Sheriff Responds to AOPA

On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:15:54 AM UTC-7, Peter Higgs wrote:
At 05:38 21 January 2013, GC wrote:

On 21/01/2013 11:46, Bill Palmer wrote:

The reality is that the nuclear containment domes are virtually

impenetrable by aircraft. I recall seeing a video study wherein they

ran an F-4 (or something similar) into a section of one and the

airplane was vaporized while the cement structure was unscathed. The

public doesn't quite understand the fragile nature of an airframe,

and that ramming a nuclear facility with one is about a worrisome as

pelting it with eggs.





Can't blame people really. Everybody knows now how fragile skyscrapers

can be when rammed by a 767 and, to most people, large tower buildings

look to be at least as solid as a nuclear dome. That's the reality to

be dealt with.



GC





I think two facts remain...



Even a 66% efficient power station produces 33% waste heat. So if it is a

100 MW station, there is a nice 33 MW Thermal continuously rising on the

lee side.



In the UK (world leaders in democracy?) ALL Nuclear Facilities have a 2

mile and 2000ft Restricted Safety Zone around them.



You can't have your cake and eat it.... Please decide.



phiggs

A typical power plant these days is between 1,500 and 5,000 MW. Those powered by fossil-fuel are less than 40% efficient, so you may have 1,000 to 3,000 MW of heat available for your thermal.

Our local nuke here in Arizona is 3,000 MW and probably has 1,000 MW going up the cooling towers. I've never been low enough over it to really check it out, however.

Mike

Mike