Re: Norm's final words on dead fish

["Franz Schoenhofer" <franz.schoenhofer@CHELLO.AT>]

Private:

Franz Schoenhofer

Habicherg. 31/7

A-1160 Vienna, AUSTRIA

Phone: -43 699 11681319

e-mail: franz.schoenhofer@chello.at



Office:

MR Dr. Franz Schoenhofer

Federal Ministry for Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management

Dep. I/8U, Radiation Protection

Radetzkystr. 2

A-1031 Vienna, AUSTRIA

phone: +43-1-71100-4458

fax: +43-1-7122331

e-mail: franz.schoenhofer@bmu.gv.at







-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----

Von: RuthWeiner@AOL.COM <RuthWeiner@AOL.COM>

An: ncohen12@HOME.COM <ncohen12@HOME.COM>; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

<radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

Datum: Samstag, 17. November 2001 04:40

Betreff: Re: Norm's final words on dead fish





>In a message dated 11/16/01 1:49:56 PM Mountain Standard Time,

>ncohen12@HOME.COM writes:

>



----------------------------------------------------------------------------

------



I find it hard to understand, why the nonsense (yes: the nonsense)

distributed by a declared antinuclear activist (Norman Cohen) is worth to

RADSAFErs to be answered in scientific detail. Norman Cohen, who makes his

living from anti-nuclear activism and obviously enjoys to fool us RADSAFErs

by putting up all these well known and again and again answered arguments

again and again is in my opinion nothing more than a pain in the neck.



Therefore, Ruth, I find it hard to understand, why you give him the honour

of such a long comment.



Franz



















>

>> 2a) Part of the concern is the volume of water used by the intake

>> system. Salem Units 1 and 2 together use 3.024 BILLION gallons of water

>> EACH DAY to cool the plants. In one year, water equal to the entire

>> volume of the Delaware Bay is used in cooling Salem 1/2.  I suggest that

>> other examples of cooling water use many have mentioned, do not use such

>> tremendous volumes of water.

>>

>> (3) Thermal shock; There is a difference of about 10 degrees F between

>> intake and exhaust water. This is high enough to kill marine life. No

>> one, including PSEG, argues this.

>

>As it happens, we deal with thermal water pollution in our textbook

>(Vesilind, Peirce, and Weiner Environmental Engineering) and I taught water

>quality and the associated lab for a couple of decades (that's by way of

>qualification).  All states have some sort of regulation governing the

>temperature of water that is released into a natural waterway, and that

also

>depends on the flow rate of the waterway -- how much water is available and

>at what ambient temperature , for mixing with the hot effluent so that the

>ambient temperature standard is not exceeded,  In a nuclear plant (just as

in

>any thermal generating plant) as much of the heat as possible is used to

>generate steam to turn the turbines to produce the electricity.  At

present,

>coal plants are, on the average, about 20% more efficient (in terms of

>conversion of heat to electricity) than nukes, but that is largely a matter

>of technological refinement.   Nukes (like anything else) (a) try to use as

>much of the generated heat as possible, and (b) must abide by the effluent

>and ambient temperature standards in any case.

>

>Moreover, it is not the total amount of water that any single industry uses

>(and it's not necessary to capitalize either -- we can read "billions" just

>as easily as "BILLIONS")    but the amount of water used for cooling

relative

>to the amount of water in the stream (First Law of Thermodynamics -- the

law

>of conservation of energy).  I used to live in Bellingham, WA, where a pulp

>mill, a chlor-alkali plant, an alcohol plant, a primary aluminum smelter,

and

>four oil refineries all emitted  process cooling water into Bellingham Bay,

>which fortunately is pretty big.  I might point out that the fish loved the

>warm water!

>

>Moreover, the Second Law suggests that the greater the temperature

difference

>between the high end  and the low end of an engine cycle, the more

efficient

>the engine. This again bolsters the argument that any thermal energy

>conversion process uses the maximum amount of heat and rejects the minimum

>amount.\

>

>Cold water does damage too.  Washington State water quality regulations,

for

>example, address the "too cold" question as well as the "too hot" question.

>

>I would only reiterate that hot water effluent is a weak (there.  is that

>better than stupid?) argument to bring against nuclear power plants, and

>bringing it hardly bolsters the anti-nukes' credibility.

>

>Maury -- what else are you serving at the fish fry?

>

>Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.

>ruthweiner@aol.com

>





************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.