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??
 

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.