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.
"a few small sites along the perimeter using current directional drilling technology could tap ANWR with essentially no impact."
That is what you said to start with. It is purely a fabrication from your imagination. Now you are changing what you say, admitting that this statement was false.
But what you are saying *now* is false too.
Nobody in their right mind thinks that is technically feasible. There are *no* wells being drilled those kinds of distances, nor anywhere even close, using *any* kind of technology, much less being drilled horizontally!
If what you say were true... There would currently be oil production from ANWR. The entire eastern edge has been offered for lease, and in fact there are many dry holes within 5 miles of ANWR.
And recently the State of Alaska offered 26 offshore tracts along the northern shore of ANWR for lease. Even though that particular lease sale resulted in the largest sale ever in the Beaufort Sea east of Prudhoe Bay, not one single bid was even placed for any of the tracts on the edge of ANWR.
Please cease posting fabricated facts that you imagine would support your cause. Nobody needs to hear it...
Destroying a military target by crashing an airplane into it isn't exactly a novel idea, you know. Anybody who hadn't thought of it already had his thinking radically rearranged in the mid-1940s.
You figure out a scenario that's possible and I'll wager there are systems or plans to deal with it. If not, the people who still do these things for a living (I'm retired from engineering; back farming) would be happy to have it as a test.
Your scenario of somehow managing to take the contents of a spent fuel assembly and slicing and dicing it up into shreds is simply physically unrealizable (as you would understand if you had any knowledge whatsoever of what you're proposing to be done with what).
It's this totally irrational fear that your postings demonstrate that are what the anti's prey on. The lack of any scientific understanding in the general populace allows them to propose the most cockamamie ideas and doomsday scenarios and the scare tactics are effective because there simply is no comprehension of the target audience it's virtually all made up "what if" stuff.
Just for starters on nuclear station statistics --
Oconee-class PWR data (similar but not identical to Shoreham--different manufacturer but same licensing standards)
Reactor Pressure Vessel: steel walls ? over 8 inches thick, SS liner (continuous weldment) weight ? over 660 tons Containment building: Walls ? 3.9 feet thick, reinforced concrete 7/8 inch thick steel liner
Somewhat surprisingly, after having left B&W so wasn't doing detailed design calculations, I couldn't recall actual weight for one of their assemblies otomh, either--the numbers I could remember didn't seem right so I did a quick scribble --
(OTOH, the numbers I do remember are somewhat remarkable--having done the calculations w/ them for so long, they are simply engrained. I'll use the earlier 15x15 fuel bundle data; the 17x17 were being phased in but the Oconee-class were initially fueled w/ the 15x15. There is no real difference in performance between the two, the switch was made to increase the overall fuel rod surface area in order to lower the overall core power density. This made for a lower fuel rod temperature which makes for more margin for centerline fuel melt in the event of LOCA--just one case where we were looking out for you w/o you knowing it. :) )
Anyway, the fuel assembly is 8.520" square (on an 8.587" assembly pitch), active fuel length is 144". The density of UO2, the commercial fuel is 10.9 g/cm^3; we'll ignore the U235 enrichment for this--it's only 3-5% max, anyway. So, the above leads to 1.87 MT-UO2 if it were solid, but the fuel volume fraction is 0.303301 (see what trivia I _do_ remember? (!) ) so the fuel weight is about 0.57 MT or 1245 lb. Add on the end fittings, fuel rod cladding, hold down springs, etc., and the overall assembly will be on the order of 1500 lb, 12+ ft long and 8.5" square--not exactly something you pick up under an arm and walk away with, even if it weren't radioactive.
Actually, when I back this out, the other number I recalled but wasn't comfortable with w/o checking was that there is a 100 MT per core for the Oconee-class reactors--since there are 177 fuel assemblies, 177 *
0.57 ==> ~100 MT which confirms that recollection, too and I could have saved the effort.
Same basic technology just needs to be scaled / adapted to the task.
They can most certainly manage the ANWR drilling given the goal and the funding. The underlying technology certainly exists. There have already been non oil well scientific drilling projects reaching the depths necessary.
It certainly is true. The investment necessary to to do it just hasn't been made yet.
Everyone is holding off, expecting to either eventually be allowed to drill in ANWR using cheaper conventional methods, or for oil prices to get high enough to justify the investment necessary to drill from the perimeter.
Nothing fabricated about it, it most certainly is possible. No new technology needs to be developed, it's just a matter of the cost to put together the existing technologies necessary for the job. The effort and expense expended to reach the oil is directly tied to the market value of the oil, and that value will only increase.
The figures I cited were from the Centers for Disease Control.
While not precise (for the implied reasons you mentioned), they are probably pretty accurate. The number of deaths attributed to botched abortions are not only accurate but also precise.
Yes, cans. When those deposits were first implemented there was a plague of soda cans along the road side which subsequently disappeared. At the time the plastic bottles were not that common.
Jim Redelfs wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news.phx.highwinds-media.com:
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.
Wayne Boatwright wrote in news:Xns9A122C0E395Ewayneboatwrightatgma@69.28.173.184:
What happens when a LOT of bus riders have bikes to bring along? There's a limited number of bikes a bus can carry,a lot fewer than bus riders. How many bikes does the usual bus bike rack carry? How many bus passengers,35 or more?
"Pete C." wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@snet.net:
Saddam Hussein accused Kuwait of horizontal drilling into Iraqi oil deposits before the 1991 Gulf War. That was part of his justification for the invasion of Kuwait.
My experience is that few bus riders have bikes to be trucked by the bus, and that most bike racks on buses are empty. Philadelphia's transit system tried bike racks on some of their buses, and appears to me to be not moving further here due to lack of demand. Instead, they are allowing people to bring bikes on board "off-peak" vehicles. I'm not sure what the rules here are, and I do guess that the bus driver has discretion as to whether or not a bike will impair his ability to accomodate other passengers. Most of Philly's bikers actually ride them wherever they transport them, so Philly's buses don't get asked to accomodate many bikes.
The racks look to me that they can carry 2 bikes, 3 if one of the bikes has a bike lock to help it stay on.
I do know that my family spent plenty of time with only one member (my father) having a license to drive anything, and that was only motorcycles. When my parents split up, my brothers and I lived with my non-driving mother. There was a time when we needed to get a couple new trash cans. My mother trucked two of them home on a bus!
There was another time when my mother and I trucked a bike (with assembly required) in a box, quite big despite the bike pieces being packed in a space-saving manner, on a trolley.
Of course this freight hauling was done on off-peak vehicles that had room to accomodate this!
You may be willing to put up w/ the inconvenience of such shenanigans (or may have had no alternative) but I'll take the convenience as long as have the alternative, thank you very much... :)
(Of course, being as there are no buses in the county other than the school buses and w/ several miles of sandy/gravel road from the closest pavement, biking isn't real great an alternative anyway, particularly in the mud or snow or even when it gets really dry and is soft sand on the surface. Even pretty risky for a motorcycle owing to the surface conditions of loose surface w/ ruts rarely graded entirely out.)
I know someone from Chicago, and therefore has a bit of expertise on Illinois politics. She says they make Pennsylvania look not too bad as far as corruption goes!
She says that Obama rose fast and bigtime and mysteriously, and is suspicious as to who he will owe favors to and how much so! (My words as a translation of the best that I can remember of hers)
It doesn't matter where the numbers came from, you twit. The procedure was illegal at one time. So, the reported numbers are almost guaranteed to be inaccurate and cannot be used to compare against the numbers after the procedure became legal.
You might want to remain silent on subjects like this until you've obtained your G.E.D.
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.