Online Now 986

Hall of Fame

The best of the best

Online now 965
Record: 9625 (10/8/2011)

Boards ▾

Palmetto Proving Grounds

The place for Gamecock talk, news and information

The Barnyard

The place for Gamecock football and recruiting talk, plus off-topic subjects.

The McGuire Room

The place for Gamecock basketball talk, news and information

The Sarge

The ultimate online destination for the latest scoop on Carolina's national power baseball program.

GCI Archives

Everything from Gamecock Insider Tony Morrell, in case you missed it.

Spurnotes Archives

The place to read all past editions of Spurnotes

Video Archive

Hall of Fame

The best of the best

Ticket Exchange

Buy and sell your Gamecock tickets here.

Test Forum

Feedback for TBS and 247Sports.

Reply

OT: Reports of a nuclear meltdown coming out of Japan

  • BigBlairCock

    Snoop Cock said... (original post)

    This is actually completely inaccurate. Cooling systems of power plants DO use tremendous, tremendous amounts of make-up water. The cooling system is a 2-sided system - Its true that one side of the heat exchange process is a closed loop, but the other side runs through a cooling tower system where water is lost through windage, bleed-off, and evaporation (hence evaporative cooling). Water on this side is constantly having to be made-up through via source water.

    How much of the water you claim is used is returned to the original water source?

    By the way, not all plants use cooling towers.

    The types of nuclear plants vary, so some have differnet components. Most are either pressurized or boiling water reactors. Basically, they work like this:

    A nuclear reaction creates heat, which is used to heat a closed loop of water. In a boiling water reactor (such as the plant in Japan) this water is allowed to boil and turn into steam, which turns the turbine, which turns the generator to produce electricity.

    In a pressurized water reactor, the water in this first closed loop of water is kept under pressure to prevent boiling. The heat from this leg is used to heat water in the secondary leg which then turns into steam to turn the turbine.

    In both plants, the steam in this closed loop then passes on to the condenser, where it is cooled (either by lake water or cooling towers) to be cycled through again.

    You do seem to have some knowledge of nuclear power, but some of your statements are off-base.

    signature image

    Sometimes, in the course of human events, people get lit on fire.

  • BigBlairCock

    Snoop Cock said... (original post)

    No....one has nothing to do with the other.

    Sure, any body of water could be used as a make-up source or back-up source after proper chemical and mechanical treatment. But again, thats not whats going on.

    Viable back up plan for retarding exposure.....I guess we're gonna find out. Never been done before. I think everyone is praying that it turns out to be a viable last resort!

    I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt..........a water injection directly from a lake, ocean, river, or whichever body of water lies nearby, is indeed a planned final failsafe to help cool and keep the fuel submerged, and is a safety system.

    I never said it was the primary safety system. When you get to that point, you are willing to sacrifice the operability of the plant to keep the public safe.

    signature image

    Sometimes, in the course of human events, people get lit on fire.

  • The only water that can be returned to original water source would be the bleed off water in a system where cooling towers are used. Open end cooling systems with constant make-up continue cycling up solids as pure water is evaporated, therefore some water must be bled to reduce cycles and solids/conductivity so as not to scale up condensers, etc.. This water loss typically goes to sewer, etc...but could then be treated and re-used. Obviously the water that evaporates going through a cooling tower cannot be returned. You are correct...cooling ponds or lakes are sometimes used instead of a cooling towers, but the cooling process is still evaporation and with that being the case make-up is constant. What have I said previously that is off base?

  • Trooperdel

    Snoop Cock said... (original post)

    No....one has nothing to do with the other.

    Sure, any body of water could be used as a make-up source or back-up source after proper chemical and mechanical treatment. But again, thats not whats going on.

    Viable back up plan for retarding exposure.....I guess we're gonna find out. Never been done before. I think everyone is praying that it turns out to be a viable last resort!

    "any body of water could be used as a make-up source or back-up source after proper chemical and mechanical treatment. But again, thats not whats going on. "

    In your opinion, what other body of water would have been available to serve as the source of waqter to generate power at this plant?

    "Viable back up plan for retarding exposure..."

    It's hard top argue that between the backup generators and the use of seawater, meltdown was probably delayed for about 5 days. Which means that it served its purpose in allowing humanity time to escape the impending disaster.

    The press that is telling us what a horrific event this is that will change the world forever is the same press that was telling us that it would take the Gulf Coast 15 years to recover from the BP oil spill.

    They are media equivalent of the little boy who cried wolf.

    This post was edited by Trooperdel 3 years ago

  • BigBlairCock

    Snoop Cock said... (original post)

    The only water that can be returned to original water source would be the bleed off water in a system where cooling towers are used. Open end cooling systems with constant make-up continue cycling up solids as pure water is evaporated, therefore some water must be bled to reduce cycles and solids/conductivity so as not to scale up condensers, etc.. This water loss typically goes to sewer, etc...but could then be treated and re-used. Obviously the water that evaporates going through a cooling tower cannot be returned. You are correct...cooling ponds or lakes are sometimes used instead of a cooling towers, but the cooling process is still evaporation and with that being the case make-up is constant. What have I said previously that is off base?

    This entire statement is wrong.

    Evaporated water falls back to Earth as snow/rain/etc.....it isn't gone forever, simply converted into a gas.

    The water fed from the lake to cool the secondary side steam is put right back into the lake.

    The water in the closed loops is typically demineralized, so there is no scale up or electrical conductivity.

    For example:

    "North Anna Power Station uses water from Lake Anna to condense steam back to water inside the station. The water is returned to the lake slightly warmer (about 14 degrees) than when it was taken. The discharged water cools in a series of private cooling lagoons which comprise the Waste Heat Treatment Facility. "

    North Anna Power Station

    North Anna Power Station is located in Louisa County in central Virginia.

    http://www.dom.com/about/stations/nuclear/north-anna/index.jsp
    signature image

    Sometimes, in the course of human events, people get lit on fire.

  • So the salt water was already being pumped in as water to be treated for cooling usages?

    And now the salt water is being forced in without being treated, circumventi g treatment?

    Is that what is occurring?

    It appears that as is the case most times, a decision was made as to what eventualities were economically reasonable to prepAre for. In this case the designers either did not account for the possibility of such a quake, were aware and chose not to prepare for it, Or the steps they took to deal with the possibility were insufficient.

    Given the magnitude of the risk, and the relatively short period of time before the safety fratures of the plant was breached it bares considering that the worst case scenarios were not worst case and that additional safeguards are necessary in the practical rather thantheoretical sense.

    Of course that would cost money which will bother folks.

    It would seem the worst case remains that Tokyo and it's surrounding area become exposed to life altering levels of radiation.

  • BigBlairCock

    VBCock said... (original post)

    So the salt water was already being pumped in as water to be treated for cooling usages?

    And now the salt water is being forced in without being treated, circumventi g treatment?

    Is that what is occurring?

    It appears that as is the case most times, a decision was made as to what eventualities were economically reasonable to prepAre for. In this case the designers either did not account for the possibility of such a quake, were aware and chose not to prepare for it, Or the steps they took to deal with the possibility were insufficient.

    Given the magnitude of the risk, and the relatively short period of time before the safety fratures of the plant was breached it bares considering that the worst case scenarios were not worst case and that additional safeguards are necessary in the practical rather thantheoretical sense.

    Of course that would cost money which will bother folks.

    It would seem the worst case remains that Tokyo and it's surrounding area become exposed to life altering levels of radiation.

    Probably.

    I don't know the specifics of that particular plant.

    I do know that it is a boiling water reactor, so there should be 2 cooling loops, one closed within the plant, and another to cool the closed loop, which should consist of the ocean water being pulled in to cool the closed loop, then pumped back into the sea.

    Typically when building reactors in this country, geological testing is perfored to determine the worst earthquake that could hit the area. The plant is typically build to withstand more than the projected worst.

    Procedures are also developed in case of LOCA (loss of cooling accident). The normal "worst case" scenario that is normally planned for here is the "double guillotine" where basically, an entire section of the reactor coolant pipe falls out and all coolant is lost. This is where the safety injection I talked about previously comes into play. The goal at that point is to get coolant (water) into the reactor to submerge and cool the fuel rods as quickly as possible. Saving operability of the plant is secondary to safety of the public.

    Again, I'm talking about the United States here. I can't say I'm an expert on how the Japanese do things. However, nuclear guidelines are typically an international thing, especially since Chernobyl. One of the big problems at Chernobyl was the reactor building itself. Unlike the US, which uses thick concrete lined with stainless steel, at Chernobyl, the reactor building was basically a tin building, which didn't help contain the radiation released by the disaster at all.

    This post was edited by BigBlairCock 3 years ago

    signature image

    Sometimes, in the course of human events, people get lit on fire.

  • The NYT says the plants are GE Mark I designs whatever that means.

  • BigBlairCock

    VBCock said... (original post)

    The NYT says the plants are GE Mark I designs whatever that means.

    It's just a design type.

    Westinghouse and GE would probably be the most recognizable names..........kind of like Ford and Chevy.

    Using that analogy, Mark 1 = Camaro/Mustang/etc.

    Fourteen Westinghouse AP1000s are being planned by several utilities in the Southeastern US.

    This post was edited by BigBlairCock 3 years ago

    signature image

    Sometimes, in the course of human events, people get lit on fire.

  • Big Blair - where do I start:

    Lets go back to the beginning. You stated that these cooling systems were closed loops so they required very little make-up. No matter how you slice it, you could not possibly be more wrong. Whether a plant uses cooling towers or once-through cooling ponds for the heat exchange process, water on the condenser side is evaporated and that water needs to be made-up immediately - not whenever the gas in the atmosphere turns back into rain. LOL. I'd like to hear the nuclear plant engineer's response when you tell him that there is no need for make-up water - you're just going to count on rainfall making it back up. Hilarious.

    I haven't stated a single thing that you can point to is incorrect. I never said water on the closed loop side is prone to scale. Unless you have a leak, there is no water loss on that side and there is no evaporation, so naturally there would be no scale.

  • Trooperdel said... (original post)

    By the way, I will pay $100 to anyone who successfully diagrams all of the sentences in Black Flag's post.

    That would end up being, what, $2/hour of work?

    signature image signature image signature image

    Little hand says it's time to rock and roll.

  • On TOS, blackflag was "blackflag", what is blackflag's username here? I was unaware he posted here. He got banned on TOS for saying something to Calicock. Never found out why.

  • BigBlairCock

    Snoop Cock said... (original post)

    Big Blair - where do I start:

    Lets go back to the beginning. You stated that these cooling systems were closed loops so they required very little make-up. No matter how you slice it, you could not possibly be more wrong. Whether a plant uses cooling towers or once-through cooling ponds for the heat exchange process, water on the condenser side is evaporated and that water needs to be made-up immediately - not whenever the gas in the atmosphere turns back into rain. LOL. I'd like to hear the nuclear plant engineer's response when you tell him that there is no need for make-up water - you're just going to count on rainfall making it back up. Hilarious.

    I haven't stated a single thing that you can point to is incorrect. I never said water on the closed loop side is prone to scale. Unless you have a leak, there is no water loss on that side and there is no evaporation, so naturally there would be no scale.

    You're right. I said "the system", instead of the "primary side of the system". My mistake. I knew exactly what I meant, and used the wrong words.

    You're trying to be overly-technical, and catch me on wording mistakes instead of having true knowlege of the system. And at no point did I say there was no need for makeup water. You did, however, talk about the condenser being scaled up.

    You also want to mock the fact that I said evaporated water is returned to the earth as rain or snow. Well, that's a fact. If the plant is pulling water from the lake, the lake is refilled with rain. Otherwise, wouldn't the lake dry up?

    I have already proven your statement "The only water that can be returned to original water source would be the bleed off water in a system where cooling towers are used." was dead wrong.

    Here's a few questions for you:

    "Open end cooling systems with constant make-up continue cycling up solids as pure water is evaporated......."

    Why do you need makeup in an open ended system pulling water directly from a lake or ocean?

    When the water on the condenser side is evaporated, where does it go?

    When that water is made up, where does it come from?

    As I said previously, you do have some knowledge of nuclear power. Just not as much as I do.

    signature image

    Sometimes, in the course of human events, people get lit on fire.

  • "I knew exactly what I meant" lol. Look, the more you post the more obvious it becomes that, while you do seem to have some general working knowledge of a nuclear power plant, you don't know a whole lot about the inner working of the cooling systems. But I have enjoyed the conversation nevertheless.

    This is what you posted in a reply to Beatris earlier: "Your statement about power plants using "tremendous quantities of water" is inaccurate. You're making it sound like millions of gallons are sucked from the ocean (or lake, river, etc) never to return, and that is wrong.

    The reactor cooling system is a closed loop. Makeup water may need to occasionally be added, but not very often. When it is, the makeup water comes from tanks onsite. The water in these tanks is pulled from the local body of water and treated by chemistry to make it suitable for site use. Again, makeup water is not added on a constant basis."

    But now you admit that the open side of the heat exchange process, does in fact use quite a bit of make-up. So much, in fact, that (as you correctly stated) some plants actually have man-made lakes that are used as the make-up source. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. At this point you may want to consider changing the subject.

    This post was edited by Snoop Cock 3 years ago

  • BigBlairCock

    Really.

    This post was edited by BigBlairCock 3 years ago

    signature image

    Sometimes, in the course of human events, people get lit on fire.

  • BigBlairCock

    Snoop Cock said... (original post)

    "I knew exactly what I meant" lol. Look, the more you post the more obvious it becomes that, while you do seem to have some general working knowledge of a nuclear power plant, you don't know a whole lot about the inner working of the cooling systems. But I have enjoyed the conversation nevertheless.

    This is what you posted in a reply to Beatris earlier: "Your statement about power plants using "tremendous quantities of water" is inaccurate. You're making it sound like millions of gallons are sucked from the ocean (or lake, river, etc) never to return, and that is wrong.

    The reactor cooling system is a closed loop. Makeup water may need to occasionally be added, but not very often. When it is, the makeup water comes from tanks onsite. The water in these tanks is pulled from the local body of water and treated by chemistry to make it suitable for site use. Again, makeup water is not added on a constant basis."

    But now you admit that the open side of the heat exchange process, does in fact use quite a bit of make-up. So much, in fact, that (as you correctly stated) some plants actually have man-made lakes that are used as the make-up source. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. At this point you may want to consider changing the subject.

    Are you capable of deciphering English?

    My statement, as you see above is:

    "You're making it sound like millions of gallons are sucked from the ocean (or lake, river, etc) never to return, and that is wrong."

    If you suck water out of a lake and don't replace won't the lake dry up?

    Not to mention you're still insisting that the open end of the system uses makeup water.

    Makeup water is for the closed end, not the open end.

    And again, you've already been PROVEN wrong when you posted:

    "The only water that can be returned to original water source would be the bleed off water in a system where cooling towers are used."

    You keep trying to convince people I'm wrong, yet you haven't provided one fact to back it up. I have PROVEN you wrong more than once.

    I also notice you failed to answer any of the questions I asked. Probably because you can't.

    I have training in nuclear systems. Do you?

    signature image

    Sometimes, in the course of human events, people get lit on fire.

  • BigBlairCock

    DavidsonNCCock said... (original post)

    On TOS, blackflag was "blackflag", what is blackflag's username here? I was unaware he posted here. He got banned on TOS for saying something to Calicock. Never found out why.

    Aaron Burr Cock

    AKA Blackflag

    AKA The Rambling Drunk

    signature image

    Sometimes, in the course of human events, people get lit on fire.

  • BigBlairCock said... (original post)

    Aaron Burr Cock

    AKA Blackflag

    AKA The Rambling Drunk

    Blackflag is Aaron Burr Cock? GTFO, I actually enjoyed some of blackflag's posts on TOS. Here Aaron Burr is just a censored

  • Blair, the only thing you are proving is that you have no clue what you're talking about. You just said above: "make-up water is for the closed end, not the open end." Its hard to continue to have a technical conversation on this subject with someone that doesn't even understand the basics of heat transfer. The closed loop absolutely does not require and should not require any make-up unless there is a problem causing a leak. (Thus 'closed' loop) The open end of the system is the side that requires make-up, because this is the only side where there is water loss that would need to be made up. Now I see where you may be confused regarding a once through system where a cooling pond or lake is utilized instead of a cooling tower, but in system where cooling towers are used there should be no confusion whatsoever. The water runs down the tower, is cooled via evaporation, and that water is constantly being made-up via a water source. If there was no make-up the open end would eventually run dry. My training isn't specific to nuclear systems but I have an awful lot of training and experience in water treatment and heat transfer systems in power plants, industrial plants, etc...where I've worked as a water technologist and sales mgr. for a treatment company for 15 years.

    You can find a pretty good write up of how this works here: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Industrial_cooling_tower.

    Cheers.

    This post was edited by Snoop Cock 3 years ago

  • Trooperdel

    JDBCOCK said... (original post)

    Update March 16

    Thanks for posting those updates. They are very informative and well written for the understanding of the layman.

  • BigBlairCock

    Snoop Cock said... (original post)

    Blair, the only thing you are proving is that you have no clue what you're talking about. You just said above: "make-up water is for the closed end, not the open end." Its hard to continue to have a technical conversation on this subject with someone that doesn't even understand the basics of heat transfer. The closed loop absolutely does not require and should not require any make-up unless there is a problem causing a leak. (Thus 'closed' loop) The open end of the system is the side that requires make-up, because this is the only side where there is water loss that would need to be made up. Now I see where you may be confused regarding a once through system where a cooling pond or lake is utilized instead of a cooling tower, but in system where cooling towers are used there should be no confusion whatsoever. The water runs down the tower, is cooled via evaporation, and that water is constantly being made-up via a water source. If there was no make-up the open end would eventually run dry. My training isn't specific to nuclear systems but I have an awful lot of training and experience in water treatment and heat transfer systems in power plants, industrial plants, etc...where I've worked as a water technologist and sales mgr. for a treatment company for 15 years.

    You can find a pretty good write up of how this works here: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Industrial_cooling_tower.

    Cheers.

    My training IS specific to nuclear systems.

    Perhaps some of the mixup here is terminology. If so, I apologize. However, you repeatedly telling me I don't know what I'm talking about is way off-base.

    The makeup water I'm talking about is held in tanks onsite. You have storage tanks for Fire Water, Refueling Water, Makeup Water, and Demin Water. In an emergency, all of these tanks can be used to add water to the closed loop in case of water loss. Keep in mind this is not the normal function, but they can be used for backup cooling.

    The water pulled from the lake, ocean, or river is called Circ Water (circulating water), which is routed through the condenser to cool the condenser itself.

    The lake, ocean, or river is also known as the "ultimate heat sink" which is where the Japan plant is now. The water from the body of water is used to cool the plant to avoid a meltdown. There are requirements for how much water must be available in case of emergency. With lakes, they typically must be kept at a certain level.

    signature image

    Sometimes, in the course of human events, people get lit on fire.

  • BigBlairCock said... (original post)

    My training IS specific to nuclear systems.

    Perhaps some of the mixup here is terminology. If so, I apologize. However, you repeatedly telling me I don't know what I'm talking about is way off-base.

    The makeup water I'm talking about is held in tanks onsite. You have storage tanks for Fire Water, Refueling Water, Makeup Water, and Demin Water. In an emergency, all of these tanks can be used to add water to the closed loop in case of water loss. Keep in mind this is not the normal function, but they can be used for backup cooling.

    The water pulled from the lake, ocean, or river is called Circ Water (circulating water), which is routed through the condenser to cool the condenser itself.

    The lake, ocean, or river is also known as the "ultimate heat sink" which is where the Japan plant is now. The water from the body of water is used to cool the plant to avoid a meltdown. There are requirements for how much water must be available in case of emergency. With lakes, they typically must be kept at a certain level.

    oh yes, big bear, we all believe your being a nuclear scientist, truly we do

    tell us about global warming when you have time on your busy schedule....we all know how busy nuke-e-lur scientists are

    jethro bodine lives yall

    signature image signature image signature image