What is Digg?89 Comments
- Phyltre, on 10/10/2007, -0/+20We'll never know, you edited out the only way we could have figured it out.
- SmackMyMac, on 10/10/2007, -11/+28Can't they use the power from the plant to power a giant A/C unit to cool the water. Perpetual motion.
- schroeder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16McFly, air conditioners don't work on water... unless you have POWAHHH!!
- Ostizzle, on 10/10/2007, -5/+21Warning: Unresponsive script
Warning: Unresponsive script
Warning: Unresponsive script
Warning: Unresponsive script
Warning: Unresponsive script
Warning: Unresponsive script
Warning: Unresponsive script
Warning: Unresponsive script
Warning: Unresponsive script
This is getting really ***** old. - blacklint, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15That you can't cool a reactor with warm water?
- thuber, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14I work there. When the we brought up unit 1 a few months ago (much cooler time of year) it created a higher total output power. The cooling towers are used to help cool the river water before it gets put back into the river so that it doesn't disturb the river ecosystem. We have river temperature limits. Well, when we started up with the new unit we didn't upgrade the cooling towers fast enough to keep up with the new heat generated. So now, during August (hottest part of the year) the river can't handle output with limited cooling towers, and as a consequence we shut the unit down to stop the temperature rise. BTW, to the poster above, the plant is designed to safely shutdown without human intervention. You can find information on the NRC website about BWR safety systems.
- spyd3rweb, on 10/10/2007, -5/+17Why did they shut it down?? I was looking forward to shooting mutant dogs in the Zone.
- Richandler, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Hmmm. To invent a machine that can harness the energy of hot water......
- sirlancelot88, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Nuclear reactors do not melt down if humans cease to monitor it. The Canadian CANDU system for instance has multiple passively triggered redundant shutdown systems to assure that it cannot melt down. First, it holds the control rods in active electromagnetic suspension above the reactor: therefore, if the power fails (indicative of pre-meltdown conditions) the electromagnets fail, and the rods fall into the core by means of gravity, which cannot fail. Secondly, the reactors runs with low grade nuclear fuel, which cannot go critical in light-water, so you'll never run into a situation where the light-water coolant can sustain the reaction.
"In layman's terms, this means that instead of constantly trying to keep a potential runaway reaction under control, we use a less volatile reaction which is already near its limits". - wafflez, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7I believe you missed the chernobyl (or s.t.a.l.k.e.r.) reference there bub.
- sh0k, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8I live in that area, and the Tennessee Valley Authority always reminded me of that evil, secretive government/corporate lab that has its logo on everything in the town and weird security guards with assault rifles roaming the parks at night.
Yeah, gotta love Alabama. - Scynet, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7The article doesn't mention whether it was shut down because the warmer water couldn't cool the reactor or because the river would've suffered enormously from the excessively hot water output. The former isn't a joke either, you can't rise a river temperature and expect things to live on. There could easily be a law concerning the environmental effects of warm water which was the real "problem".
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Getting facts and opinions from Penn & Teller = Fail.
- Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5No, you can cool a reactor with warm water; the problem is that you kill the whole ecosystem downriver.
- manicallday, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Alright you're just an idiot. Point proven.
- Protoss, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8A/C unit to cool the water though? AIR Conditioner, wouldn't be that effective on water.
- f0dder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4It's to protect the fish. Warm water holds less oxygen so they suffocate. In a humid climate, cooling towers are ineffective that's why they don't bother with them in asia. It has nothing to do w/leaking radiation to the environment.
- Angostura, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4There's a hole in your argument,
- Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Well, seeing as 120 degree water can cool 800 degree pressurized steam almost as well as can 80 degree water, I'd guess that it's because of environmental regulations imposed on nuclear power.
- Dustmuffins, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Ever hear of the steam engine? =P
- proliance, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4"Aussies are not as dumb as Yanks." Don't sell yourself short.
- verge, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6not off subject
- verge, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5and not stupid
- HappyScrappy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3There's actually a 3rd possibility...
The river naturally rose so high in temps due to the ambient temperature that they had to turn down the reactors, even though the major contributor to the problem was just that it's hot outside. - ez12a, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5that would be very inefficient.
- Mike89, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The one that sometimes goes WHOOSH?
- coit, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Wrong on all accounts.
- coit, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Yeah, bring on the radioactivity spewing coal and natural gas fired plants instead. What's the carbon offset for those plants Mr. Environment?
- manicallday, on 10/10/2007, -7/+10Just a side comment. NPR interviewed a scientist about a month back that wrote a book on what would happen if humans suddenly disappeared from earth. Interestingly, one of the most damaging effects from the 400 nuclear plants across the world. I guess that these plants need some manual guidance or else they melt down. I would like to know if the Tennessee Valley Authority's reactor shuts down automatically or was it manual? If it was manual I wonder how many other sites actually monitor the water temperature of their generators? Pretty scary.
I know. Kind of stupid and off subject. - Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I hope you're just talking about the dirty ass LWR reactors. I *hope* you're not one of those idiots that think all nuclear power has to have careful management and radioactive waste...
- redfox2600, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Your right, you should mine Haley's comet for ice and drop it in the river.
- wafflez, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3;) I'm pretty sure you can, there's a difference between Celcius and Farenheit. The article is Farenheit.
- pebecker, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Incorrect. The Brown's Ferry plant is not a liquid sodium cooled reactor. It is a BWR (Boiling Water Reactor).
- Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I don't agree with P&T's view on Yucca Mountain, but a better choice is to build a new-style LWR right next to a CANDU; pump the waste from one into the gob of the next.
- ultralights, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2in about 2 minutes maybe?
- coit, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2TVA has a large scale pump storage facility.
http://www.tva.gov/sites/raccoonmt.htm
It can generate 1,600 MW for up to 22 hours, but then takes about 28 hours to reload... A neat idea. - Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2So show them, dear Henry...
- pjsk8, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"Maybe we can cool the water with a breezy island song?!"
- Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Wow. That was meandering and hyperbolic. Are you missing a /sarcasm tag?
- HappyScrappy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2All nuclear plants are water cooled. Even if they have a primary coolant system that is different (gas cooled or even sodium), the heat is transferred from that cooling loop to water to get the heat out.
There's just no other way to get rid of that much heat affordably. - GiggleStick, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2What Jim1977 said was equivalent to:
"The land speed record is 250 MPH, but for how long?"
I doesn't matter how long. We're talking about a peak in the rate. What their point out was that the instantaneous demand for power was 33.344 Gigawatts (yes that pronounced jigga). And it doesn't really matter for how long that happens, because if it's beyond the power grid's capacity, even that instantaneous peak will cause serious problems. And he said "Get your facts straight" because he was pointing out that he was wrong while criticizing everyone else, by repeating his rudely toned comment, a common technique. - blakestah, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Nuclear power plants are essentially big steam engines (oversimplified explanation). Take a bunch of nuclear material. Create a low level reaction in a radioactive shielded core. Make a lot of heat. Pass water outside the core and boil it. Use the steam (which is not radioactive) to power a big steam engine. Which is why nuclear power plants give off a huge steam cloud. I disagree about the TVA director's statement through - the Savannah River Project was throttled back in the early 1950s when the Savannah River heated up 7 degrees Celcius just downstream and the ecosystem began to change dramatically.
Nuclear power is greener than fossil fuels, but not without excess heat production. Like all forms of energy plants, there is residual heat from inefficiency. - coit, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Which non-water cooled technologies are you speaking of? All of the next-gen plants are still water cooled...
For that matter, please tell me which power producing technologies are not water dependent that are suitable for large scale energy production.. None. - coit, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The record is for power consumption RATE, I do believe.
- graemee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Most power use in the US is not winter based, but summer. All the AC.
- brad3378, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1This is why they should be using the waste heat for something useful like creating ethanol.
http://digg.com/general_sciences/Engineer_touts_nuclear_ethanol_tag_team - gwolf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Are their control systems EMP shielded?
- Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11) Time frame wasn't the main point of his post, though it could be useful; a Watt is a unit of power. We want to know joules (or MWh; mathematically dissimilar, but on the same scale of unit) of energy, so that we can figure out the amount of juice output during the peak period.
2) 'Get your facts straight' was a completely nonsensical comment, sorry. Timeframe is always a useful thing to know.
2) He's exactly right as to why the plant was put to sleep. - Smuikas, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1God I hate that smiley butt on the right hand side of everything on that website.
-
Show 51 - 90 of 90 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is