8.9
- Thread starter catocom
- Start date
MrBishop
Well-Known Member
Part of the answer would be expenses and susceptibility. Setting up a dedicated steam turbine for internal use only and just on the off chance that all the diesel generators stop working and only in the case of emergency shutdowns.
It's not fiscally viable AND since it's not off-site, it'd be susceptible to the same issues that the primary turbines would be facing in case of an emergency.
If the nuclear plant's diesel backup generators hadn't failed, we wouldn't even be discussing all this. The plant would've simply shut itself down.
Winky
Well-Known Member
8.9 isn't enough
The reason the whole concept is monumentally ignorant in the first place
and why I went off on him is: the reactor would be scrammed upon the loss of the grid.
Gonzie doesn’t understand how a nuclear reactor works. Or he wouldn’t have made
such a silly inquiry in the first place.
But I know he'd do a better job of running the country than Obama!
The reason the whole concept is monumentally ignorant in the first place
and why I went off on him is: the reactor would be scrammed upon the loss of the grid.
Gonzie doesn’t understand how a nuclear reactor works. Or he wouldn’t have made
such a silly inquiry in the first place.
But I know he'd do a better job of running the country than Obama!
Re: 8.9 isn't enough
It wouldn't need to be shut down at all, especially under emergency conditions, if the coolant pumps were self-supporting. So, SCRAM would be a non-issue. If the nuclear reaction was what directly made the electricity, it'd be a different scenario. Vent the excess steam & there is no problem. Controlled shut-down of the reactor under ideal conditions.
I must thank you for making me understrand as well as you did.
It wouldn't need to be shut down at all, especially under emergency conditions, if the coolant pumps were self-supporting. So, SCRAM would be a non-issue. If the nuclear reaction was what directly made the electricity, it'd be a different scenario. Vent the excess steam & there is no problem. Controlled shut-down of the reactor under ideal conditions.
I must thank you for making me understrand as well as you did.
Part of the answer would be expenses and susceptibility. Setting up a dedicated steam turbine for internal use only and just on the off chance that all the diesel generators stop working and only in the case of emergency shutdowns.
As I've already said, it's gotta be a whole buttload cheaper than what's happening now. Given the location, the general paranoia about nuclear energy & the potential issues, a little overkill could save more than a few bucks.
Re: 8.9 isn't enough to slow em down
Then explain to me what fission, or fusion, has to do witth what I'm talking about. A steam generator is not a nuclear device.
Then explain to me what fission, or fusion, has to do witth what I'm talking about. A steam generator is not a nuclear device.
ResearchMonkey
Well-Known Member