|
Post by Tired in CV on Mar 14, 2011 3:56:58 GMT -5
There must be more damage as well. I was busy doing some other stuff when the idea just popped into my head. Why haven't they lifted in some large portable generators to replace the ones that got destroyed and splice the connections to get the cooling going. So they must have additional damage that prevents doing so. Lifting in portable generators would (or should) have been their first priority to protect the reactors and the public. So, again, there must be additional damage that they are not revealing.
|
|
|
Post by animal on Mar 14, 2011 9:45:43 GMT -5
It can take weeks to set up a generator like we made.... all the piping, electrics, etc.... if this is leaking, how many people will volenteer to do that?
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Mar 15, 2011 0:35:19 GMT -5
It can take weeks to set up a generator like we made.... all the piping, electrics, etc.... if this is leaking, how many people will volenteer to do that? Our military have emergency generators the size of semi-trucks and they can be air lifted. They only need electrical power so the only hook up required would be the 3 phase power cables (similar to shore power cables for ships tied up to the pier) run into the building and connected to their power system. More power than what would have been required to operate cooling pumps for all 4 plants. It seems that the nuclear plants also had a battery back up systems that apparently did work for a short time. They are now stating that several reactors are as bad as Three Mile Island and could get worse. It also seems that at least one is on a major meltdown and exposed to the atmosphere. That one seems to be going towards the worst case senario. One fortunate aspect at this time for Japan is that while viewing the damaged nuclear plants, the wind was blowing out to sea. This will minimize a lot of contamination and less some of the radiation.
|
|
|
Post by animal on Mar 15, 2011 9:10:15 GMT -5
yep, we made those mobile generators too.... designed on a trailer frame... a few of them can light up a small city.
There is lots of rhetoric out there about the pro's and con's of nuke power, based on Japans issues.
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Mar 16, 2011 2:06:21 GMT -5
yep, we made those mobile generators too.... designed on a trailer frame... a few of them can light up a small city. There is lots of rhetoric out there about the pro's and con's of nuke power, based on Japans issues. I can't deny that the current situation is definately going against building a nuke plant. A couch quraterback might question building one on or near an earthquake fault or near a possible tsunami area. One also wonders about the possibility of having a sloped tsunami wall built to deflect and protect a nuclear reactor from such forces. Another item that doesn't sit well is that they DON'T RECYCLE the unspent fuel from the used reactor rods. It is much cheaper to build new ones from the raw ore that is mined. So, they are collecting in storage ponds and the first ones will still be there during our life times and probably our childrens. Maybe another look at the current designs are needed. Nuclear plants are redundant in protective systems but maybe an additional shell or some other system may be needed to improve safety during an emergency situation. When you look at the number of years, number of reactors and how much power that has been generated without the use of fossil fuels, that speaks volumes of good. There are risks, but I still support them. We actually have more accidents at refineries and other chemical plants than we have had at our nuclear plants.
|
|
|
Post by animal on Mar 16, 2011 9:16:49 GMT -5
yep... the anti-nuke gang jumped on this event hard.....
|
|
|
Post by dj on Mar 16, 2011 10:57:39 GMT -5
yep, we made those mobile generators too.... designed on a trailer frame... a few of them can light up a small city. There is lots of rhetoric out there about the pro's and con's of nuke power, based on Japans issues. I can't deny that the current situation is definately going against building a nuke plant. A couch quraterback might question building one on or near an earthquake fault or near a possible tsunami area. One also wonders about the possibility of having a sloped tsunami wall built to deflect and protect a nuclear reactor from such forces. Another item that doesn't sit well is that they DON'T RECYCLE the unspent fuel from the used reactor rods. It is much cheaper to build new ones from the raw ore that is mined. So, they are collecting in storage ponds and the first ones will still be there during our life times and probably our childrens. Maybe another look at the current designs are needed. Nuclear plants are redundant in protective systems but maybe an additional shell or some other system may be needed to improve safety during an emergency situation. When you look at the number of years, number of reactors and how much power that has been generated without the use of fossil fuels, that speaks volumes of good. There are risks, but I still support them. We actually have more accidents at refineries and other chemical plants than we have had at our nuclear plants. A lot of the very good points you're making about spent fuel and better safety and containment, etc, are already implemented in the design of U.S. nuke plants. The plants in question in Japan are very outmoded and have vulnerabilities and safety flaws that U.S. plants simply don't. In addition, the newest designs of "breeder" reactors, if ever built, do recycle and reuse much of the spent fuel. Part of the process is using spent fuel to enrich new fuel. Very efficient. It's just a hard road to go down because of all the fear and resistance from a mostly uninformed population. They see what's happening in Japan and want to just turn off the whole industry, which is really unreasonable.
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Mar 17, 2011 2:27:41 GMT -5
I can't deny that the current situation is definately going against building a nuke plant. A couch quraterback might question building one on or near an earthquake fault or near a possible tsunami area. One also wonders about the possibility of having a sloped tsunami wall built to deflect and protect a nuclear reactor from such forces. Another item that doesn't sit well is that they DON'T RECYCLE the unspent fuel from the used reactor rods. It is much cheaper to build new ones from the raw ore that is mined. So, they are collecting in storage ponds and the first ones will still be there during our life times and probably our childrens. Maybe another look at the current designs are needed. Nuclear plants are redundant in protective systems but maybe an additional shell or some other system may be needed to improve safety during an emergency situation. When you look at the number of years, number of reactors and how much power that has been generated without the use of fossil fuels, that speaks volumes of good. There are risks, but I still support them. We actually have more accidents at refineries and other chemical plants than we have had at our nuclear plants. A lot of the very good points you're making about spent fuel and better safety and containment, etc, are already implemented in the design of U.S. nuke plants. The plants in question in Japan are very outmoded and have vulnerabilities and safety flaws that U.S. plants simply don't. In addition, the newest designs of "breeder" reactors, if ever built, do recycle and reuse much of the spent fuel. Part of the process is using spent fuel to enrich new fuel. Very efficient. It's just a hard road to go down because of all the fear and resistance from a mostly uninformed population. They see what's happening in Japan and want to just turn off the whole industry, which is really unreasonable. I realize that there have been some improvements since I have worked/studied in a nuke plant. But I have read through the years on them as I have a personal interest. As to the U.S. not having plants like in Japan, that is incorrect as we have over a dozen IDENTICAL to the ones melting down right now. We have many, many more that are older in design as well. Although, they could be to some benefit depending on their design. Our newest nuclear power plant was scheduled to come "online" in 2012 and it's ground breaking was in 1973! In fact, all 104 of our current nuclear power plants had ground breaking prior to 1974! So I don't see us having many more modern systems that what Japan has. Certainly not with any great change in safety designs. Although, I must say I thought that their placing the used rod pool near the top of the building where it could be ruptured or otherwise damaged to drain was a very poor idea! The designs of the Diablo Canyon reactors and San Onofre reactors have no design against tsunami waves and are totally vulnerable. While Diablo Canyon the reactors, pools and majority of the equipment is high enough that a tsunami would likely not do much damage unless it washes away the bluff below it. San Onofre is highly exposed and vulnerable.
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Mar 18, 2011 22:53:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by animal on Mar 18, 2011 23:12:30 GMT -5
if the water from the flood got into the generators, they would fail....
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Mar 20, 2011 1:49:45 GMT -5
if the water from the flood got into the generators, they would fail.... Yep, shorted out! That is also a concern about the pumps as they restore external supplied power from portable generators. Hmmm, seems like this was discussed. They are worried that the pumps may have been submersed and still have water or some moisture in them that will short out the pumps when they restore power. BUT, they have also brought in some large portable pumps if the original pumps fail.
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Mar 20, 2011 1:52:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Dec 18, 2011 5:19:23 GMT -5
www.economist.com/node/21541164"Yet video games are still widely regarded as trivial. This special report will argue that as the newest and fastest-growing form of mass media they deserve to be taken seriously." I had to deal with my son's video game addiction, and now I'm having to deal with it in my grandkids. Alas, I was hoping video games would go away, but it would take an act of God now...
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Dec 19, 2011 5:09:17 GMT -5
www.economist.com/node/21541164"Yet video games are still widely regarded as trivial. This special report will argue that as the newest and fastest-growing form of mass media they deserve to be taken seriously." I had to deal with my son's video game addiction, and now I'm having to deal with it in my grandkids. Alas, I was hoping video games would go away, but it would take an act of God now... Video games must be monitored for content and limited in playing time. Parents need to put video game usage to the grades test, good grades you get game time, poor grades gets highly limited game time. Children need to earn the right to play video games while also getting some physical exercise (preferably outdoors). Video games are an important introduction to the world of electronics and children learn very quickly.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Dec 19, 2011 18:29:22 GMT -5
www.economist.com/node/21541164"Yet video games are still widely regarded as trivial. This special report will argue that as the newest and fastest-growing form of mass media they deserve to be taken seriously." I had to deal with my son's video game addiction, and now I'm having to deal with it in my grandkids. Alas, I was hoping video games would go away, but it would take an act of God now... Video games must be monitored for content and limited in playing time. Parents need to put video game usage to the grades test, good grades you get game time, poor grades gets highly limited game time. Children need to earn the right to play video games while also getting some physical exercise (preferably outdoors). Video games are an important introduction to the world of electronics and children learn very quickly. Well, I guess we're all in luck then since video games have taken over the minds of two generations and counting.
|
|