Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
i thought the use of salt water destroys future possible use of the reactor?
The couple articles I read on it basically says no one knows, because it had never been done before. The salt and other mineral deposits can build up in the reactor and cooling system, greatly hurting their efficiency. However, there is still a chance that they may be able to repair the reactors even after the sea water damage. If they go the concrete, sand and boron route they are guaranteed that the reactors will be permanently damaged.
The couple articles I read on it basically says no one knows, because it had never been done before. The salt and other mineral deposits can build up in the reactor and cooling system, greatly hurting their efficiency. However, there is still a chance that they may be able to repair the reactors even after the sea water damage. If they go the concrete, sand and boron route they are guaranteed that the reactors will be permanently damaged.
I honestly think at this point the only goal japan (both the govt and the tokyo electric) cares about is to stop the reactors. I dont think trying to salvage the plant is even remotely on anyone's mind.
If pouring concrete/sand/boron would stop this whole mess i am sure they would have done it a long time ago. Can you imagine the country/world's reaction if they know the whole situation could be stopped but instead were not because the govt/company are trying to salvage the plants?
There must be some reason pouring concrete is not feasible, the whole japan is pretty much in full panic / shutdown mode, the damage to the economy is tremendous nevermind the social/morale aspects.
I am 100% certain if there is a proven method that will stop the reactors, they would have done it a long time ago.
I am still in favor of nuclear energy for the simple fact we do not have a practical alternative. Solar/wind/water all sounds great, until you realize how little they produce and how much you need to invest into.
Coal/oil/gas are all non-renewable, natural gas is probably our best bet other than nuclear right now because we have so much of it.
Hopefully within the next 100 years, we will have the technology to efficiently and cheaply harvest solar/wind/water to make them practical and viable.
The only problem with nuclear is it's something we simply do not have control/understanding of yet and unlike other disasters, their effect lasts for generations and has potential doomsday impact.
I honestly think at this point the only goal japan (both the govt and the tokyo electric) cares about is to stop the reactors. I dont think trying to salvage the plant is even remotely on anyone's mind.
If pouring concrete/sand/boron would stop this whole mess i am sure they would have done it a long time ago. Can you imagine the country/world's reaction if they know the whole situation could be stopped but instead were not because the govt/company are trying to salvage the plants?
There must be some reason pouring concrete is not feasible, the whole japan is pretty much in full panic / shutdown mode, the damage to the economy is tremendous nevermind the social/morale aspects.
I am 100% certain if there is a proven method that will stop the reactors, they would have done it a long time ago.
Everything I've read says that the concrete/sand/boron move is the final step. Though, it is not usually done until a reactor has actually melted down. Until that happens there is still a chance to control it with other methods. Also, it isn't exactly a simple operation and would require specialized equipment and a lot of time and money to do.
So, it is the last ditch solution, but won't be tried until there are no other options left.
I am still in favor of nuclear energy for the simple fact we do not have a practical alternative. Solar/wind/water all sounds great, until you realize how little they produce and how much you need to invest into.
Coal/oil/gas are all non-renewable, natural gas is probably our best bet other than nuclear right now because we have so much of it.
Hopefully within the next 100 years, we will have the technology to efficiently and cheaply harvest solar/wind/water to make them practical and viable.
The only problem with nuclear is it's something we simply do not have control/understanding of yet and unlike other disasters, their effect lasts for generations and has potential doomsday impact.
i don't think solar/wind power is 100 years away, and we are harvesting water power all across the country quite a bit already.
the main point in the linked article is the space it would take to make wind or solar power plants to similar capacity of a nuclear power plant. despite nuclear costing much more, the space is occupies is much smaller. but, i think people are completely forgetting that we have a lot of "unused" space across the country such as office building roof tops, malls, wal-marts, etc. let alone house roofs. i don't think wind or solar can "replace" nuclear, but they certainly can offer a much larger chunk of power than we are currently utilizing. the whole concept of a centralized power plant that then distributes to the grid to me is old way of doing things. people need to start thinking outside the box a little.
My friend did solar on his house, even with NJ subsidizing(tax credit) almost 50% of the cost, his breakeven is still around 10-15 years which is about the lifespan of the current solar panels. Now add in the cost of recycling/destroying those solar panels after their shelf life. It's not economically practical yet without heavy subsidy.
I believe the best residential panels have a yield close to 20% but is very expensive $, while the cheaper ones are only 10%. I read a article a while back stating it needs to reach around 40% yield while keeping the price at mass market level to be economically viable without any subsidy.
We are long way from there unless there is some breakthrough in solar cell technology.
it does look pretty cool though, when you can monitor how much free KW you are getting from the sun from an app on your iphone in real time
My friend did solar on his house, even with NJ subsidizing(tax credit) almost 50% of the cost, his breakeven is still around 10-15 years which is about the lifespan of the current solar panels. Now add in the cost of recycling/destroying those solar panels after their shelf life. It's not economically practical yet without heavy subsidy.
I believe the best residential panels have a yield close to 20% but is very expensive $, while the cheaper ones are only 10%. I read a article a while back stating it needs to reach around 40% yield while keeping the price at mass market level to be economically viable without any subsidy.
We are long way from there unless there is some breakthrough in solar cell technology.
it does look pretty cool though, when you can monitor how much free KW you are getting from the sun from an app on your iphone in real time
i don't know who your friend went through or when he did it, but i personally know small companies that have done solar on their roofs and have 4-5 year breakeven points, with the state and federal subsidies. even know, i'm looking into it, and i could eliminate my electric bill entirely, and even sell back to the utility. alternatively, i could lease them, where the company takes half the $ generated, and i'd save about $50/month, at no out of pocket cost to me.
i don't know who your friend went through or when he did it, but i personally know small companies that have done solar on their roofs and have 4-5 year breakeven points, with the state and federal subsidies. even know, i'm looking into it, and i could eliminate my electric bill entirely, and even sell back to the utility. alternatively, i could lease them, where the company takes half the $ generated, and i'd save about $50/month, at no out of pocket cost to me.
Dunno about lease, but the idea is you pay your electric bill from the solar panel, then sell the surplus back to the electric companies sending the generated power directly back into the grid, i think they then give you some credit like stocks that you sell on the open market for money. It's a good system, i am saying the one time cost of the solar panel, installation, etc.. vs the electricity they generate, isnt practical yet.
not sure how those companies manage to get 5 year return, maybe commercial tax credit is different? All i know is the processes is very complicated, i remember my friend would tell me all the stuff he has to do to qualify and get the credit/loan, was like reading the IRS manual. And they also only allow you to install limited # of panels that can be subsidized based on your past electric usage etc..
All I know, is that there is enough energy to power the whole state if they build off shore windmills 16 miles at sea. Personally, I think it's worth it, because it will provide renewable energy, jobs in poor coastal areas, and habitats for fish. In fact, if could allow for fish farms to be created at sea, which would most likely make fish more affordable and would put wild populations less in danger. Plus, the fish would be much healthy at these sea farms than traditional "pond based" fish farming.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
