| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Nuclear power anyone??
In article ,
says... On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 13:50:46 -0400, wrote: 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. Hold on there. First you want to contaminate a lake with radioactivity. Then you want to put a nuclear reactor near a dam. Are you by any chance Japanese? |
|
#3
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nuclear power anyone??
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 15:13:57 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote: In article , says... On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 13:50:46 -0400, wrote: 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. Hold on there. First you want to contaminate a lake with radioactivity. Then you want to put a nuclear reactor near a dam. Are you by any chance Japanese? Heh... well, I was thinking of the lake as a last resort, and since it would likely have to have a dam... hmm... it would be nice to find a solution to the safety issue, but I guess that's not it.  Goodpoints. I believe the current design that had the problem had the spent rods pool above the reactor, and I've heard some speculation that the reason was having a reserve pool of water... doesn't really make much sense, since the rods get hot also. Where is fusion when we need it... |
|
#4
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nuclear power anyone??
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 17:21:02 -0400, wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 13:01:27 -0700, wrote: 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. You would certainly want to be sure your spillway was not going towards the plant or you could have a man made tsunami if the dam broke Yep... perhaps it's time to rethink my great idea. |
|
#5
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nuclear power anyone??
On 3/17/2011 6:19 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 17:21:02 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 13:01:27 -0700, wrote: 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. You would certainly want to be sure your spillway was not going towards the plant or you could have a man made tsunami if the dam broke Yep... perhaps it's time to rethink my great idea. IT'S PROBABLY TIME FOR YOU TO FIND A FALLOUT SHELTER WHILE GREATER MINDS THAN YOURS TRY TO SOLVE THIS *VERY SERIOUS* PROBLEM. |
|
#6
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nuclear power anyone??
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 18:37:12 -0400, Ernie wrote:
On 3/17/2011 6:19 PM, wrote: On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 17:21:02 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 13:01:27 -0700, wrote: 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. You would certainly want to be sure your spillway was not going towards the plant or you could have a man made tsunami if the dam broke Yep... perhaps it's time to rethink my great idea. IT'S PROBABLY TIME FOR YOU TO FIND A FALLOUT SHELTER WHILE GREATER MINDS THAN YOURS TRY TO SOLVE THIS *VERY SERIOUS* PROBLEM. It's probably time for you to crawl back in your hole. |
|
#7
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nuclear power anyone??
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 18:37:12 -0400, wrote: On 3/17/2011 6:19 PM, wrote: On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 17:21:02 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 13:01:27 -0700, wrote: 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. You would certainly want to be sure your spillway was not going towards the plant or you could have a man made tsunami if the dam broke Yep... perhaps it's time to rethink my great idea. IT'S PROBABLY TIME FOR YOU TO FIND A FALLOUT SHELTER WHILE GREATER MINDS THAN YOURS TRY TO SOLVE THIS *VERY SERIOUS* PROBLEM. It's probably time for you to crawl back in your hole. I wonder which of the regular right-wing idiots Ernie is...there are so many from which to choose. |
|
#8
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nuclear power anyone??
In article ,
says... wrote: On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 18:37:12 -0400, wrote: On 3/17/2011 6:19 PM, wrote: On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 17:21:02 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 13:01:27 -0700, wrote: 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. You would certainly want to be sure your spillway was not going towards the plant or you could have a man made tsunami if the dam broke Yep... perhaps it's time to rethink my great idea. IT'S PROBABLY TIME FOR YOU TO FIND A FALLOUT SHELTER WHILE GREATER MINDS THAN YOURS TRY TO SOLVE THIS *VERY SERIOUS* PROBLEM. It's probably time for you to crawl back in your hole. I wonder which of the regular right-wing idiots Ernie is...there are so many from which to choose. He's loogy. Or Kevin, or the spoofer, or...damn you and Don are confusing! |
|
#9
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nuclear power anyone??
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 22:27:58 -0400, wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 15:19:08 -0700, wrote: On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 17:21:02 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 13:01:27 -0700, wrote: On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 13:50:46 -0400, wrote: 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. You would certainly want to be sure your spillway was not going towards the plant or you could have a man made tsunami if the dam broke Yep... perhaps it's time to rethink my great idea. It is not a bad idea, it will just have to be used in a carefully selected spot. I think the lesson we will take away from this is to be more careful where we put our new nuke plants. We probably should be picking sites and building the plant to suit the site. I just heard on tv that the most dangerous one is just outside of NY... even more dangerous than the ones in California. |
|
#10
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nuclear power anyone??
In article ,
says... On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 23:14:17 -0700, wrote: On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 22:27:58 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 15:19:08 -0700, wrote: On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 17:21:02 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 13:01:27 -0700, wrote: On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 13:50:46 -0400, wrote: 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. You would certainly want to be sure your spillway was not going towards the plant or you could have a man made tsunami if the dam broke Yep... perhaps it's time to rethink my great idea. It is not a bad idea, it will just have to be used in a carefully selected spot. I think the lesson we will take away from this is to be more careful where we put our new nuke plants. We probably should be picking sites and building the plant to suit the site. I just heard on tv that the most dangerous one is just outside of NY... even more dangerous than the ones in California. That is based on the fact that they just found a previously undiscovered fault but it has not shown any proof that it is particularly active or that it will be causing a massive earthquake. The Pacific rim is moving all the time. The biggest danger for these eastern faults is that we really have no seismic building code provisions. The people on the coast may be in better shape, simply because hurricane code and seismic codes overlap somewhat. (assuming they enforce wind codes) There's quite a few faults in the U.S. that are just as dangerous, if not more dangerous than the ones in California. And actually, the San Andreas isn't that bad, it's just famous because of the fact that it is so long over land. |
| 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
