FUCKING LN2. tac, i think you need to be in nuclear research. i agree, i dont understand why cant they cryo freeze that shit?
... Liquid Nitrogen? The stresses from the temperature differentials would likely crack the containment structures, plus REMEMBER THAT METALS AT SUCH LOW TEMPERATURES ARE BRITTLE! You have to build the reactor to withstand cryogenic temperatures, to use it successfully. My own thought was that they should have (past tense) flooded the containment building and steam exhaust with enough nitrogen to dilute the hydrogen concentration, as an explosion prevention measure.
while its neat that everyone wants to help out solve the problem... keep in mind that the people running this shit are so beyond pro its not even funny. you don't get to run nuclear shit with a ged edit: think of that one guy in armageddon who's like 'pfft the president's adviser is wrong and he got a c- in some class. i am a badass' now we have to drill down into the containment housing and detonate a nuke. we will have 2 teams working in parallel to ensure success
I don't know, watching those chinooks dropping 2000 gallons of water at a time seems as futile as pissing on a forest fire. if those rods are hot enough, they'll vaporize that amount of water before it does any cooling. I think the shots of those choppers dropping water were for the public more than to actually cool things off. "see, we're the experts, and we're not panicking, we gottus a plan". Even the "experts" don't know what to do. What it is to be "beyond pro" http://redtape.msnbc.com/2011/03/why-plan-b-often-works-out-badly.html
They are already starting to give thought to the final option of burying the site, just like Chernobyl.
As to burying it. Even now, they'll try everything else first. This gives an idea into the Japanese mindset (and it's creepy reading this manga after the disaster)
im pretty sure they knew all along they were gonna have to encase it. All these rinky dink pitiful attempts have been a public ploy to buy us time from panicking too much while theyre planning and prepping for the big concrete sarcophagus.
Here's a neat little tool, enter your zip to find how close you are to a nuke plant. 173 miles for me. http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/nuclear_power_plants_locations/index.html?hpt=C2
Hmm, so the price of Craigslist hookers with silicone implants will or will not go up? The closest nuclear plant to my house is 80 miles- in Byron, IL. I've been pretty close to that one; the drag strip in Byron is practically right in front of it.
That's SiliCON, not SiliCONE! 93 miles from Callaway, which I mostly already knew, with all the brouhaha over it's construction, and the recent debate in Missouri with Ameren wanting to collect money through billing prior to building a new nuclear power plant. (By law, they're only allowed to do so AFTER the plant is built)
OK, so many of your recommendations are far from feasible. First off, the liquid nitrogen idea would never work. This is for two different reasons. The nitrogen would flash to vapor at -210*F, only yielding very little sustainable cooling prior to flashing off. The uranium continues to produce heat from the center outwards, so the nitrogen would flash prior to really cooling the portion of the fuel that really needs cooling the most. As for the brittle fracture worries, those are pretty much gone at this point. The vessels are already damaged, and fission products have already been released to the atmosphere. The sole point of dumping seawater on the fuel is to remove the decay heat. Decay heat is basically the build-up of fission products in the fuel that causes it to continue to generate heat even after shutdown. This effect will eventually taper off, which is what is happening. Believe it or not, the fuel will eventually be stable enough to not release contamination to the atmosphere even with no cooling or water. The workers are wanting to get to that point, remove the fuel rods, then cover it with concrete to prevent further spread of contamination. To just bury the fuel will really complicate the problem, possibly allowing much more spread of contamination if the concrete ever breaks. Believe it or not, the water flashing to steam and evaporating is essentially what they want. That is removing the heat from the fuel. Every little bit helps, and adding the energy to flash the water to steam removes a lot of decay heat from the fuel. The normal operating temperature of this sort of a reactor is pretty low compared to most, so it doesn't take a lot to cool it back down. The operators are doing exactly as they are trained, which is all a smart move. These guys know what they are doing, and they will get past this eventually. We are looking at a pretty massive clean-up effort, but I wouldn't anticipate any spread of contamination and potential harm to civilians. ~Will Courtier~
So what you're saying is that building and using a nuclear power plant is batshit crazy? That's what I gleaned from what you just discribed.
To be honest with you, nuclear power is a calculated risk. It just depends on what you want to get, and what you are willing to give up for it. It is very possible to have boiler explosions in a coal burning plant, which could kill everyone in the boiler room. You also have vast amounts of pollution, and the fact that they gain power from a consumable source. Geothermal and windpower are good ideas, but are not very cost effective considering the amount of space they require, the cost of construction and upkeep, and the power that you get. You also have the affects on the surrounding environment and native animals. Nuclear power takes up little space, is relatively safe, and generates an impressive amount of electricity for the given cost. Everything is give and take. Nuclear power is an extremely safe, plausible approach to a power-hungry country with very little space. Compared to the reactors designed and built in the 1960's, today's designs are ten steps ahead of the predecessors. The power generated has much less waste generated, is built to withstand more severe natural disasters (greater containment, better back-up power systems, etc...), and have many levels of redundancy built in. It is very similar to todays automobiles with their safety devices (air bags, better designed seat belts, crush zones, padded dashboards, padded steering wheels, etc...). It is a calculated risk that could kill you each time you drive. Yet we continue to drive and will do so no matter how many car accidents we see on the TV. ~Will Courtier~
Oh, and another point. Nuclear reactors are designed with three categories of catastrophes; Most likely, less likely, and unlikely. Most likely - 100% protection with automatic systems, to provide protection to both the reactor itself (prevent potential damage to components), as well as prevent release of fission products to the surrounding atmosphere. Less likely - Protection is provided with automatic systems, although operator action is required within a given time period from the onset of the problem. Automatic systems will prevent release of fission products to the surrounding atmosphere, but operator action will generally be required to prevent component damage. Unlikely - Catastrophes which can not be calculated for (I.E. Earthquake, full black out, tsunami, tornado, etc...). These situations can not be protected for automatically, and depend completely on the trained operators to prevent equipment damage. The automatic systems can only guarantee so much, and only so much trust can be placed in an automatic reaction. This is where professional, trained operators come into play. ~Will Courtier~
The way they cooled off that mortar, in that Mel Gibson Viet-Nam War movie? Nucular )) reactors can be very safe... if you spend the money. We can have safe Safe SAFE nuclear plants, such as those in Navy Ships, for instance, or we can have nuclear plants that aren't insanely expensive to build and maintain. Plant owners prefer the latter, and will play the odds for all they're worth in pursuit of every penny to be pinched.
And that's why it's an insane form of power production. If there was no need to worry about costs, if it were all for non-profit, it'd be a different story. The earth has quakes, that's what the earth does.
They could build these reactors to withstand anything really. Think Cheyenne Mountain. In fact, why not put some reactors in there?
