|
Nuclear power anyone??
Was that you, Johnny.... always preaching about the benefits of nuclear
power? Good I guess, as long as you don't have an earthquake. |
Nuclear power anyone??
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. |
Nuclear power anyone??
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. Solar and wind power have so far cost more for acquisition and maintenance etc than can be recouped. Solar nor wind can supply the needs for a Houston. Grow up and face reality that there is no zero risk energy supply let alone affordability. The ones persisting in this notion better make plans to grow fur and live in a cave and graze. |
Nuclear power anyone??
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. |
Nuclear power anyone??
On 3/14/2011 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. So there are seismic areas everywhere. The problem in Japan was cooling shut down, at least with limited info published. They perhaps could have not had a problem with something as simple as adequate back up diesel generators or pumps. What would you do? Pick out a cave yet? :) |
Nuclear power anyone??
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. |
Nuclear power anyone??
On 3/14/11 7:09 PM, Lil Abner wrote:
On 3/14/2011 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. So there are seismic areas everywhere. The problem in Japan was cooling shut down, at least with limited info published. They perhaps could have not had a problem with something as simple as adequate back up diesel generators or pumps. What would you do? Pick out a cave yet? :) What I wouldn't do is make a pronouncement that our nuclear plants are a "lot more sophisticated and more redundant safety" than the Japanese plants, since both probably were designed and built by the same US manufacturer, GE. |
Nuclear power anyone??
On 3/14/2011 7:09 PM, 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. Well maybe we could have Westinghouse designed Chinese, N Korean, or..... I have no idea since I don't inspect them. Maybe you do? |
Nuclear power anyone??
On 3/14/2011 7:11 PM, Harryk wrote:
On 3/14/11 7:09 PM, Lil Abner wrote: On 3/14/2011 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. So there are seismic areas everywhere. The problem in Japan was cooling shut down, at least with limited info published. They perhaps could have not had a problem with something as simple as adequate back up diesel generators or pumps. What would you do? Pick out a cave yet? :) What I wouldn't do is make a pronouncement that our nuclear plants are a "lot more sophisticated and more redundant safety" than the Japanese plants, since both probably were designed and built by the same US manufacturer, GE. NRC is pretty strict. They'll fine your butt for chewing gum on the sidewalk, so to speak. |
Nuclear power anyone??
On 3/14/11 7:13 PM, Lil Abner wrote:
On 3/14/2011 7:11 PM, Harryk wrote: On 3/14/11 7:09 PM, Lil Abner wrote: On 3/14/2011 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. So there are seismic areas everywhere. The problem in Japan was cooling shut down, at least with limited info published. They perhaps could have not had a problem with something as simple as adequate back up diesel generators or pumps. What would you do? Pick out a cave yet? :) What I wouldn't do is make a pronouncement that our nuclear plants are a "lot more sophisticated and more redundant safety" than the Japanese plants, since both probably were designed and built by the same US manufacturer, GE. NRC is pretty strict. They'll fine your butt for chewing gum on the sidewalk, so to speak. Which has nothing to do with the comparative safety of Japanese versus U.S. nuclear plant facilities. For all you know, the Japanese equivalent of the NRC is stricter. |
Nuclear power anyone??
In article , Lil Abner
says... On 3/14/2011 7:09 PM, 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. Well maybe we could have Westinghouse designed Chinese, N Korean, or..... I have no idea since I don't inspect them. Maybe you do? A friend of mine did, that was his job. He inspected these facilities as they are being built, and I don't even want to repeat what he told me, let's just say it wasn't good... |
Nuclear power anyone??
On 14/03/2011 4:48 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 used to believe in nuclear power was the way to go. But given Japan is now having 3 meltdowns/explosions putting radioactive material into the atomosphere I am changing to anti-nuclear. It is clear our politicians lie, our engineering is grossly insuficient and we are too imature of a species to do this safely. Headed for the US too. If USS Ronald Reagan is moving out of the way, well, tells you all you need to know. Think, the next lot of tuna might come with cancer included. |
Nuclear power anyone??
|
Nuclear power anyone??
On 14/03/2011 5:54 PM, I_am_Tosk wrote:
In , Lil says... On 3/14/2011 7:09 PM, 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. Well maybe we could have Westinghouse designed Chinese, N Korean, or..... I have no idea since I don't inspect them. Maybe you do? A friend of mine did, that was his job. He inspected these facilities as they are being built, and I don't even want to repeat what he told me, let's just say it wasn't good... Lots of politicial presures to sign off on some big mistakes? |
Nuclear power anyone??
On Mar 14, 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. Herring preaches about everything...EXCEPT Boats. He's a twit. |
Nuclear power anyone??
|
Nuclear power anyone??
In article ,
says... 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 Looks like a GE plant. I would consider moving. |
Nuclear power anyone??
On 3/15/11 7:45 AM, BAR wrote:
In , says... 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 Looks like a GE plant. I would consider moving. The Japanese plants are GE, too. Ahhh, corporatism. |
Nuclear power anyone??
In article , princecraft49
@gmail.com says... Was that you, Johnny.... always preaching about the benefits of nuclear power? Good I guess, as long as you don't have an earthquake. You stupid ****! Do you realize that in the U.S. the standard design for nuke plants for sunamis, earthquakes, flood, etc. is to use a 10,000 year event span? |
Nuclear power anyone??
In article , payer3389
@mypacks.net says... On 3/14/11 7:09 PM, Lil Abner wrote: On 3/14/2011 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. So there are seismic areas everywhere. The problem in Japan was cooling shut down, at least with limited info published. They perhaps could have not had a problem with something as simple as adequate back up diesel generators or pumps. What would you do? Pick out a cave yet? :) What I wouldn't do is make a pronouncement that our nuclear plants are a "lot more sophisticated and more redundant safety" than the Japanese plants, since both probably were designed and built by the same US manufacturer, GE. What about Westinghouse, dip****? And I do hope you know that just because the reactor itself is made by a certain company doesn't mean that every piece and part was. |
Nuclear power anyone??
In article , payer3389
@mypacks.net says... 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. Damn you are stupid. |
Nuclear power anyone??
On 3/15/2011 9:29 AM, HarryisPaul wrote:
In articles4idneA9KrOkPePQnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@earthlink .com, payer3389 @mypacks.net says... 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. Damn you are stupid. Stupid is spending your on-line life trying to elicit responses from someone who obviously ignores you/blocks your posts and has no intention of responding. Have a nice day, Loogy. |
Nuclear power anyone??
On 3/15/2011 9:29 AM, HarryisPaul wrote:
In articles4idneA9KrOkPePQnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@earthlink .com, payer3389 @mypacks.net says... 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. Damn you are stupid. No need to restate the obvious. |
Nuclear power anyone??
On 3/15/2011 9:43 AM, paul@byc wrote:
On 3/15/2011 9:29 AM, HarryisPaul wrote: In articles4idneA9KrOkPePQnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@earthlink .com, payer3389 @mypacks.net says... 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. Damn you are stupid. Stupid is spending your on-line life trying to elicit responses from someone who obviously ignores you/blocks your posts and has no intention of responding. Have a nice day, Loogy. Stupid is sitting in your basement wasting your life away, on line. I can't imagine why the little lady lets you get away with it. |
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. Thanks for putting the dip in his place. (That was your March response, BTW.) Scotty, take heed. |
Nuclear power anyone??
On 3/15/11 10:20 AM, John H 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. Thanks for putting the dip in his place. (That was your March response, BTW.) Scotty, take heed. This from John "ever the asshole" Herring, rec. boat's resident racist. |
Nuclear power anyone??
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. |
Nuclear power anyone??
On 15/03/2011 7:21 AM, HarryisPaul wrote:
In , princecraft49 @gmail.com says... Was that you, Johnny.... always preaching about the benefits of nuclear power? Good I guess, as long as you don't have an earthquake. You stupid ****! Do you realize that in the U.S. the standard design for nuke plants for sunamis, earthquakes, flood, etc. is to use a 10,000 year event span? So does Japan claim the same. You trust these *******s to tll the truth? I have some beach front land for sale cheap too... |
Nuclear power anyone??
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? |
Nuclear power anyone??
On 3/15/11 4:43 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 15/03/2011 7:21 AM, HarryisPaul wrote: In , princecraft49 @gmail.com says... Was that you, Johnny.... always preaching about the benefits of nuclear power? Good I guess, as long as you don't have an earthquake. You stupid ****! Do you realize that in the U.S. the standard design for nuke plants for sunamis, earthquakes, flood, etc. is to use a 10,000 year event span? So does Japan claim the same. You trust these *******s to tll the truth? I have some beach front land for sale cheap too... You should know that "HarryisPaul" is the former loogy here and doesn't know or care about nuclear reactors. He only posts to take cheap and repetitive potshots at me and another poster. Along with Scott Ingersoll, he is about the dumbest poster who ever showed his handle here. |
Nuclear power anyone??
On 3/15/11 5:05 PM, Harryk wrote:
I have some beach front land for sale cheap too... He only posts to take cheap and repetitive potshots at...... This sounds like you are talking about yourself. Cheap, childish, repetitive potshots are all you do. |
Nuclear power anyone??
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. |
Nuclear power anyone??
|
Nuclear power anyone??
|
Nuclear power anyone??
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. |
Nuclear power anyone??
In article ,
says... 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. It "seems to you"?? Holy crap, watch a newscast before you make such a stupid statement. You don't care about Florida, you don't care to even inform yourself at all about the situation in Nippon, you just blather on about Righties this and Conservatives that, and wait for someone to follow you down your yellow brick road.. Greg is catching on, and from what we have learned about you lately, I am sure once he stops playing you will move along, change your handle and infect some other group... Pffft... Dork.. |
Nuclear power anyone??
|
Nuclear power anyone??
On Mar 15, 11:26*pm, I_am_Tosk
wrote: In article , says... 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. It "seems to you"?? *Holy crap, watch a newscast before you make such a stupid statement. You don't care about Florida, you don't care to even inform yourself at all about the situation in Nippon, you just blather on about Righties this and Conservatives that, and wait for someone to follow you down your yellow brick road.. Greg is catching on, and from what we have learned about you lately, I am sure once he stops playing you will move along, change your handle and infect some other group... Pffft... Dork.. I really do believe she should stay with selling rags. It's more lucrative for her than thinking |
Nuclear power anyone??
On 15/03/2011 7:10 PM, 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. And the drain off is truly hot water in more ways than one. Massive polution to do this. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:13 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com