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?

On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:43:59 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 19:48:02 -0300, "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.

No, actually according to this writer, it is good.......!

http://nation.foxnews.com/ann-coulte...port-radiation

Just for the heck of it, I read the article. To which writer were you referring?

"As The New York Times science section reported in 2001, an increasing number of
scientists believe that at some level -- much higher than the minimums set by
the U.S. government -- radiation is good for you. "They theorize," the Times
said, that "these doses protect against cancer by activating cells' natural
defense mechanisms."

Actually, it wouldn't hurt you to read the whole thing:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=42347

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. Good
points.

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...

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.

On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 17:43:46 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:43:59 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 19:48:02 -0300, "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.

No, actually according to this writer, it is good.......!

http://nation.foxnews.com/ann-coulte...port-radiation

Just for the heck of it, I read the article. To which writer were you referring?

"As The New York Times science section reported in 2001, an increasing number of
scientists believe that at some level -- much higher than the minimums set by
the U.S. government -- radiation is good for you. "They theorize," the Times
said, that "these doses protect against cancer by activating cells' natural
defense mechanisms."

Actually, it wouldn't hurt you to read the whole thing:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=42347

Anyone who considers Coulter a reasoned voice on anything is a bigger
idiot that she is.

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.

bpuharic 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.

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

As an engineer, don't you have to know how to use proper capitalization
or are you a half-blind train engineer?

bpuharic 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

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

You seem to be already affected.

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.

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.