Someone mentioned the energy efficiency. New compressor will improve the energy efficiency.
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
Someone mentioned the energy efficiency. New compressor will improve the energy efficiency.
ahh sadly one mistake creates another chernobyl like event.
while the reactor cores and compartively well protected in the containment building, the large concrete domeed building ........
the spent fuel rods are stored in roughly insecure normal building. if a terrorist sent a small plane loaded with explosives into one of these facilities, cooling water can be interrupted.
you have a major disaster.
I support more nuke plants once the nuclear waste issue is addressed.
currently they are thinking of burying it in yucca mountain nevada
On Turesday there was a huge power outage in Florida caused by a shut down of a nuke plant for safety issues.
all public buildings nationwide should be required to have a minimal back up power capability.
to run emergency lights, get elevators to ground level, and stuff like that.
people stuck in elevators is really dumb in this day and age
NO!!!
There was an a outage, the cause of which is still undetermined.
"Two nuclear reactors at Florida Power & Light's Turkey Point station in South Florida shut down Tuesday afternoon, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said.
It is unclear if the loss of power caused the outage or if the outage caused the reactors to trip. "Turkey Point temporarily lost off-site power, and both reactors tripped," said NRC spokesman Roger Hannah.
The cause of the outages remains unclear, Tampa Electric spokeswoman Laura Duda told the newspaper.
She described a "significant disturbance" on the state's electric grid. It could have been a transmission problem, or a large electricity generating unit unexpectedly going off line, or another problem altogether. "We are working with other utilities to figure out what the problem was," she said."
Whatever it was, it was purely operational, not safety-related.
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote: ...
And Chernobyl was a _completely_ different reactor design than any in the US (or elsewhere, for that matter) without any containment.
That Chernobyl was a disaster is true but it has no relevance to light-water reactors.
--
YES!!!!!!!!!
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote: ...
Not physically possible w/ a LWR reactor design.
...
No, they're pools...
Nothing whatsoever like what you're imagining...
Again, no, they're not "thinking of burying it" -- it is named monitored retrievable storage for a reason.
What would that have been and how do you know?
The root cause of the event is still undetermined.
Incorrect.
A switch failed causing a huge "ripple" in the grid, which in turn caused the nuke plants to react defensively by shutting down to avoid being overstressed by the sudden imbalance. IOW, they shut down for "safety reasons".
the US nearly had its chernobyl, 3 mile island. some roids melted, it was a close thing....
plus a meltdown like situation can occur at any time, with the spent fuel rods in unhardened buildings, a easy terrorist target. and reactors with waste storage tend to be near population centers and rivers for cooling water.
I can see that thread drift is alive and well in this group!
One of the funnest things in Usenet. :)
About the freezer: the job is going on hold until I can do without the services of the freezer for a while. I had a chance to score a USDA Choice whole been sirlion for $1.99 a pound, nine pounds of beef, couldn't pass it up.
Thanks for all advice.
No, it is not possible to do a Chernobyl w/ a LWR. Do you understand the difference in reactor designs?
Again, no -- after the spent fuel assemblies are removed and been in storage for a while they do not have enough self-generated heat to require forced cooling. A very large percentage of the fuel in storage at various facilities in the US has been out of the reactor for so long it could be in open air and still not be a thermal problem. Some biological shielding is, of course, still required and that is actually as much of the purpose of the pool water as is cooling.
--
That is operational design trip, not a safety system-induced trip. There's a difference between the two.
I heard that on the radio. All those poor Floridians, burning furniture to stay warm, as the temperatures drop below 80.
I wonder how practical that is, versus the incredible expense?
MAYBE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How dare you post on topic!?!?!?
Hey, glad the chest freezer is still working fine.
Folks:
Oh fer gosh sakes, this thing is an artifact. I'm not going to tell people to scrap their classic pink '58 Cadillac, or to avoid restoring a steam locomotive because it's got 3% thermal efficiency. If someone wants to pay a few extra dollars to keep this going as a working museum piece, that's okay with me, and I think it ought to be okay with anybody.
Ice cream every meal is not a good practice, but ice cream never? Why? Efficient, inefficient, this machine is an antique. Probably more than 99% of its brothers have gone for scrap. If those few that remain in good order are kept running, they're not going to materially effect power consumption, no more than those '58 Caddies are raising oil prices. Do people have any concept of just how *many* fridges are in use?
A purely utilitarian philosophy is a purely dismal one.
A P
you wouldnt need a power plant to run the entire building, just enough to get one or two elevator cars to a floor and open doors.
way safer and easier than depending on over worked firemen in shafts
HomeOwnersHub website 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.