Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps

Page 13 of 16  


A good point. I guess one would wish to avoid getting within a few, hundred yards of the pool without a zoomie suit. Further away if they are exposed.
This is another good reason to get Yucca Mountain on-line and start the shipments. Of course, the ponytail and necktie crowd are poised and waiting to file their suits. Lawyers in love.
--
<sigh>
JR

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

A spent fuel pool is for "exposed" fuel--that's what "spent" means by definition.
The pools are "pools" because they're full of water for cooling which also supplies some shielding. The assemblies are not handled manually but by remote handling equipment through fuel transfer canals which are also called "canals" because they're full of water for shielding as well. When leaving the spent fuel storage, they go into large, shielded, spent-fuel shipping casks which are designed to withstand any conceivable accident including fire and direct impact at a hypothetical railroad grade crossing. They've even done qualification tests on these casks which include both of the above scenarios before they get NRC licenses to be deployed.

The reason to get Yucca Mountain operational is that the spent fuel pools at the reactor sites are getting full-up. In reality, what we should have been doing since the 70s is recycling the spent fuel and reducing the actual waste into much smaller volumes and disposing of it as well as using much of it as subsidiary radiation sources for all kinds of uses from medical to heat generation.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

check out pebble-bed reactors;the spent fuel "pebbles" would be virtually immune to any sort of airplane crash or explosion. One might scatter the pebbles,but they would still be intact,no release of radioactives into the environment.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote: ...

Ever been to visit a US commercial nuclear site?
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No. But, my trust level these days is virtually zero.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

Well, maybe some education on issues you're ranting against would be a worthy objective as a New Year's resolution.
--




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

Education is always a good thing. I read constantly. But, no matter how much I learn, I can't keep your washing machine from breaking down or keep you from setting your hair on fire by getting too close to your BBQ. Know what I mean?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

Not with respect to nuclear facility safety, no.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

In other words, my knowledge is not likely to change physical occurrences elsewhere. I deal in absolutes. If I can't see and touch something, I don't trust it. You can talk all day long about nuke plant security, but as long as there are human beings involved, I will always have doubts.
Here's a lesser example of something that was supposed to be trusted - a zoo cage. Tiger kills one, injures two:
"The zoo's director of animal care and conservation, Robert Jenkins, could not explain how Tatiana escaped. The tiger's enclosure is surrounded by a 15-foot-wide moat and 20-foot-high walls, and the approximately 300-pound female did not leave through an open door, he said. "There was no way out through the door," Jenkins said. "The animal appears to have climbed or otherwise leaped out of the enclosure.""
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

So, how do you manage to live from day to day? Every action you take is also dependent upon someone else whether it's getting on the train you're so fond of or an airplane or just crossing the street or even in opening a carton of milk.
Consider this -- there have been _ZERO_ (that's none, nada, not a one, nil, ...) deaths caused from a nuclear accident in a commercial nuclear facility in the US in the existence of the industry. That constitutes something on the order of 40 years times roughly 60 operating units or 2400 reactor-years of operation and not a single fatality(*).
That's a good demonstration that taking care and fail-safe design techniques work. There are folks (I happened to have an adjacent office to one for about 15 years) who continually take every incident at every operating facility and analyze it for root cause(s) and evaluate what, if anything, went wrong and how to modify or upgrade procedures and/or equipment or training to ensure it doesn't occur elsewhere and that other utility operators of similar facilities are made aware of how to deal with it were it to occur at one of their facilities as well.
The difference in the nuclear utility operations as opposed to the kind of daily "run of the mill" accidents you're aware of is that the level of design of the facilities for safety and the backup systems and training in place in the event of operational failures are at a far higher level of redundancy and contingent planning than virtually any other industry. While the level of QA and QC and inspection, etc., in the civilian aviation business is of similar level, there isn't a backup parachute for everybody to bail. So, while remarkably safe overall, airplanes do crash on occasion at a level of risk society in general considers acceptable although regrettable when it does.
(*) There have been, of course, some industrial accidents where there have been serious injuries and fatalities from falls or other industrial causes, but none in which the nuclear characteristic of the facility had anything to do with the accident. The nuclear safety itself that folks are so inherently afraid of owing to the initial exposure by way of WWII and the incessant drumming of the anti-nukes' propaganda continuing to tie commercial power to weapons is simply not justified by the facts.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Remember the World Trade Center? There's always a way.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

WTC didn't have a containment that would shed an airliner.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nobody expected an airliner.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
...

For nukes they have -- and much else, most of which is restricted data simply to add security to the security plans themselves (iow, if I told you everything I knew, I'd have to shoot you :) ).
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The oldest nukes expected an airliner as part of their design?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

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

I guess we have nothing to worry about, then. All eventualities have been compensated for. I feel much better.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

As you should. As I say, far more eventualities than you can imagine _have_ been considered -- not all by trying to figure out a scenario but by the use of systematic cause and effect models. IOW, postulate each critical item were to fail, then what mitigating system(s) is/are required? Some obvious things like a plane falling out of the sky were indeed considered in the design of containment structures as well as most other incredible accidents -- like the definition of a LOCA for analysis is a double-ended guillotine rupture of the primary coolant pipe--a 36-42" diameter thick-walled-enough pipe to withstand far over the design 2200 psig pressure. Managing to somehow physically cause that to occur wasn't part of the equation--the analysis simply assumed that a piece of solid pipe w/o anything except welded joints other than at the pump inlets somehow magically disappeared instantaneously w/o evidencing any sign of a smaller break or leak prior to this failure that would lead to enough indications by instrumentation to allow for an early shutdown. The system is designed to handle that eventually despite it being so far beyond the actual reality of how an actual pipe break might happen if it were to do so.
--
--

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

And yet, the state of NY rejected the evac plan for the Shoreham plant, resulting in its eventual closing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
...

Yes, on, in my judgment, ill-informed decision-making to satisfy the "anti's", not on a realistic assessment of risks of the plant itself in comparison w/ other risks of far higher likelihood and consequences.
--
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.