QUOTE: Originally posted by Overmod 88, what you said was even more than I was 'fishing' for. Well said. (And well run, too.) If I may humbly suggest, however, there ARE cumulative nuclear effects on the structure of nuclear powerplants -- neutron embrittlement and dissociated-water hydrogen embrittlement of the metals in the primary loop of a PWR being one example. I would like to think that that's what Matt's thinking of, rather than some extrapolation of building shine. Point to remember here is that the original plant engineers understood this, staff has been monitoring it throughout the plants' operating lives, and the decisions to decommission (and yes, whether or not to extend operating licenses) take these factors into account. Never assume, even for a moment, that nuclear people are fools, crooks, or morons. It was my understanding that decommissioning of most of the plants built in the '60s was already scheduled, with the forward-going effects on baseline supply being understood by the generating companies, and in fact some of the earlier plants have already been shut down and their materials either processed or safely stored. Can you tell me which types of plant (e.g., manufacturer or timeframe of construction) were engineered in ways which allow their extended operation -- including the indefinite extensions you mention? (In particular, has it been found that BWRs have greater structural effects than PWRs?) I concur that most of the plant's equipment is not subject to radiation effects -- but the steam cycle in PWRs (and the BWRs I'm familiar with) involves such low levels of superheat/reheat that they are impractical to run with anything other than nuclear reactors. Meanwhile, I also understood that most of the modern nuclear technologies were essentially gas-cooled, and were not restricted to the high-volume-at-low-heat-rise cycle that the water-cooled reactors use. So in a sense Matt's argument about 'valueless' has some validity: not in the nuclear-waste sense, but in the salvage sense... certainly as applied to a hypothetical system that packages a NSSS of required power density within locomotive loading gauge.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Valleyline Back in the late 50's/60's Pratt & Whitney was actively researching and developing aircraft propulsion that would use heat generated by an onboard nuclear reactor. They actually built a separate plant in Connecticut for the project, but it was ultimately shelved. I assume weight was the major factor in its demise.
QUOTE: Originally posted by underworld http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/watercar/h20car2.htm underworld [:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]
QUOTE: Originally posted by petitnj As oil prices rise, the advantage of rail over trucks continues to improve. Railroads spend about 12% of their income on diesel fuel, trucks about 30%. Bring on the $4/gallon, it will save the rails.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- K.P.’s absolute “theorem” from early, early childhood that he has seen over and over and over again: Those that CAUSE a problem in the first place will act the most violently if questioned or exposed.
QUOTE: Originally posted by K. P. Harrier QUOTE: Originally posted by petitnj As oil prices rise, the advantage of rail over trucks continues to improve. Railroads spend about 12% of their income on diesel fuel, trucks about 30%. Bring on the $4/gallon, it will save the rails. “It will save the rails”? They are drowning in business now! I say, in all due respect folks, America needs to be saved! Economists are already saying the high gas prices could send the economy downward.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Hugh Jampton QUOTE: Originally posted by underworld http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/watercar/h20car2.htm underworld [:D][:D][:D][:D][:D] I've never read such male bovine excrement in all my life. It just goes to show that anyone can put anything on the internet.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.