| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
#3
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Thank you Obama, for Nuclear Power! | General | |||
| We're behind France in nuclear power and... | General | |||
| Repugs to “go nuclear” | General | |||
| Nuclear power boat | Power Boat Racing | |||
Hybrid Mode
