for days using big barge mounted pumps and it is still hot. You are talking about a good sized lake, not a tank. 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. It "seems to you"?? Holy crap, watch a newscast before you make such a stupid statement. You don't care about Florida, you don't care to even inform yourself at all about the situation in Nippon, you just blather on about Righties this and Conservatives that, and wait for someone to follow you down your yellow brick road.. Greg is catching on, and from what we have learned about you lately, I am sure once he stops playing you will move along, change your handle and infect some other group... Pffft... Dork.. She's been spotted over on rec.boats cruising using the handle Jessica B. What a dope. I've been trying to "spot" a decent boating-related post from you. Can't seem to find any. So, whose sock puppet are you? Paul, I've been trying to "spot" a decent boating-related post from you. Can't seem to find any. So, whose sock puppet are you? That is the Pedophile Harry Krause of Rosedale Lane, Huntington Maryland... Harry Krause is the biggest liar ever in rec boats with whoppers about Yale degrees, triple doctorate wives, trips across the Atlantic in a small skiff to a fireboat welcome... and literally, hundreds if not thousands of lies about posters and others here over the years. This guy is probably not allowed out of his basement prison where he makes up fantasies about others wives and children including support for NAMBLA and their sick ideas of "loving" children. It's the reason his own children spirited themselves and their own children from him over a decade ago.... The guy is a creeper, best ignored.. You will notice he will attack me and a few others here 40 or more times a day because he is a coward and can't confront anybody face to face, but here is my daily address of him:( |
Nuclear power anyone??
On 3/16/11 10:06 AM, I_am_Tosk wrote:
In , says... On 3/16/11 9:43 AM, paul@byc wrote: On 3/16/2011 8:53 AM, Ernie wrote: On 3/16/2011 12:26 AM, I_am_Tosk wrote: In , says... On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 21:10:12 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 14:42:48 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:11:19 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:37:00 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 02:19:14 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:35:01 -0400, wrote: I haven't been opposed to nuclear power. I live about 20 miles from one. But this latest incident in Japan sure gives one pause. I think the significant thing is that the problem wasn't the 9.0 earthquake, it was the tsunami. That makes most of the US reactors somewhat immune to the biggest problem. It does highlight how vulnerable the cooling systems are to unexpected second order effects. The Japanese had diesel generators for backup power and then the diesels got knocked out by the tsunami. There are a lot of other things that can knock out diesel generators however. The track record of standby diesels performing reliably in an emergency is spotty at best. It takes an extremely rigorous maintenance and testing regime starting with fuel storage, filtration practices, etc. Why not just put a big water tank on top of the building... then all you need is gravity. The size of the tank. How big would it have to be? Seems like you could build a pretty big one that would work for at least some period of time... long enough to get the backup online. They have been pumping sea water into those reactors for days using big barge mounted pumps and it is still hot. You are talking about a good sized lake, not a tank. 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. It "seems to you"?? Holy crap, watch a newscast before you make such a stupid statement. You don't care about Florida, you don't care to even inform yourself at all about the situation in Nippon, you just blatherSorry on about Righties this and Conservatives that, and wait for someone to follow you down your yellow brick road.. Greg is catching on, and from what we have learned about you lately, I am sure once he stops playing you will move along, change your handle and infect some other group... Pffft... Dork.. She's been spotted over on rec.boats cruising using the handle Jessica B. What a dope. I've been trying to "spot" a decent boating-related post from you. Can't seem to find any. So, whose sock puppet are you? Paul, I've been trying to "spot" a decent boating-related post from you. Can't seem to find any. So, whose sock puppet are you? That is the Pedophile Harry Krause of Rosedale Lane, Huntington Maryland... Harry Krause is the biggest liar ever in rec boats with whoppers about Yale degrees, triple doctorate wives, trips across the Atlantic in a small skiff to a fireboat welcome... and literally, hundreds if not thousands of lies about posters and others here over the years. This guy is probably not allowed out of his basement prison where he makes up fantasies about others wives and children including support for NAMBLA and their sick ideas of "loving" children. It's the reason his own children spirited themselves and their own children from him over a decade ago.... The guy is a creeper, best ignored.. You will notice he will attack me and a few others here 40 or more times a day because he is a coward and can't confront anybody face to face, but here is my daily address of him:( Sorry, little **** tosk, but i am not your buddy paul. Your fantasies about me are...pretty funny. And you make such an effort to convince your new sockpuppet buddy, NYOB. Priceless. NYOB is just one of the "regular" right-wing trashmeisters here. Isn't it interesting how your sort of trash seems to congeal? Your comment "...can't confront anybody face to face..." is humorous. We live about 375 miles apart, and the only areas in Connecticut I visit (and rarely) are the Long Island Sound shoreline towns, where my buddies live. Why, pray tell, would I go a minute out of my way to catch up with a little turd like you? I'd invite you to our next gathering in Connecticut, but you would assuredly misbehave and get "physical," and a half-dozen guys, all bigger, stronger, tougher and smarter than you are, would clean your little clock. And, of course, remove that greasy ponytail. Of course, you know what will happen to you in case you engage in home invasion down here. But, I know what you are thinking... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOxGL5G8Pbk Do you feel lucky? Well, do you, punk? |
Nuclear power anyone??
|
Nuclear power anyone??
In article , payer3389
@mypacks.net says... On 3/16/11 10:06 AM, I_am_Tosk wrote: In , says... On 3/16/11 9:43 AM, paul@byc wrote: On 3/16/2011 8:53 AM, Ernie wrote: On 3/16/2011 12:26 AM, I_am_Tosk wrote: In , says... On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 21:10:12 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 14:42:48 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:11:19 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:37:00 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 02:19:14 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:35:01 -0400, wrote: I haven't been opposed to nuclear power. I live about 20 miles from one. But this latest incident in Japan sure gives one pause. I think the significant thing is that the problem wasn't the 9.0 earthquake, it was the tsunami. That makes most of the US reactors somewhat immune to the biggest problem. It does highlight how vulnerable the cooling systems are to unexpected second order effects. The Japanese had diesel generators for backup power and then the diesels got knocked out by the tsunami. There are a lot of other things that can knock out diesel generators however. The track record of standby diesels performing reliably in an emergency is spotty at best. It takes an extremely rigorous maintenance and testing regime starting with fuel storage, filtration practices, etc. Why not just put a big water tank on top of the building... then all you need is gravity. The size of the tank. How big would it have to be? Seems like you could build a pretty big one that would work for at least some period of time... long enough to get the backup online. They have been pumping sea water into those reactors for days using big barge mounted pumps and it is still hot. You are talking about a good sized lake, not a tank. 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. It "seems to you"?? Holy crap, watch a newscast before you make such a stupid statement. You don't care about Florida, you don't care to even inform yourself at all about the situation in Nippon, you just blatherSorry on about Righties this and Conservatives that, and wait for someone to follow you down your yellow brick road.. Greg is catching on, and from what we have learned about you lately, I am sure once he stops playing you will move along, change your handle and infect some other group... Pffft... Dork.. She's been spotted over on rec.boats cruising using the handle Jessica B. What a dope. I've been trying to "spot" a decent boating-related post from you. Can't seem to find any. So, whose sock puppet are you? Paul, I've been trying to "spot" a decent boating-related post from you. Can't seem to find any. So, whose sock puppet are you? That is the Pedophile Harry Krause of Rosedale Lane, Huntington Maryland... Harry Krause is the biggest liar ever in rec boats with whoppers about Yale degrees, triple doctorate wives, trips across the Atlantic in a small skiff to a fireboat welcome... and literally, hundreds if not thousands of lies about posters and others here over the years. This guy is probably not allowed out of his basement prison where he makes up fantasies about others wives and children including support for NAMBLA and their sick ideas of "loving" children. It's the reason his own children spirited themselves and their own children from him over a decade ago.... The guy is a creeper, best ignored.. You will notice he will attack me and a few others here 40 or more times a day because he is a coward and can't confront anybody face to face, but here is my daily address of him:( Sorry, little **** tosk, but i am not your buddy paul. Your fantasies about me are...pretty funny. And you make such an effort to convince your new sockpuppet buddy, NYOB. Priceless. NYOB is just one of the "regular" right-wing trashmeisters here. Isn't it interesting how your sort of trash seems to congeal? Your comment "...can't confront anybody face to face..." is humorous. We live about 375 miles apart, and the only areas in Connecticut I visit (and rarely) are the Long Island Sound shoreline towns, where my buddies live. Why, pray tell, would I go a minute out of my way to catch up with a little turd like you? I'd invite you to our next gathering in Connecticut, but you would assuredly misbehave and get "physical," and a half-dozen guys, all bigger, stronger, tougher and smarter than you are, would clean your little clock. And, of course, remove that greasy ponytail. Of course, you know what will happen to you in case you engage in home invasion down here. But, I know what you are thinking... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOxGL5G8Pbk Do you feel lucky? Well, do you, punk? Harry is the coward of rec.boats!!! |
Nuclear power anyone??
In article ,
says... In article , says... Why not just put a big water tank on top of the building... then all you need is gravity. The size of the tank. And the weight. Not if the building is made of the correct concrete mix. Can you give us the weight for that mix, Kevin? I'm first of all not Kevin, and second of all, I fail to see the reason why the building's materials would have anything to do with it. Perhaps you can enlighten us? |
Nuclear power anyone??
On 3/16/2011 10:57 AM, HarryisPaul wrote:
In article_4idnTFB_41JVR3QnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@earthlink .com, payer3389 @mypacks.net says... On 3/16/11 10:06 AM, I_am_Tosk wrote: In , says... On 3/16/11 9:43 AM, paul@byc wrote: On 3/16/2011 8:53 AM, Ernie wrote: On 3/16/2011 12:26 AM, I_am_Tosk wrote: In , says... On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 21:10:12 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 14:42:48 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:11:19 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:37:00 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 02:19:14 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:35:01 -0400, wrote: I haven't been opposed to nuclear power. I live about 20 miles from one. But this latest incident in Japan sure gives one pause. I think the significant thing is that the problem wasn't the 9.0 earthquake, it was the tsunami. That makes most of the US reactors somewhat immune to the biggest problem. It does highlight how vulnerable the cooling systems are to unexpected second order effects. The Japanese had diesel generators for backup power and then the diesels got knocked out by the tsunami. There are a lot of other things that can knock out diesel generators however. The track record of standby diesels performing reliably in an emergency is spotty at best. It takes an extremely rigorous maintenance and testing regime starting with fuel storage, filtration practices, etc. Why not just put a big water tank on top of the building... then all you need is gravity. The size of the tank. How big would it have to be? Seems like you could build a pretty big one that would work for at least some period of time... long enough to get the backup online. They have been pumping sea water into those reactors for days using big barge mounted pumps and it is still hot. You are talking about a good sized lake, not a tank. 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. It "seems to you"?? Holy crap, watch a newscast before you make such a stupid statement. You don't care about Florida, you don't care to even inform yourself at all about the situation in Nippon, you just blatherSorry on about Righties this and Conservatives that, and wait for someone to follow you down your yellow brick road.. Greg is catching on, and from what we have learned about you lately, I am sure once he stops playing you will move along, change your handle and infect some other group... Pffft... Dork.. She's been spotted over on rec.boats cruising using the handle Jessica B. What a dope. I've been trying to "spot" a decent boating-related post from you. Can't seem to find any. So, whose sock puppet are you? Paul, I've been trying to "spot" a decent boating-related post from you. Can't seem to find any. So, whose sock puppet are you? That is the Pedophile Harry Krause of Rosedale Lane, Huntington Maryland... Harry Krause is the biggest liar ever in rec boats with whoppers about Yale degrees, triple doctorate wives, trips across the Atlantic in a small skiff to a fireboat welcome... and literally, hundreds if not thousands of lies about posters and others here over the years. This guy is probably not allowed out of his basement prison where he makes up fantasies about others wives and children including support for NAMBLA and their sick ideas of "loving" children. It's the reason his own children spirited themselves and their own children from him over a decade ago.... The guy is a creeper, best ignored.. You will notice he will attack me and a few others here 40 or more times a day because he is a coward and can't confront anybody face to face, but here is my daily address of him:( Sorry, little **** tosk, but i am not your buddy paul. Your fantasies about me are...pretty funny. And you make such an effort to convince your new sockpuppet buddy, NYOB. Priceless. NYOB is just one of the "regular" right-wing trashmeisters here. Isn't it interesting how your sort of trash seems to congeal? Your comment "...can't confront anybody face to face..." is humorous. We live about 375 miles apart, and the only areas in Connecticut I visit (and rarely) are the Long Island Sound shoreline towns, where my buddies live. Why, pray tell, would I go a minute out of my way to catch up with a little turd like you? I'd invite you to our next gathering in Connecticut, but you would assuredly misbehave and get "physical," and a half-dozen guys, all bigger, stronger, tougher and smarter than you are, would clean your little clock. And, of course, remove that greasy ponytail. Of course, you know what will happen to you in case you engage in home invasion down here. But, I know what you are thinking... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOxGL5G8Pbk Do you feel lucky? Well, do you, punk? Harry is the coward of rec.boats!!! Harry is afraid of you. Otherwise he would ignore your trolls |
Nuclear power anyone??
wrote in message ...
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:40:39 -0400, Gene wrote: On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:35:01 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:56:26 -0400, Harryk wrote: On 3/14/11 6:48 PM, True North wrote: Was that you, Johnny.... always preaching about the benefits of nuclear power? Good I guess, as long as you don't have an earthquake. I haven't been opposed to nuclear power. I live about 20 miles from one. But this latest incident in Japan sure gives one pause. I think the significant thing is that the problem wasn't the 9.0 earthquake, it was the tsunami. That makes most of the US reactors somewhat immune to the biggest problem. Except the one 5 miles from my house..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunswi...rating_Station Where is the fault that is going to cause the level 9 earthquake? Reply: Also the Japanese Nuke plant is 40 years old. We have learned a lot in that time. Does not require electricity to keep the emergency cooling water flowing these days. |
Nuclear power anyone??
"paul@byc" wrote in message ...
On 3/16/2011 8:53 AM, Ernie wrote: On 3/16/2011 12:26 AM, I_am_Tosk wrote: In , says... On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 21:10:12 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 14:42:48 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:11:19 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:37:00 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 02:19:14 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:35:01 -0400, wrote: I haven't been opposed to nuclear power. I live about 20 miles from one. But this latest incident in Japan sure gives one pause. I think the significant thing is that the problem wasn't the 9.0 earthquake, it was the tsunami. That makes most of the US reactors somewhat immune to the biggest problem. It does highlight how vulnerable the cooling systems are to unexpected second order effects. The Japanese had diesel generators for backup power and then the diesels got knocked out by the tsunami. There are a lot of other things that can knock out diesel generators however. The track record of standby diesels performing reliably in an emergency is spotty at best. It takes an extremely rigorous maintenance and testing regime starting with fuel storage, filtration practices, etc. Why not just put a big water tank on top of the building... then all you need is gravity. The size of the tank. How big would it have to be? Seems like you could build a pretty big one that would work for at least some period of time... long enough to get the backup online. They have been pumping sea water into those reactors for days using big barge mounted pumps and it is still hot. You are talking about a good sized lake, not a tank. 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. It "seems to you"?? Holy crap, watch a newscast before you make such a stupid statement. You don't care about Florida, you don't care to even inform yourself at all about the situation in Nippon, you just blather on about Righties this and Conservatives that, and wait for someone to follow you down your yellow brick road.. Greg is catching on, and from what we have learned about you lately, I am sure once he stops playing you will move along, change your handle and infect some other group... Pffft... Dork.. She's been spotted over on rec.boats cruising using the handle Jessica B. What a dope. I've been trying to "spot" a decent boating-related post from you. Can't seem to find any. So, whose sock puppet are you? Reply: Whose are you? I come back from 2 weeks in Belize and I see most of your posts are as lame as Harry's. No boating content. |
Nuclear power anyone??
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 01:46:39 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 21:11:11 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 21:10:12 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 14:42:48 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:11:19 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:37:00 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 02:19:14 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:35:01 -0400, wrote: I haven't been opposed to nuclear power. I live about 20 miles from one. But this latest incident in Japan sure gives one pause. I think the significant thing is that the problem wasn't the 9.0 earthquake, it was the tsunami. That makes most of the US reactors somewhat immune to the biggest problem. It does highlight how vulnerable the cooling systems are to unexpected second order effects. The Japanese had diesel generators for backup power and then the diesels got knocked out by the tsunami. There are a lot of other things that can knock out diesel generators however. The track record of standby diesels performing reliably in an emergency is spotty at best. It takes an extremely rigorous maintenance and testing regime starting with fuel storage, filtration practices, etc. Why not just put a big water tank on top of the building... then all you need is gravity. The size of the tank. How big would it have to be? Seems like you could build a pretty big one that would work for at least some period of time... long enough to get the backup online. They have been pumping sea water into those reactors for days using big barge mounted pumps and it is still hot. You are talking about a good sized lake, not a tank. 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. |
Nuclear power anyone??
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 23:56:10 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: On 15/03/2011 10:11 PM, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 21:10:12 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 14:42:48 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:11:19 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:37:00 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 02:19:14 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:35:01 -0400, wrote: I haven't been opposed to nuclear power. I live about 20 miles from one. But this latest incident in Japan sure gives one pause. I think the significant thing is that the problem wasn't the 9.0 earthquake, it was the tsunami. That makes most of the US reactors somewhat immune to the biggest problem. It does highlight how vulnerable the cooling systems are to unexpected second order effects. The Japanese had diesel generators for backup power and then the diesels got knocked out by the tsunami. There are a lot of other things that can knock out diesel generators however. The track record of standby diesels performing reliably in an emergency is spotty at best. It takes an extremely rigorous maintenance and testing regime starting with fuel storage, filtration practices, etc. Why not just put a big water tank on top of the building... then all you need is gravity. The size of the tank. How big would it have to be? Seems like you could build a pretty big one that would work for at least some period of time... long enough to get the backup online. They have been pumping sea water into those reactors for days using big barge mounted pumps and it is still hot. You are talking about a good sized lake, not a tank. 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. True if they could control the reaction, but obviously they can't. I'm not talking about controlling the reaction dipsy doodle. I'm talking about controlling the release of the water in the storage tanks. |
Nuclear power anyone??
"Canuck57" wrote in message ...
On 15/03/2011 12:19 AM, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:35:01 -0400, wrote: I haven't been opposed to nuclear power. I live about 20 miles from one. But this latest incident in Japan sure gives one pause. I think the significant thing is that the problem wasn't the 9.0 earthquake, it was the tsunami. That makes most of the US reactors somewhat immune to the biggest problem. It does highlight how vulnerable the cooling systems are to unexpected second order effects. The Japanese had diesel generators for backup power and then the diesels got knocked out by the tsunami. There are a lot of other things that can knock out diesel generators however. The track record of standby diesels performing reliably in an emergency is spotty at best. It takes an extremely rigorous maintenance and testing regime starting with fuel storage, filtration practices, etc. All reactors should and can be designed in a way they can remove core elements and stop the reaction. Why were these 4 reactors not designed this way? Cheap design? Poor engineering? How many more like it are out there? Reply: Old reactor. Lots of changes in the last 20-40 years. Quake and Tsunami kill 10-10,000 and there is more hype about the radiation releases at the plant and the danger that 10 people may get cancer. The media is a large problem. What has been released is no high level stuff. Coal mining and power plants release probably that much a week from the Radon gas. Is a disaster, but the newer designs prevent a lot of these problems. We have not build a new plant in the US is at least 20 years. France builds all plants exactly the same regards layout and controls. Trained in one plant, can work in any plant. Cost is cheaper as the design is reused. Any design problems can be addressed equally across the system. How the hell you going to run all those Tesla cars and other electric vehicles the government wants us to drive? |
Nuclear power anyone??
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 11:09:10 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote: "Canuck57" wrote in message ... On 15/03/2011 12:19 AM, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:35:01 -0400, wrote: I haven't been opposed to nuclear power. I live about 20 miles from one. But this latest incident in Japan sure gives one pause. I think the significant thing is that the problem wasn't the 9.0 earthquake, it was the tsunami. That makes most of the US reactors somewhat immune to the biggest problem. It does highlight how vulnerable the cooling systems are to unexpected second order effects. The Japanese had diesel generators for backup power and then the diesels got knocked out by the tsunami. There are a lot of other things that can knock out diesel generators however. The track record of standby diesels performing reliably in an emergency is spotty at best. It takes an extremely rigorous maintenance and testing regime starting with fuel storage, filtration practices, etc. All reactors should and can be designed in a way they can remove core elements and stop the reaction. Why were these 4 reactors not designed this way? Cheap design? Poor engineering? How many more like it are out there? Reply: Old reactor. Lots of changes in the last 20-40 years. Quake and Tsunami kill 10-10,000 and there is more hype about the radiation releases at the plant and the danger that 10 people may get cancer. The media is a large problem. What has been released is no high level stuff. Coal mining and power plants release probably that much a week from the Radon gas. Is a disaster, but the newer designs prevent a lot of these problems. We have not build a new plant in the US is at least 20 years. France builds all plants exactly the same regards layout and controls. Trained in one plant, can work in any plant. Cost is cheaper as the design is reused. Any design problems can be addressed equally across the system. How the hell you going to run all those Tesla cars and other electric vehicles the government wants us to drive? As of just a few minutes ago, the authorities in Japan are using fire hoses to try and cool the plants. According to the BBC, it's becoming more and more a desperate operation. |
Nuclear power anyone??
On 16/03/2011 11:56 AM, Califbill wrote:
wrote in message ... On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:40:39 -0400, Gene wrote: On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:35:01 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:56:26 -0400, Harryk wrote: On 3/14/11 6:48 PM, True North wrote: Was that you, Johnny.... always preaching about the benefits of nuclear power? Good I guess, as long as you don't have an earthquake. I haven't been opposed to nuclear power. I live about 20 miles from one. But this latest incident in Japan sure gives one pause. I think the significant thing is that the problem wasn't the 9.0 earthquake, it was the tsunami. That makes most of the US reactors somewhat immune to the biggest problem. Except the one 5 miles from my house..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunswi...rating_Station Where is the fault that is going to cause the level 9 earthquake? Reply: Also the Japanese Nuke plant is 40 years old. We have learned a lot in that time. Does not require electricity to keep the emergency cooling water flowing these days. Ya but the US has 23 of them exactly like the Japanese one. All still in service. That does not include the related models, just the identical ones. But agree, the model is obolete as you can't easily stop the chain reaction with these dinosaurs. |
Nuclear power anyone??
On 16/03/2011 12:04 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 01:46:39 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 21:11:11 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 21:10:12 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 14:42:48 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:11:19 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:37:00 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 02:19:14 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:35:01 -0400, wrote: I haven't been opposed to nuclear power. I live about 20 miles from one. But this latest incident in Japan sure gives one pause. I think the significant thing is that the problem wasn't the 9.0 earthquake, it was the tsunami. That makes most of the US reactors somewhat immune to the biggest problem. It does highlight how vulnerable the cooling systems are to unexpected second order effects. The Japanese had diesel generators for backup power and then the diesels got knocked out by the tsunami. There are a lot of other things that can knock out diesel generators however. The track record of standby diesels performing reliably in an emergency is spotty at best. It takes an extremely rigorous maintenance and testing regime starting with fuel storage, filtration practices, etc. Why not just put a big water tank on top of the building... then all you need is gravity. The size of the tank. How big would it have to be? Seems like you could build a pretty big one that would work for at least some period of time... long enough to get the backup online. They have been pumping sea water into those reactors for days using big barge mounted pumps and it is still hot. You are talking about a good sized lake, not a tank. 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. Dumb idea. Go for the most simple approach. The one that stops the chain reaction, pull the rods out. |
Nuclear power anyone??
On 16/03/2011 12:05 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 23:56:10 -0600, wrote: On 15/03/2011 10:11 PM, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 21:10:12 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 14:42:48 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:11:19 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:37:00 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 02:19:14 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:35:01 -0400, wrote: I haven't been opposed to nuclear power. I live about 20 miles from one. But this latest incident in Japan sure gives one pause. I think the significant thing is that the problem wasn't the 9.0 earthquake, it was the tsunami. That makes most of the US reactors somewhat immune to the biggest problem. It does highlight how vulnerable the cooling systems are to unexpected second order effects. The Japanese had diesel generators for backup power and then the diesels got knocked out by the tsunami. There are a lot of other things that can knock out diesel generators however. The track record of standby diesels performing reliably in an emergency is spotty at best. It takes an extremely rigorous maintenance and testing regime starting with fuel storage, filtration practices, etc. Why not just put a big water tank on top of the building... then all you need is gravity. The size of the tank. How big would it have to be? Seems like you could build a pretty big one that would work for at least some period of time... long enough to get the backup online. They have been pumping sea water into those reactors for days using big barge mounted pumps and it is still hot. You are talking about a good sized lake, not a tank. 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. True if they could control the reaction, but obviously they can't. I'm not talking about controlling the reaction dipsy doodle. I'm talking about controlling the release of the water in the storage tanks. And once the water gets hot or evaporates what then? This is why they are flushing the stupid things with sea water and contaminating the hell out of things. New designs allow for stopping the chain reaction thus no coolant and no heat. But the bizentine type bureaucracyin getting things done...well...frag more ass. |
Nuclear power anyone??
On 16/03/2011 12:09 PM, Califbill wrote:
"Canuck57" wrote in message ... On 15/03/2011 12:19 AM, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:35:01 -0400, wrote: I haven't been opposed to nuclear power. I live about 20 miles from one. But this latest incident in Japan sure gives one pause. I think the significant thing is that the problem wasn't the 9.0 earthquake, it was the tsunami. That makes most of the US reactors somewhat immune to the biggest problem. It does highlight how vulnerable the cooling systems are to unexpected second order effects. The Japanese had diesel generators for backup power and then the diesels got knocked out by the tsunami. There are a lot of other things that can knock out diesel generators however. The track record of standby diesels performing reliably in an emergency is spotty at best. It takes an extremely rigorous maintenance and testing regime starting with fuel storage, filtration practices, etc. All reactors should and can be designed in a way they can remove core elements and stop the reaction. Why were these 4 reactors not designed this way? Cheap design? Poor engineering? How many more like it are out there? Reply: Old reactor. Lots of changes in the last 20-40 years. Quake and Tsunami kill 10-10,000 and there is more hype about the radiation releases at the plant and the danger that 10 people may get cancer. The media is a large problem. What has been released is no high level stuff. Coal mining and power plants release probably that much a week from the Radon gas. Is a disaster, but the newer designs prevent a lot of these problems. We have not build a new plant in the US is at least 20 years. France builds all plants exactly the same regards layout and controls. Trained in one plant, can work in any plant. Cost is cheaper as the design is reused. Any design problems can be addressed equally across the system. How the hell you going to run all those Tesla cars and other electric vehicles the government wants us to drive? Agreed. But then who is forcing American companies (and Chinese/Tiawan/Japan) to upgrade these plants? Or do these utilities run them until they leak? Hey, lots of American leaks too... although not as bad as what Japan just did. But my point is who is going to get the US ones up to date or just ignore it? |
Nuclear power anyone??
In article ,
says... On 16/03/2011 11:56 AM, Califbill wrote: wrote in message ... On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:40:39 -0400, Gene wrote: On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:35:01 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:56:26 -0400, Harryk wrote: On 3/14/11 6:48 PM, True North wrote: Was that you, Johnny.... always preaching about the benefits of nuclear power? Good I guess, as long as you don't have an earthquake. I haven't been opposed to nuclear power. I live about 20 miles from one. But this latest incident in Japan sure gives one pause. I think the significant thing is that the problem wasn't the 9.0 earthquake, it was the tsunami. That makes most of the US reactors somewhat immune to the biggest problem. Except the one 5 miles from my house..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunswi...rating_Station Where is the fault that is going to cause the level 9 earthquake? Reply: Also the Japanese Nuke plant is 40 years old. We have learned a lot in that time. Does not require electricity to keep the emergency cooling water flowing these days. Ya but the US has 23 of them exactly like the Japanese one. All still in service. That does not include the related models, just the identical ones. But agree, the model is obolete as you can't easily stop the chain reaction with these dinosaurs. I saw a graphic about this particular design. There are not actually rods that can be pulled out and separated. the core is the material and it can be slowed down by putting separator plates in, but it's all still in one area... |
Nuclear power anyone??
In article ,
says... On 16/03/2011 12:04 PM, wrote: On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 01:46:39 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 21:11:11 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 21:10:12 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 14:42:48 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:11:19 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:37:00 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 02:19:14 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:35:01 -0400, wrote: I haven't been opposed to nuclear power. I live about 20 miles from one. But this latest incident in Japan sure gives one pause. I think the significant thing is that the problem wasn't the 9.0 earthquake, it was the tsunami. That makes most of the US reactors somewhat immune to the biggest problem. It does highlight how vulnerable the cooling systems are to unexpected second order effects. The Japanese had diesel generators for backup power and then the diesels got knocked out by the tsunami. There are a lot of other things that can knock out diesel generators however. The track record of standby diesels performing reliably in an emergency is spotty at best. It takes an extremely rigorous maintenance and testing regime starting with fuel storage, filtration practices, etc. Why not just put a big water tank on top of the building... then all you need is gravity. The size of the tank. How big would it have to be? Seems like you could build a pretty big one that would work for at least some period of time... long enough to get the backup online. They have been pumping sea water into those reactors for days using big barge mounted pumps and it is still hot. You are talking about a good sized lake, not a tank. 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. Dumb idea. Go for the most simple approach. The one that stops the chain reaction, pull the rods out. Look at the design, you can't just pull the rods out, that's not the way the core is set up or they would have already done it... |
Nuclear power anyone??
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 16:29:15 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: On 16/03/2011 12:04 PM, wrote: On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 01:46:39 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 21:11:11 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 21:10:12 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 14:42:48 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:11:19 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:37:00 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 02:19:14 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:35:01 -0400, wrote: I haven't been opposed to nuclear power. I live about 20 miles from one. But this latest incident in Japan sure gives one pause. I think the significant thing is that the problem wasn't the 9.0 earthquake, it was the tsunami. That makes most of the US reactors somewhat immune to the biggest problem. It does highlight how vulnerable the cooling systems are to unexpected second order effects. The Japanese had diesel generators for backup power and then the diesels got knocked out by the tsunami. There are a lot of other things that can knock out diesel generators however. The track record of standby diesels performing reliably in an emergency is spotty at best. It takes an extremely rigorous maintenance and testing regime starting with fuel storage, filtration practices, etc. Why not just put a big water tank on top of the building... then all you need is gravity. The size of the tank. How big would it have to be? Seems like you could build a pretty big one that would work for at least some period of time... long enough to get the backup online. They have been pumping sea water into those reactors for days using big barge mounted pumps and it is still hot. You are talking about a good sized lake, not a tank. 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. Dumb idea. Go for the most simple approach. The one that stops the chain reaction, pull the rods out. You're an idiot on so many levels... |
Nuclear power anyone??
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 16:31:51 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: On 16/03/2011 12:05 PM, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 23:56:10 -0600, wrote: On 15/03/2011 10:11 PM, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 21:10:12 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 14:42:48 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:11:19 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:37:00 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 02:19:14 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:35:01 -0400, wrote: I haven't been opposed to nuclear power. I live about 20 miles from one. But this latest incident in Japan sure gives one pause. I think the significant thing is that the problem wasn't the 9.0 earthquake, it was the tsunami. That makes most of the US reactors somewhat immune to the biggest problem. It does highlight how vulnerable the cooling systems are to unexpected second order effects. The Japanese had diesel generators for backup power and then the diesels got knocked out by the tsunami. There are a lot of other things that can knock out diesel generators however. The track record of standby diesels performing reliably in an emergency is spotty at best. It takes an extremely rigorous maintenance and testing regime starting with fuel storage, filtration practices, etc. Why not just put a big water tank on top of the building... then all you need is gravity. The size of the tank. How big would it have to be? Seems like you could build a pretty big one that would work for at least some period of time... long enough to get the backup online. They have been pumping sea water into those reactors for days using big barge mounted pumps and it is still hot. You are talking about a good sized lake, not a tank. 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. True if they could control the reaction, but obviously they can't. I'm not talking about controlling the reaction dipsy doodle. I'm talking about controlling the release of the water in the storage tanks. And once the water gets hot or evaporates what then? This is why they are flushing the stupid things with sea water and contaminating the hell out of things. New designs allow for stopping the chain reaction thus no coolant and no heat. But the bizentine type bureaucracyin getting things done...well...frag more ass. You're too dumb for words... try again Mr. Dipsy. |
Nuclear power anyone??
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 16:34:22 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: On 16/03/2011 12:09 PM, Califbill wrote: "Canuck57" wrote in message ... On 15/03/2011 12:19 AM, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:35:01 -0400, wrote: I haven't been opposed to nuclear power. I live about 20 miles from one. But this latest incident in Japan sure gives one pause. I think the significant thing is that the problem wasn't the 9.0 earthquake, it was the tsunami. That makes most of the US reactors somewhat immune to the biggest problem. It does highlight how vulnerable the cooling systems are to unexpected second order effects. The Japanese had diesel generators for backup power and then the diesels got knocked out by the tsunami. There are a lot of other things that can knock out diesel generators however. The track record of standby diesels performing reliably in an emergency is spotty at best. It takes an extremely rigorous maintenance and testing regime starting with fuel storage, filtration practices, etc. All reactors should and can be designed in a way they can remove core elements and stop the reaction. Why were these 4 reactors not designed this way? Cheap design? Poor engineering? How many more like it are out there? Reply: Old reactor. Lots of changes in the last 20-40 years. Quake and Tsunami kill 10-10,000 and there is more hype about the radiation releases at the plant and the danger that 10 people may get cancer. The media is a large problem. What has been released is no high level stuff. Coal mining and power plants release probably that much a week from the Radon gas. Is a disaster, but the newer designs prevent a lot of these problems. We have not build a new plant in the US is at least 20 years. France builds all plants exactly the same regards layout and controls. Trained in one plant, can work in any plant. Cost is cheaper as the design is reused. Any design problems can be addressed equally across the system. How the hell you going to run all those Tesla cars and other electric vehicles the government wants us to drive? Agreed. But then who is forcing American companies (and Chinese/Tiawan/Japan) to upgrade these plants? Or do these utilities run them until they leak? Hey, lots of American leaks too... although not as bad as what Japan just did. But my point is who is going to get the US ones up to date or just ignore it? You're the one who isn't interested in gov't oversight noodle brain. |
Nuclear power anyone??
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 16:34:22 -0600, wrote: On 16/03/2011 12:09 PM, Califbill wrote: "Canuck57" wrote in message ... On 15/03/2011 12:19 AM, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:35:01 -0400, wrote: I haven't been opposed to nuclear power. I live about 20 miles from one. But this latest incident in Japan sure gives one pause. I think the significant thing is that the problem wasn't the 9.0 earthquake, it was the tsunami. That makes most of the US reactors somewhat immune to the biggest problem. It does highlight how vulnerable the cooling systems are to unexpected second order effects. The Japanese had diesel generators for backup power and then the diesels got knocked out by the tsunami. There are a lot of other things that can knock out diesel generators however. The track record of standby diesels performing reliably in an emergency is spotty at best. It takes an extremely rigorous maintenance and testing regime starting with fuel storage, filtration practices, etc. All reactors should and can be designed in a way they can remove core elements and stop the reaction. Why were these 4 reactors not designed this way? Cheap design? Poor engineering? How many more like it are out there? Reply: Old reactor. Lots of changes in the last 20-40 years. Quake and Tsunami kill 10-10,000 and there is more hype about the radiation releases at the plant and the danger that 10 people may get cancer. The media is a large problem. What has been released is no high level stuff. Coal mining and power plants release probably that much a week from the Radon gas. Is a disaster, but the newer designs prevent a lot of these problems. We have not build a new plant in the US is at least 20 years. France builds all plants exactly the same regards layout and controls. Trained in one plant, can work in any plant. Cost is cheaper as the design is reused. Any design problems can be addressed equally across the system. How the hell you going to run all those Tesla cars and other electric vehicles the government wants us to drive? Agreed. But then who is forcing American companies (and Chinese/Tiawan/Japan) to upgrade these plants? Or do these utilities run them until they leak? Hey, lots of American leaks too... although not as bad as what Japan just did. But my point is who is going to get the US ones up to date or just ignore it? You're the one who isn't interested in gov't oversight noodle brain. Apparently he thinks the corporations will do the necessary upgrades of their own free will. Not bloody likely. |
Nuclear power anyone??
Harryk wrote:
On 3/14/11 6:48 PM, True North wrote: Was that you, Johnny.... always preaching about the benefits of nuclear power? Good I guess, as long as you don't have an earthquake. I haven't been opposed to nuclear power. I live about 20 miles from one. But this latest incident in Japan sure gives one pause. He didn't ask you. |
Nuclear power anyone??
Harryk wrote:
On 3/14/11 7:04 PM, Harryk wrote: On 3/14/11 6:58 PM, Lil Abner wrote: On 3/14/2011 6:48 PM, True North wrote: Was that you, Johnny.... always preaching about the benefits of nuclear power? Good I guess, as long as you don't have an earthquake. There is not a no risk utopia. We have to learn to safely handle nuclear power, and coal, etc. Ultimately nuclear wins out. Japanese are not ultimate technologists. Our Nuclear Power Plants are a lot more sophisticated and more redundant safety. Oh, really? Please provide proof that our creaky old nuclear power plants are a lot more sophisticated and more "redundant safety" than the equally old (or new) Japanese nuclear power plants. I understand at least one of our nuke plants, in California, is literally built over an earthquake fault, and that several plants in the South East are also built in areas of seismic activity. Oh, and all the reactors at the plant in question were designed by...you guessed it...General Electric. All but one were built by...you guessed it...General Electric. But *our* nuclear power plants built by...you guessed it...General Electric...are a lot safer. Ours are not all GE reactors. Westinghouse is another. |
Nuclear power anyone??
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:56:26 -0400, Harryk
wrote: On 3/14/11 6:48 PM, True North wrote: Was that you, Johnny.... always preaching about the benefits of nuclear power? Good I guess, as long as you don't have an earthquake. I haven't been opposed to nuclear power. I live about 20 miles from one. But this latest incident in Japan sure gives one pause. as an engineer, i have mixed emotions on this one. it took a magnitude 9 earthquake AND a tsunami to do this. NOTHING can withstand that. BUT fossil fuels have their dangers, too. air pollution kills tens of thousands every year....the gulf oil spill, etc. we need a sense of perspective. i dont know if the reactor will meltdown. but if it does, we still need to put it in context and compare it to alternatives |
Nuclear power anyone??
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:40:39 -0400, Gene
wrote: On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:35:01 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:56:26 -0400, Harryk wrote: On 3/14/11 6:48 PM, True North wrote: Was that you, Johnny.... always preaching about the benefits of nuclear power? Good I guess, as long as you don't have an earthquake. I haven't been opposed to nuclear power. I live about 20 miles from one. But this latest incident in Japan sure gives one pause. I think the significant thing is that the problem wasn't the 9.0 earthquake, it was the tsunami. That makes most of the US reactors somewhat immune to the biggest problem. Except the one 5 miles from my house..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunswi...rating_Station i live within 100 miles of 2 of the top 10 worst in the country, limierick (about 20 miles) and 3 mile island. not looking forward to any problems |
Nuclear power anyone??
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. |
Nuclear power anyone??
On 16/03/2011 4:42 PM, I_am_Tosk wrote:
In , says... On 16/03/2011 11:56 AM, Califbill wrote: wrote in message ... On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:40:39 -0400, Gene wrote: On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:35:01 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:56:26 -0400, wrote: On 3/14/11 6:48 PM, True North wrote: Was that you, Johnny.... always preaching about the benefits of nuclear power? Good I guess, as long as you don't have an earthquake. I haven't been opposed to nuclear power. I live about 20 miles from one. But this latest incident in Japan sure gives one pause. I think the significant thing is that the problem wasn't the 9.0 earthquake, it was the tsunami. That makes most of the US reactors somewhat immune to the biggest problem. Except the one 5 miles from my house..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunswi...rating_Station Where is the fault that is going to cause the level 9 earthquake? Reply: Also the Japanese Nuke plant is 40 years old. We have learned a lot in that time. Does not require electricity to keep the emergency cooling water flowing these days. Ya but the US has 23 of them exactly like the Japanese one. All still in service. That does not include the related models, just the identical ones. But agree, the model is obolete as you can't easily stop the chain reaction with these dinosaurs. I saw a graphic about this particular design. There are not actually rods that can be pulled out and separated. the core is the material and it can be slowed down by putting separator plates in, but it's all still in one area... There are moderator rods on well designed reactors where a material tha surpresses nuetrons can be placed between the fuel rods. This dramatically reduces the energy output of the core. Yes, you actually push the rods in to stop the core reaction. Commonly called Control Rods.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_rod This reactor design, like the 23 ohers in the US do not have this feature and others. The real crime hear is polticians to allow old antiquate designed to operate probably past their originally indended liftimes. Oh ya, someone will say they were designed for 100 year or something, but what does man make that lasts a 100 years without heavy maintance and upgrading along the way? Further, they are now using newer high output MOX fuel in these things, using plutonium as part of the mix. Real fun stuff when it melts. I am no nuke expert, but know enough about science to know when poliicians and reporters are selling the wrong line. I didn't have any idea we were still running reactors designed in the 60's until this incident. As any 1/2 baked responsible idiot would not trust that. Clearly these nukes are being run until they drop. |
Nuclear power anyone??
On 17/03/2011 5:59 AM, Gene wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:34:09 -0400, Gene wrote: On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 21:31:33 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:40:39 -0400, Gene wrote: On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:35:01 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:56:26 -0400, wrote: On 3/14/11 6:48 PM, True North wrote: Was that you, Johnny.... always preaching about the benefits of nuclear power? Good I guess, as long as you don't have an earthquake. I haven't been opposed to nuclear power. I live about 20 miles from one. But this latest incident in Japan sure gives one pause. I think the significant thing is that the problem wasn't the 9.0 earthquake, it was the tsunami. That makes most of the US reactors somewhat immune to the biggest problem. Except the one 5 miles from my house..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunswi...rating_Station Where is the fault that is going to cause the level 9 earthquake? Old news..... http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/aug/10/science.spain More.... and some of you folks North of here are at risk! http://www.starnewsonline.com/articl...ail_newsletter Funny. It does not have to be an earth quake for a containment vessel to run out of water, or a 40 year old motor does not start in a backup system. Fact is, given the harm they can do, there are a lot of unsafe nuke pants out there that need big time upgrades. |
Nuclear power anyone??
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:42 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com