Dpetty
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2012
- Messages
- 967
- Reaction score
- 160
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
like congress cares what he likes or endorses...
Thats laughable... In fact, im laughing right now.
like congress cares what he likes or endorses...
my wording was careful, I did not actually call you an idiot, just led you down the path where you decided to infer that you are included in that category...:2razz:
again, address that to yourself....
what are the topics you know something about? it isn't nuclear, so why are you here? what did I make up?
UtahBill said:He has the power by himself to kill it? He can veto, but congress can override...
you have links to spent fuel issues at Fukushima? ever seen a spent fuel pool? they don't have a drain system, as they are not meant to ever be drained....
I voted only once in my life for a democrat, Jimmy Carter. He is the only president to have an energy plan.That was very Clintonesqe of you........... but most Dems are good at that game.
we can do that, it won't be cheap, tho.....nearly all the easy stuff has been taken.We just need to drill our own oil and use our own resources while moving towards renewable energy.
congress can introduce bills....that overrides state department...Well, you either made this up or simply spoke out of ignorance:
Yes, he and his State Department have the power to kill the pipeline. Congress CAN NOT override the decision.
never claimed to be an expert.....show me where I did...Thought you claimed to be an expert on nuclear issues.
Spent fuel rods are kept in pools of circulating water to keep them cool. Even though spent, they still radiate considerable heat. If the pumps fail, water no longer circulates, the water heats up and begins to boil off exposing the fuel rods to the atmosphere.
That's what happened at Fukishima.
We just need to drill our own oil and use our own resources while moving towards renewable energy.
never claimed to be an expert.....show me where I did...
I have participated in the refueling of the ATR in Idaho many times.....the volume of water used is sufficient to cool the fuel for long periods of time without external cooling.....it is part of the design....sort of like trying to boil a gallon of water with one very long candle...the losses to ambient surroundings will delay the loss of water for a very long time...
links? I have an errand to run, so will search more later, but so far I haven't seen anything that says spent fuel was actually uncovered....Obviously did not work at Fukishima.
links? I have an errand to run, so will search more later, but so far I haven't seen anything that says spent fuel was actually uncovered....
All Things Nuclear • Spent Fuel Pools at FukushimaTokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) has said there was a hydrogen explosion that damaged the Unit 4 reactor building on Tuesday morning in Japan (Monday afternoon U.S. time), reportedly blowing a 26-foot wide hole in the side of the building. If this explosion was due to hydrogen, that hydrogen very likely came from the spent fuel since there is no other clear source (this reactor was not operating when the earthquake hit). And if the spent fuel produced the hydrogen, that indicates that the water level in the spent fuel pool must have been low enough to have exposed a significant fraction of the fuel rods.
Shortly after that—at 9:38 am Tuesday (8:38 pm EDT Monday)—TEPCO discovered a fire on the fourth floor of the building in the spent fuel pool, which reportedly burned for three hours. That fire may have been the oxidation of the zirconium cladding, as it was continuing to produce hydrogen.
The other effect of heat damage to the fuel rods is that radioactive gases such as iodine-131 and cesium-137, which are produced in the fuel during the operation of the reactor, can be released. The hole in the secondary containment at Unit 4 means that any emissions from the spent fuel will be vented directed to the outside.
If water cannot be added to the pool, or if the pool has been damaged and is leaking, the fuel may remain uncovered. The exposed fuel can get hot enough to melt, depending on how long it has been out of the reactor. If the fuel melts, it would release significant additional radioactivity into the air.
This same scenario could occur at Units 5 and 6 if the water in the spent fuel pools is not replenished, although the fuel there has apparently been in the pools longer and is not as radioactive as at Unit 4. For rods that have been in the pool for long enough, their decay heat will have dropped sufficiently that they will not undergo the same rapid oxidation as newer fuel rods will, and would not produce as much hydrogen.
Thus, depending on the age of the spent fuel in Units 5 and 6, there may be less hydrogen produced if the water level in the spent fuel pool drops. There may still be enough heat to damage the fuel and release radioactive gases, but if the secondary containment is not damaged by a hydrogen explosion, that gas may not be released to the atmosphere.
If mechanisms to fill the pool at Unit 4 are broken, or if there is a need to repair the pool, it will be difficult to get workers close enough to do this. If spent fuel has been in the pool for a relatively short time, even if the water level is at the top of the fuel rods, the radiation dose to someone at the railing of the pool would give them a lethal dose in well under a minute. This would explain why there have been reports of requests to use helicopters to deliver water to the pools. However, it appears that this is not a practical way of delivering water.
looks like unit 4 has problems with their spent fuel pool....still, you have to seperate these reports by type of source. TEPCO will be biased in their favor, journalists will just be stupid. I read one by a journalist that said spent fuel rods are "packed closely together", which is not true. There must be space between them for natural and forced cooling, plus the racks that keep them apart are lined with neutron absorbing material, ohterwise there could be fission happening. And fission requires a moderator, so when the water is gone, the moderator is gone, so no fission. The danger is melting, and that appears to be the case in unit 4. How much is still to be determined.
That's interesting Bill. Years ago when I drove dump trucks for a living, we used to have a contract with BG&E to pick up, and transport to the quarry fly ash from the local electric plant. It was taken to the quarry, and basically buried much like a dump would take care of waste. What are the concerns of that process?
j-mac
dumping ash in the ground leads to water table pollution, depending on some variables.....when rain water soaks through the ash, it leaches out pollutants...
It has some uses, but not enough for the amount we generate...
a large coal plant willl have lots of coal being brought in by truck or train, and a lot of ash going out by truck or train....plus the airborne pollution out the stacks.
was it last year? one of those sites embankements collapsed, sending coal ash sludge into a town and river.....quite a mess...Coal ash must be placed in disposal sites built over impermeable liners that prevent any water leaching.
was it last year? one of those sites embankements collapsed, sending coal ash sludge into a town and river.....quite a mess...