Car generator to power house

Page 4 of 7  
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

It's like during the Carter years: contrary to what people thought, there was no shortage of gasoline - there was a shortage of CHEAP gasoline. It all comes down to cost.
You'll notice that since Bush revoked the executive ban on offshore drilling last June 15th, the price of oil (and gasoline) has dropped by 2/3rds.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

decrease. At the very best, on a good day.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You do realize that it'll be 20 years before a single drop of oil is squeezed from these offshore sites, right?
The reason oil dropped by 2/3 is because the economy collapsed. The reason the economy collapsed is because banks were borrowing money to loan money for things that weren't worth anywhere near the amounts the loans were given for. They were loaning this borrowed money to people who couldn't possibly pay it back.
For the past several years I've been wondering how people I work with, do the same job as I do, earn the same money as I do, have a stay-at- home wife and kids, could afford these brand new lavish $250K-and-up mansions while I can barely afford payments on a $110K ranch... Turns out they couldn't.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@rochester.rr.com wrote:

No, some can come online in as little as a year. But you're right - it won't be immediately. Still, though, oil sales are based on future conditions. Most oil is sold on contracts and a negligible percentage on the "spot" market. The people who buy and sell futures contracts rightly concluded that a high likelihood exists that there will be a glut of oil in the three-to-ten year future.

Yep. People sell stuff for what others are willing to pay.
Another example of an upstream liberal program that went horribly wrong.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
the problem with nuke power is that long term waste issues have never been solved..... when nuke power began we were told it will be solved later, well guess what later never arrived.
so you want to recycle the spent fuel creating more enriched bomb grade material? carter stopped that.
or lets talk about moving all that waste thru urban areas, since most plants are near urban areas.
fortunately 3 mile island didnt fully melt down, but it was a close thing.
and a full meltdown would of breached the containment.
few things we do carry the risks of making a great part of our country uninhabitible, while raising cancer rates worldwide.
after awhile the mountain would close around the waste, making it hard to impossible to remove. buried in rock.
now its dangerous for a million years, the uS is just over 200 years old. at some point our country might not be here. some later inhabitants might come along and drill into the waste not knowing what it is.....
solve the waste problem permanetely and hey great build more plants.
incidently there was almost 2 three mile islands, if i remember correctly a new plant near detroit had a problem, and nearly melted down. the reactor had to be closed permanetely.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Carter only stopped closing the commercial nuclear fuel cycle thereby creating exactly the problem you're now complaining of--long term storage instead of alternative technologies. Meanwhile, he did nothing useful in stopping weapons proliferation--witness N Korea, Iran, etc., etc., ... It was well-intentioned but completely misguided policy based on a lack of understanding of the difference between commercial and military application of nuclear power.
Again, the relating of recycling commercial fuel and "enriched bomb grade" material in the same sentence as if they were somehow automagically connected is simply throwing words together that have no direct physical connection. The purification and enrichment to produce weapons-grade material is _far_ beyond that of commercial fuel (in the 90+% range as opposed to 3-5% _max_). And, as has been pointed out before, it doesn't take a reactor at all to enrich material to create a U-weapon and is, frankly, much easier technology for those who are less reliable in having such devices anyway.
The difficulty in reprocessing from simply the personnel radiological requirements makes that a very poor choice for the general "diy-er" as well as making detection so much simpler.

We did a month ago. There's no credible scenario there.

While a nasty event, neither scenario was actually so close as you would like (apparently) to think and specifically try to make others think. (Interestingly, colleagues who were on site during the "H bubble" and core stabilization phases said their most dangerous activities were avoiding being trampled by the newshounds around the site gates at shift change. I was at the office in contact w/ former colleagues at the reactor vendor and NRC personnel monitoring data being forwarded from plant instrumentation in my specific area of expertise as extra check of interpretations being made on site by plant personnel.)

Nor does LWR technology w/ any significant risk evaluated on a sensible playing field. Far higher risks come from ordinary activities we all partake of every day.
...

Remove the political barriers and the technological barriers won't be an issue of significance except for those who are primarily simply fear-mongers such as yourself.

It was not another TMI as it was not an LWR, either. It had as little relationship to TMI and LWR designs as did Chernobyl (although it was not a Chernobyl-style reactor, either).
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

well hey if I were a nuke power worker, I would no doubt be a supporter too. you invested in it?
chernobyl, TMI and that event near detroit all had one thing in common, lack of cooling water caused near disaster........
truly nuke power isnt pollution free. what with mining etc, and those cooling towers, and warming of rivers and lakes near plants.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If you were you would undoubtedly have a far better understanding of the technology and a better appreciation for the risk/benefit analysis and be not nearly so susceptible to the emotional arguments.
Again, a month ago we went over this.
Directly invested in reactor vendors, no. Indirectly in a wide range of utilities and the companies which support them (conventional and nuclear both), yes. I would suspect if you have any diversified mutual funds in any IRA, 401k, SEP or other investments you are as well.

That's again such a gross over-simplification of each as to be a useless description.
As also was gone over a month ago, the overall comparative risk studies were done at length years ago. On any objective comparative output scale, the alternatives all lose. "There is no free lunch"
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

shall I paste the causes? for all 3 events? they all boil down to cooling water too low core overheated......
the reactors were all different but the problem the same, and chernobyl lost only 3% of its core but made a wiode area uninhabitible for 100s of thousands if not millions of years.
worse chernobyl would be a excellent source of dirty bomb materials for terrorists, the truly hot zonmes are marked for easy digging
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I know the accident precursors and sequences of events pretty well. Well enough to know both the minimal similarities and, more importantly, the differences.
The point is the designs and root causes are so different as to make the incidents of only marginal use to compare. Chernobyl is fundamentally so far removed from the other two as to be completely useless for any comparison whatsoever as to any LWR accident as, again, the causative reason for the dispersion of fission products was the graphite fire plume and no containment.
That the other two were LOCAs in a sense is true but of little consequence other than to demonstrate that the safety systems did, in fact, despite operator intervention and error, succeed in mitigating the consequences to no more than equipment damage with no offsite consequences of significance.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

well despite your protests TMI came very close to breaching the containment, which would of created a chernobyl.
containment was key, but isnt 100% in a true melt down.
curious if a reactor around new york somehow failed creating a chernobyl like situation, what effect would that have to our economy?
how about more cancers?
is it worth the risk?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Despite _your_ protestations, TMI didn't "come very close" to breaching containment. There has been a lot written by folks of "what if" and rash conjectures, but facts of the actual scenario aren't so. Once the relieving shift arrived and restarted the RCPs the plant was on the way to situation recovery.
And, for the last time, the differences in design between Chernobyl (and the lack of _any_ containment) mean that there is not a physical process that could cause a "chernobyl-like" situation from a LWR. Finis. Over. Done. Can't happen w/o the requisite ingredients. Requisite ingredients don't exist elsewhere. Believe it. It's so.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
...

To clarify, there was a significant concern _during_ the accident with many postulated problems and scenarios. The "H bubble" is just one example, but analysis showed that there was insufficient free oxygen inside the reactor vessel for ignition so the fear of rupture owing to an H explosion was misplaced.
Similarly, evaluation showed that while there was significant fuel melt, there was from the "Report to the President" -- "e. There is no indication that any core material made contact with the steel pressure vessel at a temperature above the melting point of steel (2,800F)."
Subsequent analysis and evaluation showed similar conclusions of actual conditions as compared to the rampant speculation and fears raised during the accident itself.
In fact, as noted previously, the most interesting conclusion from the report is really also the most important. That is --
"2. Equipment failures initiated the events of March 28 and contributed to the failure of operating personnel (operators, engineers, and supervisors) to recognize the actual conditions of the plant. ... These operating personnel made some improper decisions, took some improper actions, and failed to take some correct actions, causing what should have been a minor incident to develop into the TMI-2 accident."
In a nutshell, if the operators had done nothing but let the automated safety systems function (which they did until operator intervention throttled back/shutdown HPI pumps), there would have been nothing but a relatively short outage to repair the PORV and the plant would have been back in operation.
In hindsight, that the accident did occur did provide several benefits as well as the discomfort of the utility and the general effect on public perception (which was going south anyway, but TMI certainly made a major contribution).
These benefits include 1. Improvement in procedures and training as well as design and modifications to better respond 2. An full-scale experimental verification of the effectiveness of safety systems to mitigate catastrophic failure in spite of serious operator error, and 3. The test data that would otherwise never have been available for verification and improvement of reactor safety design models to an extent otherwise only possible via theoretical work.
Overall, these will contribute significantly (and already have via the aforementioned modifications and procedure and training upgrades) to the enhanced operational safety and reliability of commercial nuclear power throughout the world, not just the US.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I had presumed you were previously talking about Fermi I, but with your insistence on repeating cooling _water_, I gather you must have intended Toledo instead of Detroit and been talking about Davis- Besse. I had noted the substantial differences owing to the fact that Fermi I was a LMFBR, not a LWR so the situation is much different.
If, instead, you did mean Davis-Besse, yes, that (as well as an incident at Rancho Seco) was a case that was, indeed, similar precursor to TMI-II where the PORV lifted and didn't reseat. What both of those instances showed, again, however, was that the safety systems operated as designed and intended.
There were subsequently modifications made to the PORV on all similar plants to a) mitigate the tendency of the PORVs to not reseat, and b) provide firm indication to operators of position
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

wasnt bessie reactor permanetly damaged and shut down, when nearly brand new?
has there ever been a decominshing and clean up of a commercial reatcor in the US? other than the first US plant in shippingport pa?
other plants have been closed but none have been deconstructed, too hazardous costs too much........
heres a good question?:)
the cost per killowatt hour of nuke generated power never includes the real cost of long term core disposal costs..... why is that?
have you seen the national geographic show aftermath population zero?
very interesting about the used core storage pools, and what happens to these non hardened buildings if cooling water fails
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
...

No. It's still operating (a quick check showed it's at 98% capacity at the moment)
http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/davi.html

We went thru this a month ago as well--I'm not rehashing split milk.

Mostly for the reasons previously outlined -- we have a currently mandated waste policy that operating utilities and other vendors/ suppliers must abide by. There's no alternative currently legally allowed.

a) Never heard of it.
b) Again, no credible massive scenario and if concerned then looking to get Yucca Mountain operational and the pool contents shipped thereto asap should be your primary goal.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
...
Re: Davis-Besse

BTW, NRC collects plant operational data every morning between 4 and 8AM EST from all 102 operating reactors.
For these unreliable plants you're so negative about, the data this morning show:
NRC # Reactors Average Reported Power Region in Region Status 12/30/08
1 26 99.8 2 33 100 3 23 96.0(1) 24 92.2 4 20 99.9(1) 21 95.1 Totals 102 99.0(1) 104 97.1
(1) Excluding plants in outage
Not too shabby...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well that is kind of the point....., You can't really anticipate all the unexpected things that can happen....
Mark
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Dec 30, 8:43 pm, snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote:

Well, not really. Certainly another way to consider is that LOCAs _were_ anticipated and included in the design criteria for safety systems--all that was needed really was to let the system do its job. It was the intervention that caused the size of the problem.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That was Fermi I. It wasn't a _water_ deflector, Fermi I was an LMFBR (as I said earlier). The coolant was liquid sodium.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.