being as I am so dumb - can someone explain this to me?

[shankle]

Atomic plants are built by engineers which know way more than I do....
In earthquake prone nations and by the Pacific oceans why in the world
would they build an Atomic plant almost at sea level???
I realize that it would cost a bundle to build a pad up about 150 ft. with
a sloping concrete wall facing the ocean.
This way some of the safety features maybe would not fail.
Wouldn't that be more cost effective (accountants) than what's going on
now???

[oex]

They pump water around it to keep it cool so it was a 'cost saving' attempt technically I think.... I cant remember the full 'fact' but it had something to do with pumping sea water around the plant however I picked this up from a random news report so this is dubious fact :lol....

[baltoro]

We have several Nuclear Power Plants in California, that are right on the coast, and both within the region considered part of the San Andreas Fault Zone.
I think the concept is that the nuclear fuel heats water (pressurized) that in turn powers huge turbines that generate electricity for the grid. Being right on the ocean means that they can then dump the water that has been heated (but, is not radioactive) directly into the ocean. Also, seawater can be used conveniently for cooling. We had lots of protests here from concerned citizens over the proximity to the San Andreas Fault of both the San Onofre, and Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plants, and, they engineered them to withstand whatever earthquake magnitude was considered probable.

[shankle]

Agreed.
But not tidal waves caused by  an offshore earthquake.

[MichaelW]

Unlike many parts of the world, we have a tsunami warning system that will provide advance notice that a tsunami is coming.

[oex]

Unlike many parts of the world, we have a tsunami warning system that will provide advance notice that a tsunami is coming.

[raymond]

Power plants, whether using nuclear or fossil fuel, require a lot of cold water to condense the steam as it exits the electricity producing turbines. The condensed steam is then recovered as pure water and recycled to the reactor (or furnace) to generate steam again. (In nuclear power plants, that pure water may be radioactive.)

The heated cooling water is generally sent to cooling towers where it is contacted by a flow of air and cooled by evaporation. That is creating the plume you see coming out of those cooling towers when the water vapor gets in contact with the colder air at the exit. (In nuclear plants, that cooling water is never exposed to the nuclear fuel rods and is thus not radioactive.)

In the process, the salts in the cooling water get concentrated and part of it must thus be disposed off continuously and replaced with fresh water to prevent overconcentration of those salts. Thus the need for a large supply of water and also a place to dispose of the concentrated cooling water. Oceanside is thus an ideal place.

Hydroelectric power plants also need a very large supply of water but for a completely different reason. :8)

[dedndave]

there is also a need for "heavy water" used to stabilize and control the nuclear reaction
heavy water is made up of water molecules with hydrogen atoms that are an isotope
a normal hydrogen atom has a proton and no neutron
the isotope "deuterium" has a proton and a neutron
heavy water may be found in ordinary every-day water
something like 1 in 6000 molecules of regular water is "heavy"
they can isolate the heavy water molecules by electrolysis (repeatedly)
but, it is mighty handy to have a large supply of water on hand to get the 1 in 6000 molecules   :bg

[FORTRANS]

Hi,

   Power plants also tend to be close by the users of the power
as long distance transmission is costly in terms of both money
and efficiency.  So if a lot of people live on or near a fault, you
can expect their power plants to be there as well.  Newer kinds
of technology is improving things though.

   As a side note, a PBS show on Niagara Falls noted that the
first power plant there was built by Tesla and most people
did not think it could power a city 30 miles away.  But it did
due to alternating current and a relatively high voltage for the
time.

Cheers,

Steve N.

[xanatose]

Hi,

   Power plants also tend to be close by the users of the power
as long distance transmission is costly in terms of both money
and efficiency.

A pity that Tesla is not alive today. Im sure he would have found an efficient way of doing it.

[Tight_Coder_Ex]

Hindsight is always 20/20 and I'm sure those engineers did contemplate many factors before and during construction, but unlike software engineering you can't easily go back and tweak something below the foundation with compromising the rest.  So of all the combination and permutations, one must resort to reasonable probabilities.  Most have lifestyles that are completely dependent upon amenities such as power and natural gas.  Where I live and as we had -40C weather for almost 3 weeks last winter, if the power was to go out for 3 or 4 days, catastrophe would ensue.  The point is and due to cost considerations 1:8000 people here would be suitably equipped, the rest would have experience major damage as all their plumbing would have froze.  The reality is in my 60 yrs of existence, I've only experienced one 9 hr power outage in winter and it wasn't that cold.  This complacency is what makes us compromise for the sake of saving money and that exact dynamic exists ubiquitously it seems.

[dedndave]

yah - and.....
it's Japan - not like they have billions of acres to pick from

[FORTRANS]

A pity that Tesla is not alive today. I'm sure he would have found an efficient way of doing it.

Hi,

   Actually, efficient methods methods for long distance transmission
exist.  However they are expensive and somewhat complex.  If
they were cheaper, large scale solar power and wind power would
be much more practical than they are currently.

   Tesla actually had a plan for distribution of electricity via his
famous "coil" or generator.  It was a bit "outside the box" and
at the time, completely impractical.  From some odd commentary
on TV shows, it seems that some of the current "out of the box"
'characters' would like another go at trying his idea out.  Seems
very unlikely to be a viable idea to me.  Not to mention _very_
expensive to try it out if one even wanted to.  But still an amusing,
interesting, and creative concept that was (and still is? he he)
ahead of its time.

Cheers,

Steve N.

[dedndave]

i will agree that it was a creative idea
beyond that, it has little merit because it is extremely inefficient
the field strength at a given point is inversely proportional to the square of the distance   :bg

as for transfering energy over great distance...
what do you guys think those high-tension lines are ?
they are very high voltage transmission lines
by "transmission lines", i mean they are carefully designed to be efficient
they are viewed mathimatically as a series of "lumped elements" of inductance and capacitance
and, using a higher voltage means a lower current for an equivalent power level
a lower current means a lower IR drop - lower loss

[FORTRANS]

Hi Dave,

   Yes, inefficient.  However I think he thought that the field
would follow the the crust of the Earth, not sure why, which
would lower the losses somewhat.  Still horrible in my estimation.
I was using "out of the box" as a euphemism.

   The current high tension lines do exist and do work.  There
was an article in the November 2010 Scientific American that is
titled "How to Build the Supergrid" that points out some require-
ments for upgrading our (North American/USA) electrical
transmission grid.  The author is concerned with losses using the
older lines and building new lines with older technology and
advocates using new lines using newer technology to do the upgrade.
Gains in efficiency seen to require still higher voltages and DC currents.
An interesting read if your library carries the magazine.  An
expensive infrastructure upgrade that will have to done in any
event sooner or later.  Pity that the Republicans dislike building
infrastructure and baulk.  Pity the Democrates can't think ahead.
Delaying things just increases the total cost.

Cheers,

Steve N.