any chance to turn Nuclear reactors around with a safer Reac

[Rick C]

On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 2:38:58 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:

Yeah but then there are other environmental problems like the well-known
ones that was on display at Fukushima and that water-cooled reactor
efficiency is pretty sensitive to inlet temperature, and fresh water
from flowing river temperature is better regulated with respect to
seasonal changes than seawater.

Not sure what problems you are talking about. Whatever that is, it can't be too hard to deal with. The North Anna river is not very large at all and the temperature of the water varies from 32°F (0°C) to around 90°F (32°C) and cools two approx 850 MWe reactors which implies some 5 GW of power.

--

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

Even up north near Cape Cod the ocean water inlet temp sometimes exceeds
federal regulation on the high side during the summer and Pilgrim had to
operate at reduced power sometimes and that means losing money, and may
have contributed to the decision to close it.

 

[Rick C]

On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 7:36:44 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 7:11:33 AM UTC-7, bitrex wrote:
On 7/4/19 9:30 PM, amdx wrote:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/safer-nuclear-reactors-are-on-the-way/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScientificAmerican-News+%28Content%3A+News%29



"potentially including nuclear reactors, which emit no carbon but are
seen as risky because of a few major accidents."

And many many minor ones and close calls, not just the few major ones.

Any construction, any industry, has hazards. Nuclear plants are not
notable for injuries or protection failures.

And, you have never noticed that. It's a PR thing, and keeps
a lot of politicians... twitchy.

The problem, is you; you see no data on hazards, just characterizations
of people that seem slightly... impure. Purity tests are a variety
of pass/fail test, a kind of fail/fail test; meaningless but provide an excuse.

What you don't understand is that while the chances of an accident at a nuclear power plant is slight, the resulting impact is catastrophic. The product of the two is still quite significant.

The fact that the US has not had a significant nuclear accident since Three Mile Island does in no way mean the risk of an accident is so small as to be avoided. The shutdown of North Anna was not so far from a meltdown. They have a number of generators to cycle coolant when the outside electricity is cut off. The generators fired up, one crapped out after about 20 minutes. When they analyzed what had happened they found the installation procedure for the head gasket was faulty which means each and every generator could have failed in the same way. The procedures in a nuclear power plant constitute many single point failures.

--

Rick C.

-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Jon Elson]

bitrex wrote:

On 7/5/19 11:46 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 20:30:17 -0500, amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/safer-nuclear-reactors-are-

on-the-
way/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScientificAmerican-
News+%28Content%3A+News%29

Shakespeare had the solution to resuming the deployment of nukes.





Building "safer" reactors will have similar problems to building
reactors of the usual type - they're touted by the firms that are into
designing and building reactors,

Well, the French have been running gas-cooled reactors for a LONG time, like
approaching 50 years, I think. They seem to have the technology down.

By getting rid of the water, you eliminate the corrosion issues that PLAGUE
our reactors. Also, MASSIVE amounts of effort and safety systems are there
to deal with loss of the water coolant, and being sure you have enough to
keep it cooled even if there is a major leak. With gas (Helium) cooling,
you can have the coolant at atmospheric pressure, so it won't escape very
fast.

Seems to have worked out very well for them. But, "not invented here".

Jon

 

[bitrex]

On 7/6/19 11:45 PM, Rick C wrote:

On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 2:38:58 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:

Yeah but then there are other environmental problems like the well-known
ones that was on display at Fukushima and that water-cooled reactor
efficiency is pretty sensitive to inlet temperature, and fresh water
from flowing river temperature is better regulated with respect to
seasonal changes than seawater.

Not sure what problems you are talking about. Whatever that is, it can't be too hard to deal with. The North Anna river is not very large at all and the temperature of the water varies from 32°F (0°C) to around 90°F (32°C) and cools two approx 850 MWe reactors which implies some 5 GW of power.

the river water surface temp may vary that much they don't take the
water from just the surface.

 

[Rick C]

On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 1:16:26 AM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:

On 7/6/19 11:45 PM, Rick C wrote:
On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 2:38:58 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:

Yeah but then there are other environmental problems like the well-known
ones that was on display at Fukushima and that water-cooled reactor
efficiency is pretty sensitive to inlet temperature, and fresh water
from flowing river temperature is better regulated with respect to
seasonal changes than seawater.

Not sure what problems you are talking about. Whatever that is, it can't be too hard to deal with. The North Anna river is not very large at all and the temperature of the water varies from 32°F (0°C) to around 90°F (32°C) and cools two approx 850 MWe reactors which implies some 5 GW of power.


the river water surface temp may vary that much they don't take the
water from just the surface.

Summer is just kicking into high gear and the intake temp is already 86°F. The surface temp can be over 100°F. Check back mid-August.

https://www.dominionenergy.com/company/making-energy/nuclear/north-anna-power-station/waste-heat-treatment-facility

In the winter we have had the lake covered with ice. While the intake may not be exactly at 32°F it is durn close.

--

Rick C.

+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[bitrex]

On 7/7/19 1:56 AM, Rick C wrote:

On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 1:16:26 AM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 7/6/19 11:45 PM, Rick C wrote:
On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 2:38:58 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:

Yeah but then there are other environmental problems like the well-known
ones that was on display at Fukushima and that water-cooled reactor
efficiency is pretty sensitive to inlet temperature, and fresh water
from flowing river temperature is better regulated with respect to
seasonal changes than seawater.

Not sure what problems you are talking about. Whatever that is, it can't be too hard to deal with. The North Anna river is not very large at all and the temperature of the water varies from 32°F (0°C) to around 90°F (32°C) and cools two approx 850 MWe reactors which implies some 5 GW of power.


the river water surface temp may vary that much they don't take the
water from just the surface.

Summer is just kicking into high gear and the intake temp is already 86°F. The surface temp can be over 100°F. Check back mid-August.

https://www.dominionenergy.com/company/making-energy/nuclear/north-anna-power-station/waste-heat-treatment-facility

In the winter we have had the lake covered with ice. While the intake may not be exactly at 32°F it is durn close.

Looks like the NA cooling lagoons are legally designated "waste
treatment facilities" and not public waterways of the United States so
they aren't covered by the Clean Water Act, they can pump in and out
whatever temp hot water they want I guess, if they're OK with running at
reduced power and stay within the reactor design limits. Can't do that
everywhere.

 

[bitrex]

On 7/7/19 2:23 AM, bitrex wrote:

On 7/7/19 1:56 AM, Rick C wrote:
On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 1:16:26 AM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 7/6/19 11:45 PM, Rick C wrote:
On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 2:38:58 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:

Yeah but then there are other environmental problems like the
well-known
ones that was on display at Fukushima and that water-cooled reactor
efficiency is pretty sensitive to inlet temperature, and fresh water
from flowing river temperature is better regulated with respect to
seasonal changes than seawater.

Not sure what problems you are talking about.  Whatever that is, it
can't be too hard to deal with.  The North Anna river is not very
large at all and the temperature of the water varies from 32°F (0°C)
to around 90°F (32°C) and cools two approx 850 MWe reactors which
implies some 5 GW of power.


the river water surface temp may vary that much they don't take the
water from just the surface.

Summer is just kicking into high gear and the intake temp is already
86°F.  The surface temp can be over 100°F.  Check back mid-August.

https://www.dominionenergy.com/company/making-energy/nuclear/north-anna-power-station/waste-heat-treatment-facility


In the winter we have had the lake covered with ice.  While the intake
may not be exactly at 32°F it is durn close.


Looks like the NA cooling lagoons are legally designated "waste
treatment facilities" and not public waterways of the United States so
they aren't covered by the Clean Water Act, they can pump in and out
whatever temp hot water they want I guess, if they're OK with running at
reduced power and stay within the reactor design limits. Can't do that
everywhere.

I see how it works now I didn't know the lagoon-situation there prior.
They have a large dam-created man-made reservoir "public side" source
and a "private side" dumping-ground lagoon as the sink.

Basically the "natural" local environment is man-made to be integral
part of the plant's cooling loop.

 

[whit3rd]

On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 5:45:06 PM UTC-7, bitrex wrote:

On 7/6/19 7:47 PM, whit3rd wrote:

The bureaucratic hurdles to innovation are unpredictable, just as
research is; investors hate that.


there's some notion that industry wants to innovate for the sake of
innovation alone. what the fuk they wanna do that for. Innovation
involves money going out, it is not money coming _in_.

That 'wants to' notion is business PR, 'our motto, not our policy' in other words.

All things being equal I'd prefer money coming in 100% of the time and
none of it going out

You can't make a business work without servicing accounts payable,
investors in Enron eventually found out...
One DOES always see money going out, or else some auditors
need to be fired.

 

[Rick C]

On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 2:23:44 AM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:

On 7/7/19 1:56 AM, Rick C wrote:
On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 1:16:26 AM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 7/6/19 11:45 PM, Rick C wrote:
On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 2:38:58 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:

Yeah but then there are other environmental problems like the well-known
ones that was on display at Fukushima and that water-cooled reactor
efficiency is pretty sensitive to inlet temperature, and fresh water
from flowing river temperature is better regulated with respect to
seasonal changes than seawater.

Not sure what problems you are talking about. Whatever that is, it can't be too hard to deal with. The North Anna river is not very large at all and the temperature of the water varies from 32°F (0°C) to around 90°F (32°C) and cools two approx 850 MWe reactors which implies some 5 GW of power.


the river water surface temp may vary that much they don't take the
water from just the surface.

Summer is just kicking into high gear and the intake temp is already 86°F. The surface temp can be over 100°F. Check back mid-August.

https://www.dominionenergy.com/company/making-energy/nuclear/north-anna-power-station/waste-heat-treatment-facility

In the winter we have had the lake covered with ice. While the intake may not be exactly at 32°F it is durn close.


Looks like the NA cooling lagoons are legally designated "waste
treatment facilities" and not public waterways of the United States so
they aren't covered by the Clean Water Act, they can pump in and out
whatever temp hot water they want I guess, if they're OK with running at
reduced power and stay within the reactor design limits. Can't do that
everywhere.

Nope, not correct. They have a limit to the temperature they can dump. On top of that, they wanted to add a third reactor which would mean higher temps or larger heat exchangers. The higher temps weren't allowed by the courts, so they decided to go the air cooling route. With a total estimated cost of $19 billion plans have been shelved. They have spent over half a billion dollars just getting it approved, but they don't really care. They are billing most of that to the customers even though it will never produce even a single kWh.

--

Rick C.

++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sat, 06 Jul 2019 23:45:51 +0000, John Doe wrote:

> That's because the tree hugger is not a scientist.

I think these bastards just want to see us go back to the stone age - and
even then they'd find *something* to bitch about.



--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

 

John Doe <always.look@message.header> wrote in news:qfrbg7$bmh$4@dont-
email.me:

The tree hugger should know... Fukushima was not a disaster.
The tsunami that killed 20,000 was a disaster.

They were BOTH 'a disaster', you retarded piece of shit.

 

John Doe <always.look@message.header> wrote in
news:qfrau1$bmh$3@dont-email.me:

Once again, Germany is acting like the Land of the Idiots. They
are dismantling all of their nuclear reactors. Intelligent people
being so badly misled. It will be a great lesson for the rest of
the world. What happens when it falls apart.

For all you know they have a fusion solution and haven't told the
rest of the world yet.

You act like the chieftain of idiocy itself.

 

John Doe <always.look@message.header> wrote in news:qfrau1$bmh$3
@dont-email.me:

you do not want to decrease the wind flow
across the surface of the earth.

A billion windmills would not dampen the surface flow on Earth one
fucking iota, you abject idiot!

Ever se the "windbreaks" in Wyoming? Yeah... they don't do much
either. You have absolutely ZERO common sense, and even less physics
sense. We have a 300 mile thick atmosphere, and the part that would
even matter in your inane world is TEN MILES thick! And you think
little fucking toothpick windmills are going to 'decrease the wind
flow across the surface of the Earth'? You really did not think this
through much. Just how thick did the doctor say your skull is?

If we could disrupt winds, we would build elements to stop things
like tornadoes.

A dumbfuck like you... IF you had any sense, you would note that
sailing ships have been around for centuries and do not disturb the
winds.

Damn, punk... That has to be about the most stupid thing you have
ever said in your life, especially if you think that somewhere along
the way you actually received an education.

 

John Doe <always.look@message.header> wrote in news:qfragv$bmh$2
@dont-email.me:

> This troll is a maroon...

And you are a fucking Usenet moron.

You quote entire headers, which is only about as retarded as a
Usenet poster can get.

It does not matter how you feel or what you believe the poster is
made of or intends. Your fucked in the head opinion on trolldom
matters not. Your stupid full header quoting is about the most
retarded shit in Usenet today.

You are at the very bottom of the Usenet stupidity totem pole, boy.

 

[bitrex]

On 7/7/19 10:55 AM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

John Doe <always.look@message.header> wrote in news:qfrau1$bmh$3
@dont-email.me:

you do not want to decrease the wind flow
across the surface of the earth.

A billion windmills would not dampen the surface flow on Earth one
fucking iota, you abject idiot!

JD thinks tidal power will cause the Moon to crash into his house

Ever se the "windbreaks" in Wyoming? Yeah... they don't do much
either. You have absolutely ZERO common sense, and even less physics
sense. We have a 300 mile thick atmosphere, and the part that would
even matter in your inane world is TEN MILES thick! And you think
little fucking toothpick windmills are going to 'decrease the wind
flow across the surface of the Earth'? You really did not think this
through much. Just how thick did the doctor say your skull is?

If we could disrupt winds, we would build elements to stop things
like tornadoes.

A dumbfuck like you... IF you had any sense, you would note that
sailing ships have been around for centuries and do not disturb the
winds.

Damn, punk... That has to be about the most stupid thing you have
ever said in your life, especially if you think that somewhere along
the way you actually received an education.

I hear he was in favor of picking things up off the floor too until he
got scared we might run out of gravity.

 

[bitrex]

On 7/7/19 10:59 AM, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sat, 06 Jul 2019 23:45:51 +0000, John Doe wrote:

That's because the tree hugger is not a scientist.

I think these bastards just want to see us go back to the stone age - and
even then they'd find *something* to bitch about.

CD is at the cutting edge of shit posting technology, without his
significant contributions the field would still be in the Dark Ages, at
least.

 

[Jeroen Belleman]

On 2019-07-07 06:08, Jon Elson wrote:

bitrex wrote:


Building "safer" reactors will have similar problems to building
reactors of the usual type - they're touted by the firms that are into
designing and building reactors,
Well, the French have been running gas-cooled reactors for a LONG time, like
approaching 50 years, I think. They seem to have the technology down.

By getting rid of the water, you eliminate the corrosion issues that PLAGUE
our reactors. Also, MASSIVE amounts of effort and safety systems are there
to deal with loss of the water coolant, and being sure you have enough to
keep it cooled even if there is a major leak. With gas (Helium) cooling,
you can have the coolant at atmospheric pressure, so it won't escape very
fast.

Seems to have worked out very well for them. But, "not invented here".

Jon

The French reactors are PWRs.

Jeroen Belleman

 

[bitrex]

On 7/7/19 4:54 PM, Jeroen Belleman wrote:

On 2019-07-07 06:08, Jon Elson wrote:
bitrex wrote:


Building "safer" reactors will have similar problems to building
reactors of the usual type - they're touted by the firms that are into
designing and building reactors,
Well, the French have been running gas-cooled reactors for a LONG
time, like
approaching 50 years, I think.  They seem to have the technology down.

By getting rid of the water, you eliminate the corrosion issues that
PLAGUE
our reactors.  Also, MASSIVE amounts of effort and safety systems are
there
to deal with loss of the water coolant, and being sure you have enough to
keep it cooled even if there is a major leak.  With gas (Helium) cooling,
you can have the coolant at atmospheric pressure, so it won't escape very
fast.

Seems to have worked out very well for them.  But, "not invented here".

Jon


The French reactors are PWRs.

Jeroen Belleman

The gas-cooled ones are all retired at this point, looks like. The PWR
designs they use now trace back to the Westinghouse PWR design, a la the
now-retired Yankee Atomic power plant in Western MA that was the first
of its kind in the US in 1960:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yankee_Rowe_Nuclear_Power_Station>

 

[whit3rd]

On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 10:02:57 AM UTC-7, bitrex wrote:

On 7/7/19 10:55 AM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
John Doe <always.look@message.header> wrote in news:qfrau1$bmh$3
@dont-email.me:

you do not want to decrease the wind flow
across the surface of the earth.

A billion windmills would not dampen the surface flow on Earth one
fucking iota, you abject idiot!

JD thinks tidal power will cause the Moon to crash into his house

Actually, what it does is pound the shores of the oceans, making the local
rocks there into sand. Unless your house is outside the Moon's current orbit,
it won't collide (but days will get rather longer). Earth's day used to be 18 hours
long...
r

 

[bitrex]

On 7/7/19 5:38 PM, whit3rd wrote:

On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 10:02:57 AM UTC-7, bitrex wrote:
On 7/7/19 10:55 AM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
John Doe <always.look@message.header> wrote in news:qfrau1$bmh$3
@dont-email.me:

you do not want to decrease the wind flow
across the surface of the earth.

A billion windmills would not dampen the surface flow on Earth one
fucking iota, you abject idiot!

JD thinks tidal power will cause the Moon to crash into his house

Actually, what it does is pound the shores of the oceans, making the local
rocks there into sand. Unless your house is outside the Moon's current orbit,
it won't collide (but days will get rather longer). Earth's day used to be 18 hours
long...
r

So long as you divert a portion of the energy back to the wind turbines
and run them backwards as propellers to speed it back up again it will
balance out.