| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
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. |
|
#3
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! |
| 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
