Storing wind-generated energy as gravitational potential energy? - Page 10

 wrote:


The opposite is the case.    ;-)

Derek.   (Who knew all along this "Womens Lib" stuff was wrong).

 

a couple of corrections there.  At 3 mile Island there was no fire other than
the little hydrogen burn but it happened in seconds and could probably be
described more as a wil'o'wisp type flame than a true burn or explosion.  For
example there was a foreman's desk and stool sitting on the refueling deck,
left there from the initial fuel load. one part of the vinyl on the stool
showed char marks while other parts didn't.  It was like someone had wafted a
gentle flame across the stool.  Similar wispy burn marks were observable on
the epoxy coating that was applied to all surfaces inside the containment.

The second correction is that there was no containment failure at 3 mile
Island.  As I noted in my previous post, the containment building sustained
over three times its design pressure without registering any excess stress.
The only openings to the atmosphere were the intentional ventings, either to
reduce the pressure or the hydrogen concentration.

as part of the "lessons learned" modifications required by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (generally known as RegGuide 1.97 mods), both hydrogen
igniters and additional hydrogen recombination units were installed in all
plants.  The igniters, basically glow plugs, would be turned on in the event
hundred and was detected, the intention being to cause it to burn before it
reached an explosive concentration.

RE: Chernobyl.  Chernobyl did not have a containment at all so there was no
failure.  The Russians believed that their technology was infallible and
therefore a containment was not necessary.  Seriously.

Secondly, the RMBK type reactor is both graphite and water moderated, and both
have positive temperature coefficients of reactivity, disasters waiting to
happen.  In the free world, strong negative coefficients of reactivity are
designed in to make the reactor self regulating.  If the fuel or the water
heats up, the reactivity automatically decreases and so the reactor, self
regulates itself.  Under no condition could it run away.

In stark contrast, the RMBK reactors are graphite moderator in a positive
temperature coefficient of reactivity.  That meant that is as the graphite
heated up, it became a more efficient moderator, leading to more power,
leading to more heat, etc. in a positive feedback loop.  In other words, a
design capable of running away.

Similarly, the water channels were designed such that they had a positive void
coefficient.  That is, the more steam voids that appear in the cooling tubes,
the better the moderation from the graphite.  Again, a run-away design.

It is simply remarkable that that style reactor racked up as many reactor
years as it did before something like Chernobyl happened.

In serious discussion, Chernobyl and reactor safety really shouldn't be used
in the same sentence.  Accident safety simply was not a consideration in the
reactor design.



Sure, go right ahead.  I'd appreciate a pointer back to my web site, of
course, but otherwise feel free to use any of that material as you wish.


I don't know.  I spent many hundreds of hours refuting the anti-nuclear
arguments.  I learned that for some it is a strange sort of religion, and mere
facts have no impression on their thinking.  The best thing we can hope for is
to marginalize these people into insignificance while we used facts to sway
the uncommitted.  To a reasonable person with an open mind there really isn't
much argument to be made.  It's either nuclear or out go the lights in a few
years or a decade or two.

to me, the risks are so infinitesimally small as to the unquantifiable,
especially compared to everything else.  While we continue our perfect record
of having never harmed or killed anyone with nuclear energy, wind, for
example, has killed at least one person during an overspeed incident.  I
believe there's video on Youtube.  Of course people have been killed
constructing nuclear plants and there have been incidents on the steam side
but no one has yet been harmed by the nuclear operation. That continues to be
unique in the energy industry.

John
--
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.johndearmond.com  <-- best little blog on the net!
Tellico Plains, Occupied TN
Multitasking: Reading in the bathroom!

 Neon John wrote:

years

Nver m,ind the tank. Can we come visit? looks like my idea of heaven!


What I mean was, that a simple cast in place concrete structure with
reinforcing makes an adequate water tank. Our water here is in fact
stored in just such.. a tower about 100ft high, with a massive concrete
tank on top. festooned with mobile phone antennae. stuck at the highest
part of the local countryside.

a little chlorine keeps it all bug free.





Sounds good. When I was on borehole water I had a pump about 100ft down,
a roof mounted tank, and a float switch.

 

Sure.  Come on up.  I love visitors.  If you know what a daily shower is, I
even have guest rooms.  Otherwise it's the Green cove motel for ye :-)


Wish I had a spot for something like that.  Over 30 years ago I used a 1000
gallon septic tank as the ice bank cold storage medium for my homemade central
AC.  I stored up "cold" at night when the air was cool and used it in the day
when the sun blazed.  A ground sourced heat pump would probably have been
better but by the time I thought of the idea I was committed.  Still, the
system was VERY cheap to operate and I was satisfied.

And to answer the question, "Where were you when Elvis died?" I was sitting in
a guy's driveway in north Hixon TN waiting for a guy to come home to sell me
some HVAC parts.  Even still remember the address. :-)

John
--
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.johndearmond.com  <-- best little blog on the net!
Tellico Plains, Occupied TN
Be in the world but not of it -Bhuddist proverb

 


You could use a sprinkler valve, with a check valve between it and the tank, to
unload the pump. Or, a spring check valve with the spring replaced with a
lighter spring to hold the valve open (instead of closed). As pressure builds,
it closes.