In Fukushima they didn't want to use large lift pumps for cooling so 
they cut down the land to lower the lift needed.    There is a stake in 
Japanese on the hill next to the plant that says, "Build Nothing Below 
This Point"   it is about 100' above the plant.

PG&E'S Diablo Canyon is 85' above the ocean for the base level.   They 
have HUGE pumps to lift the seawater to the condensers, and it free 
falls back to the outlet cove, the supply conduits are 15' in diameter, 
two for each unit.    I don't remember how many 10's of thousands of 
gallons per minute for the flow rate.     The topography of the ocean 
doesn't lend itself to large waves on the western Pacific, only saw 
about 6-10" from that quake.

pat


On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Ahne Oosterhof wrote:

> Just to set the record straight, the Fukushima reactors survived the
> earthquake.
> What did them in was lack of emergency power to shut them down 
> properly, as
> the emergency supply was located in the basement which got flooded by 
> the
> tsunami.
> Build the nukes on high ground!
> Ahne.
> PS: Switzerland decided against nuclear power because of the Fukushima
> disaster!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Tellefsen
> Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 7:59 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [TN] NTC - I believe ... (my credo)
>
> Nukes will be necessary in the future for clean energy production. 
> However, we need to remember
> that nuclear power plants are potentially disastrously dangerous, and 
> must
> be run very carefully by trained and conscientious personnel.  They 
> also
> need to be placed in locations not especially subject to earthquakes,
> tsunamis or hurricanes.
>
> Everything costs something.
>
> Karen Tellefsen
>
>
>
> From:   Robert Kondner <[log in to unmask]>
> To:     <[log in to unmask]>, Date:   08/26/2014 10:41 AM
> Subject:        Re: [TN] NTC - I believe ... (my credo)
> Sent by:        TechNet <[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>  Renewable energy sources tend to be expensive and from what I read 
> can only
> be counted on for 20% of total usage.  That leaves a huge hunk to be
> provided by "Large Infrastructure" producers. (Fossil fuel or nukes.) 
> I do
> love saving energy, that is a win / win if there ever was one.
>
>  Batteries cost so much they are almost useless here. Electro chemical
> systems are not exactly "Clean".
>  If that 20% limit for renewable is real I think that means nuke 
> plants for
> the bulk (breeder ???) is all we have left?
>
> Any Thoughts?
>
> Bob K.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Pete
> Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:12 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [TN] NTC - I believe ... (my credo)
>
> Some good answers here, led me to do some more research
>
> About 1/3 of the US corn crop goes towards livestock feed.
> 13% is exported.
> 40% is used for ethanol production
> That leaves 14% for food and beverage (including oils, syrups, sugars)
>
> Ethanol is being used in some cases to replace MTBE, to increase 
> octane
> rating.  Why?  Because of it's resistance to ignition.  This is  very 
> tiny
> percentage of the gasoline blend.  E10 and E85 are ethanol as an 
> attempt to
> replace fossil fuels.  However, that resistance to ignition, when used 
> at
> 10% or 86% is what makes it an inefficient fuel, increasing 
> consumption by
> 3% or 25% respectively.  It takes one unit of fossil fuel to generate
> 1.3 units of (less efficient) ethanol fuel.
>
> Since 1980, the ethanol industry has received $45B in government 
> subsidies.
>
> The windmills don't seem so bad anymore.
>
> Pete
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud 
> service.
> For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or 
> [log in to unmask]
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
> ***** Please note that my E-Mail address has changed *****
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud 
> service.
> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
> ____________________________________________________________________
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud 
> service.
> For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or 
> [log in to unmask] 
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud 
> service.
> For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or 
> [log in to unmask] 
> ______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask] 
______________________________________________________________________