Why not use solar power as a fail safe second to a generator for nuclear reactors?
by admin on Sunday, May 8th, 2011 | 4 Comments
I’m talking about just enough energy for charging a huge battery that can be used only in situations such as this… If this wouldn’t work, maybe wind turbines?
Not a replacement… A backup. Well, I guess I understand what you’re saying. If it’s not safe, it’s out of the question altogether.
NOT everyone lives having the sun around the whole year so having just solar energy will mean that some cities will have no power during the winter
hope that’s what you wanted to know
Because it isn’t a fail safe.
http://solarsafety.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/sandiegofire.jpg
I am paid the big bucks to be sure to build to safety code so that is as unlikely as possible to happen. Otherwise I would be fired.
The problem is simple. On a calm night, you would not have much power at all – or on a calm cloudy/rainy day. That means you cannot count on it.
You need something that will work at ANY time, and very reliably. Of course, nothing is 100% reliable, so one layer of back-up is not enough in a case like this. But you still want each level to be completely self sufficient and not dependent on variable conditions.
If you mean to power the cooling systems of the reactor, that wouldn’t have helped in Japan. Diesel generators are every bit as reliable, but they were on low ground and got swamped by the tidal wave. Solar would have been wiped out just the same in that location.
I’m guessing that the power lines also got wiped out, otherwise, the navy could have flown in some portable generators and simply hooked up.