Skip to main content

View Diary: Was Fukushima inevitable? (35 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You cannot "dry cool" (5+ / 0-)

    a nuclear reactor. You might be able to do a heat feedback of some sort for generating enough 'trons to keep the spent fuel pools from melting when the power's out, but that won't keep the core cool after a scram. Honest. I'm somewhat amazed anybody could think it might. Even worse, sometimes they don't even scram all the way.

    When you stop burning coal and gas, the fire goes O-U-T. That isn't what happens in a nuclear core when the rods drop. They simply are NOT "turned off," cannot BE turned off. They will reliably melt within 16 hours' time if there's no feedwater or circulation. Really, that's exactly what they do and anyone who still doubts need only look at Fukushima. Which also informs us they blow up too. BOOM. Big Badda BOOM.

    Why come to think of it, they've been lying with a straight face to us for at least 50 years about that very thing, haven't they? Didn't you ever wonder what else they're lying about? Might be worthwhile to find out...

    •  You are right (0+ / 0-)

      and in fact there are no operating nukes with dry cooling. Because of nukes' problems with keeping components cool after a unexpected shutdown,  nukes' cannot reduce their water use as much as coal or gas plants.

      However there are two current smaller modular reactor designs that use dry cooling or can do so, according to the World Nuclear Association

      Orly, it isn't evidence just because you downloaded it from the internet.

      by 6412093 on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 08:21:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Those are not the 104 (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sandino

        (minus several lately, and almost all the not-yet-builts) currently in operation. Not a single damned one of 'em. You guys talk so glowingly about "Someday." You've always talked glowingly about "Someday."

        It got to be "Someday" way back in March of 1979. It's way, way too late now.

      •  don't let Joieau confuse you... (0+ / 0-)

        What usage of the type they originally pointed to has little to do with 'cooling the reactors' after a SCRAM. 99% of the water usage...and by 'usage' I mean it is used then put back into it's source...its NOT consumed...is for cooling the turbines which is where the heat from the reactor goes while producing energy.

        After a shutdown, or 99.9% of all unit shutdowns is done by a reactor cooling pump which only pumps about .4% of the water used during normal operations relative to the pumping of massive amounts of water (sea water or fresh) through the condensers to cool the turbine.

        So don't mix metaphors here.

        Of course on can use dry cooling...ESPECIALLY for keeping "components" cool. It's a helluv a lot less energy required to this than to cool the turbine!

        All thermal plants use water cooling during normal and do so with vast amounts of water. So what? This is a problem in, say, S. Carolina? Oh...yeah use cooling towers there that limits fresh water usage through the condensers.

        Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

        by davidwalters on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 08:10:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site