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.