AMAZING ENVY photos

A news item (4.00 / 1)

from 8/14/1976:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said it would not issue new licenses to build or fully operate nuclear power plants until it completed a study of certain environmental risks. The study, dealing with possible hazards in reprocessing spent nuclear fuel and handling wastes, was expected to be finished by the end of the following month. The announcement was in response to a July decision of a federal court which said the NRC didn't adequately consider these questions when it issued licenses to two plants in Vermont and Michigan.

Usually when people are sad, they don't do anything. They just cry over their condition. But when they get angry, they bring about a change.

---

by: kestrel9000 @ Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 16:25:06 PM UTC

If it weren't so graphically painful ... (4.00 / 2)

I'd be tempted to make (actually, briefly posted then deleted such a reference, but here it is again, reframed) a humorous reference to Fawlty Towers (also here).

But this is plain flabbergasting, especially when contrasted with the words of the Vermont Yankee spokesman.

Good work getting these all-too-sobering photos. Suggests what would happen with a major breach: the reassuring spokesman issues similarly rosy-but-out-of-touch-with-reality statements from Rutland or Burlington, keeping the rest of the county in their homes.

NanuqFC
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. -- George Orwell

---

by: NanuqFC @ Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 19:05:21 PM UTC

Holy Cow! (4.00 / 1)

That's quite a sag they've got there...

Beware the Everyday Brutality of the Averted Gaze

---

by: mataliandy @ Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 22:11:58 PM UTC

here's what I see: (0.00 / 0)

---

by: jane @ Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 23:38:40 PM UTC

here's what I see (0.00 / 0)

a pipe that's come apart, water which should go from one side to the other, cascading to the ground. A wooden (?) framework, that seemed to hold up the pipe, broken,  and a wall acting like a shield, which might keep out birds, rain and snow, or people?, shattered.

What are we really looking at?

1) what's in the water? what is its temperature? where was it supposed to go? what was its purpose?
2) where did it go when it hit the ground? is it dangerous?
3) is the scaffolding really wood? or perhaps it is steel and just looks like wood from a distance.
4) what is that wall? what is its purpose? How significant is its collapse?

Is it like my garden hose springing a leak? some water strewn about- or it is much more serious?

---

by: jane @ Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 23:49:22 PM UTC

(got to learn me some blog formatting tools...) (0.00 / 0)

What are we really looking at?

1) what's in the water? what is its temperature? where was it supposed to go? what was its purpose?

  2/3's of the energy produced by ENVY's nuclear reactor is waste heat. Only 1/3 of the energy is turned into electricity. Much of that waste heat is transferred to this water, and then into the atmosphere and the Connecticut River.

  This structure is one of two used to cool water so it's not quite so hot when it's put back into the Connecticut River. The temperature will vary. I'd have to dig a bit to find the temp range for this water.

2) where did it go when it hit the ground? is it dangerous?

  The water should not be radioactive. It probably wound up in the river.

3) is the scaffolding really wood?

  Yes, it's really wood.

4) what is that wall? what is its purpose? How significant is its collapse?

  I believe the "wall" channels falling water. Exposure of the water to air results in transfer of heat from the water to the air. It's kind of like a big "swamp cooler" like people use in Arizona.

Is it like my garden hose springing a leak? some water strewn about- or it is much more serious?

  It's much more serious. Like the transformer fire a few years ago, it shows that Entergy Nuclear is not keeping up with maintenance necessary to prevent catastrophic failure of essential parts of the system.

---

by: ed @ Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 17:35:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

all that extra heat (0.00 / 0)

why isn't it being used to create more energy?

If I can come up with some possibilities (geo- thermal, wind,) using heat exchangers, and can see some of the difficulties, shouldn't the scientists be ahead of me?

This, of course, assumes that nuclear energy is desirable - a different issue.

---

by: jane @ Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 20:01:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]