Car generator to power house

Page 6 of 7  
...

It is, then, is simply absurd if "very early in the show" implies a very short time frame for this event.
And again, as noted, it would be presumed there's no further intervention which isn't a credible action in the event of an actual event.
And, then again, there's the other interpretation of my previous comment which I didn't actually think of until I read it -- if there's nobody left around anyway, then so what? :)
But, any way, it's of absolutely no value in estimating a real risk and to think it is is again trying to make a chernobyl out of a tmi -- they ain't the same in the beginning therefore can't be the same in the end.
Again when you get this far out in left field, it's trolling and I'm definitely done now.
Worry about something that needs worrying over instead would be my suggestion.
--

--

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 18:47:40 -0800 (PST), " snipped-for-privacy@aol.com"

You mean like a BANK meltdown??
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

"Cooled" isn't the same as "refrigerated" by any stretch of the imagination (except the paranoid).
All it takes is a (relatively minor) amount of circulation to provide some cooling path rather than the indefinite stagnant pool.
That one can collect more recently discharged fuel and deliberately arrange it for essentially the opposite purpose (waste heat collection) instead of for long term storage again is making a connection from one situation to another and then leaping to a conclusion. (Actually, the use of the waste heat simply demonstrates that there is indeed value in these so-called "waste" products that should be recovered and much more use would/could be made of them than is currently done.)
There are many analyses and it doesn't take anything but a fairly simple back-of-the-envelope calculation to estimate both the heat load and therefrom, the temperature rise for a given pool geometry and loading. These calculations are done routinely in the licensee safety analyses to support the pool designs. They're available from the NRC site under any particular reactor Docket Number you should care to look at; but at least didn't used to be web-searchable (filings are in the NRC ADAMS CITRIX system).
The Standard document _ANSI/ANS-5.1-2005: Decay Heat Power in Light Water Reactors_ (current revision) provides approved techniques for calculating the heat load. From the ANSI it's a copyright work but there are many online sources that have example curves and the fundamentals. Since the bulk of the initial fission products are of the relatively shorter half-life isotopes, the decay heat decreases exponentially with time, hence the required cooling requirements do as well, particularly in the first couple of years. Since the bulk of the fuel currently in storage is much older than that, it's heat load is significantly reduced over the level it was initially reducing the cooling requirements proportionally.
The cooling requirements are minimal enough that, (and you'll _LOVE_ this one :) ), the NRC will also license above-ground passively air- cooled storage as an alternative storage method for those locations which have filled their spent fuel pools.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

well its hot enough that japan is using removed cores for secondary generation........
you failed completely to address the 15 billion industry cap on liability. why is that?
?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
...

Yes, initially they're a useful (and valuable energy source). That still means they're a relatively low-grade heat source that takes little actual effort to effectively cool sufficiently to prevent damage. And, as noted, the initial power drops quite rapidly after initial removal from the reactor. Go look at the decay heat curves referenced.

Because it's a legal mandate that the utilities operate under -- change the mandate, they'll change their operating practices.
Do you buy far beyond the state-mandated liability coverage for yourself? Same concept.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

well I have much more than the state mandated car insurance minimum
Hey insure to a few trillion, the likely cost of a small chernobyl and build it ointo the electric rates.
So will you homor me and get the DVD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
...

Good for you...not many on a percentage-wise basis do I'd wager (altho that also probably tends to vary depending on just what local requirements are which I don't know for your area).

Lobby to change the ground rules.

Already answered elsewhere...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Dec 28, 3:09�pm, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/index.html
is a amazing bunch of photos from russia, of abandoned homes, towns etc caused by chernobyl
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
...

which has absolutely no relationship whatsoever to LWR technology.
--


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

ahh nuke was sold as safe and would produce electricity so cheap meters wouldnt be necessary.
well nuke isnt that safe and certinally isnt cheap.
worse despite reassurances the long term waste problem still hasnt been solved!
its not common knowledge but near every existing plant and some closed ones have waste pools full to the brim with old fuel cores.
packed way more closely than originally designed and non hardened they are the ideal terrorist target. just plain steel buildings.
guess what happens if even a small private plane is flown into one of those buildings? a disaster far worse than chernobyl
hey they were going to entoom all the waste in yucca mountain till they found its a active volcanic region.
since the waste is dangerous for a million years, yucca might one day erupt and kill life on our planet.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

There are several (many?) solutions for radioactive waste. None have been implemented because a solution is not needed. The longer we (safely) wait before selecting one or more, the greater the chance that an even better solution will be found.
Suppose you decide you're going to a new restaurant that you've never visited before. You might have a notion of what you'd like to eat, but, in most cases, you don't make a selection until you actually see the menu, you don't actually order until the waiter stands with pencil poised.
There are many proposals for dealing with nuclear waste: Putting it on a rocket and shooting it into the sun, entombing it in molten glass and dumping the ingots in the middle of the Pacific, injecting it into underground caverns, etc. Each has its advantages and pitfalls.
The point is, we don't HAVE to choose now and demanding a premature solution is not a good idea.
And the Yucca Mountain facility is not a solution - it is a STORAGE facility until a solution is decided upon.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

yeah good soft shoe shuffle.........
put it on a rocket and send into outer space, a grand way to spread radiation over a wide area, when a rocket malfunctions
yucca may be called storage but the plan says the waste will be entombed forever
solve the waste problem safely and cost effective and come back for a approval of nuclear energy
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Storing and managing it indefinitely at Yucca is safe and cost effective, except to fear mongering extremists. You complain about the alleged huge terrorism risk from all the spent nuclear fuel sitting at the existing reactors. What is YOUR plan for that? Bud and I would have had it safely secured at Yucca years ago, where there is plenty of room for that waste, plus decades more.
This "risk" thing is bizarre. There are risks to everything. You get in your car every day don't you? Yet 50,000 Americans die in car accidents every year. That's an order of magnitude more that even the deaths from the half-assed designed and run Chernobyl, which in 40 years of commercial nukes, is the only accident that released serious amounts of radiation that resulted in loss of life.
How about airplanes? They have crashed in major cities and killed hundreds, even thousands if you want to count 911. Should we shut them all down too? In other words, you can focus on some extremely remote probability scenarios and use that fear mongering to condemn just about anything. But when you look at the total picture and reasonably weight the risk/benefit scenario, you get a much different result.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Certainly you're not one to be complain about "soft shoe" when you try to compare Chernobyl to LWR reactor designs.

That one I'll agree on as not practical...

of recycling in its misguided nonproliferation policy; hence leading to the current situation. We went through this whole thing only a month ago and again a few months prior to that. It would be good if you would try to keep up and at least update your "facts" to conjoin w/ history.

Have to solve the political problem prior to there being a different technical direction. At present, MRS is the only authorized solution, unfortunately, but as noted it's the mandate under which the NRC and utilities are constrained.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 12:34:02 -0800 (PST), " snipped-for-privacy@aol.com"

PLEASE don't judge atomic energy by Chernobyl, or even 3 mile island.
The Canadian system is the safest in the world - orders of magnitude better than it's closest competitor. The only problem is the "weapons grade exhaust"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Dec 28, 5:28pm, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Dec 28, 2:09pm, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

Or we could do it all, wind solar, nukes, conservation, we have Ng but its all "dont drill here" Point is we import to much and things can be done as Germanys solar, Frances Nuclear prove.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

Right. Oil is fungible - freely replaceable or exchangeable. That's why we will never be "energy independent."
Suppose we drill in ANWAR, offshore, in Yellowstone, and everywhere else, such that we produce, domestically, all the oil we consume. Suppose the ANWAR oil -the most expensive - comes in at, oh, $20/bbl delivered to the refinery.
Somewhere in the world, somebody is going to offer oil at $17/bbl to the same refinery. Which source will the refinery pick?
Right. And we'll be importing oil again.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/27/2008 10:39 AM HeyBub spake thus:

With all due respect, "Bub", you're an idiot.
Forget solar for a sec. Take *wind*: article in today's paper says that we (the U.S.) could supply 20% of our electrical energy from wind by 2030. (Article: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/12/28/MN5C14VFGS.DTL Source for that statement was a DOE report, http://www.oe.energy.gov/DocumentsandMedia/myrd_bindewald.pdf. I take it you'll accept our own Dep't of Energy as expert enough in this area?)
Covering massive numbers of rooftops with solar systems would *have* to be able to beat that by at least double. So much for your "tiny difference".
But go right on ahead and keep driving your gas-guzzler and denying that we can do anything any way but the way we're doing it now.
--
Washing one\'s hands of the conflict between the powerful and the
powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Nebenzahl wrote:

Giggle.
You reference both a San Francisco newspaper article (that barely mentions wind power) and a DOE report (that doesn't mention wind power at all), then, from out of nowhere, assert that solar power has to be even better than that which isn't mentioned! By double!
Wow!
Admittedly, the SF Chronicle article says wind power COULD account for as much as 20% of our needs, but the article was about the power distribution network and how unsuited the existing infrastructure is. That is, power generated by wind in the great plains states has no way to GET to Chicago or wherever else it's needed.
I don't drive a gas guzzler and I haven't denied there are better ways to do things.
One last point: You say that covering massive numbers of rooftops with solar collectors has to make a substantial difference. Let's see.
(Try to follow along. I know maths is hard, but it might be worth it.)
Assume: * 500W/m^2 of sunlight radiation in California (adjusted for latitude) * 50% efficiency in conversion of sunlight to electricity * 50% hours of daylight * 25% absorption of energy by clouds * 20 m^2 average roof size
So, 500 x .5 x .5 x .25 x 20 = 625 Watts / California roof
(This seems kinda low, so let's fudge it by a factor of ten.)
According to the US Census, there are 11.5 million households in California. Assuming 70% of them have a roof (excluding people who live in apartments or under bridges), if EVERY house in California had some sort of solar collector on the roof, there would be a generating capacity of:...
1625 W x 11,500,000 x .7 = ~ 13 Gigawatts, or about 25% of California's peak demand (50 GW).
So, I guess you're correct. Equipping massive numbers of houses with solar collectors will make a significant difference. 'Course it won't be cheap:
11.5 million households x .7 x $8,000 each = $644 billion. Then there are the consequential costs. For example, the number one cause of accidents in the U.S. is "falls." How many more will we have as seven million California homeowners get up on the roof each year to remove snow and leaves and dirt?
Oh well.
But, hey, it's a significant difference!
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.