|
Home > Archive > Home Repair forum > February 2008 > 1950s Chest Freezer Refurbish
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
1950s Chest Freezer Refurbish
|
|
| cybercat 2008-02-23, 8:25 pm |
| This might be OT--is there an alt.refurbish.old appliances?
We have a cool old freezer, a GE Hotpoint 20 that came with our house. I
love it! It still works great, and I like old stuff. It matches the 1949
fridge in the same utility room, enamel and chrome, very cool. (Also ...
both have run nonstop for the ten years we have had this house, whereas the
new, plastic and crap side-by-side we bought five years ago lasted three
years.)
Thing is, condensation has made the top of it rust. The former owner
obviously did some repainting or something at some point, but it has rusted
through again.
I have it defrosted and cleaned, opened up and drying out now.
If you were going to refinish the top of this thing, how would you do it? I
want to really seal the rust the best I can, then paint white like the rest
of the thing.
Thank you in advance for any help.
| |
| Nate Nagel 2008-02-23, 8:25 pm |
| cybercat wrote:
> This might be OT--is there an alt.refurbish.old appliances?
>
> We have a cool old freezer, a GE Hotpoint 20 that came with our house. I
> love it! It still works great, and I like old stuff. It matches the 1949
> fridge in the same utility room, enamel and chrome, very cool. (Also ...
> both have run nonstop for the ten years we have had this house, whereas the
> new, plastic and crap side-by-side we bought five years ago lasted three
> years.)
>
> Thing is, condensation has made the top of it rust. The former owner
> obviously did some repainting or something at some point, but it has rusted
> through again.
> I have it defrosted and cleaned, opened up and drying out now.
>
> If you were going to refinish the top of this thing, how would you do it? I
> want to really seal the rust the best I can, then paint white like the rest
> of the thing.
>
> Thank you in advance for any help.
>
There is no "seal." You remove the lid, remove the seal/handle/hardware
etc, take it to a body shop, and have them media blast it and refinish
it like a car body.
You *could* brush a coat of POR-15 on it which is one of only a few
products available that will actually seal rust, but then when you try
to wetsand it to prep for paint, you'll discover that it's also hard as
nails and doesn't sand well.
Good luck with your project, I agree with you, 40s/50s stuff is cool and
worth saving. I only wish the previous owners of my house had felt the
same way... (the old kitchen cabinets in the laundry room are much more
to my liking than the ones in the kitchen...)
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
| |
| Edwin Pawlowski 2008-02-23, 9:25 pm |
|
"cybercat" <cyberpurrs@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> If you were going to refinish the top of this thing, how would you do it?
> I want to really seal the rust the best I can, then paint white like the
> rest of the thing.
>
> Thank you in advance for any help.
I'd sand it and use appliance paint if I wanted to make it look good. Or
have a pro do it and it will look factory new..
OTOH, I'd scrap it out and save a bundle of money on my electric bill. The
newspaper had an article about old appliances. One family cut their bill in
half by getting rid of an old freezer and replacing it with a new, albeit
smaller one. A few years ago I got rid of an old 12 cu ft refrigerator in
the basement and replaced it with a new 18 cu. ft. frost free. Electric bill
went down $10 a month. Paid for itself in just over 3 years.
| |
| Edwin Pawlowski 2008-02-23, 9:25 pm |
|
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote in message
> Good luck with your project, I agree with you, 40s/50s stuff is cool and
> worth saving.
Worth saving for appearance, NOT worth savings for the cost of operation.
Most older appliances cost many times to operate compared to the new stuff.
| |
|
| Wow cool stuff. I would love to see pictures before or after.
We love old cool stuff.... our phone has a dial on it our coffee pot is from
the early 50's and we camp in trailers from the 30's through the 50's which
can have cool old appliances in them that often times work just fine.
www.vintagetrailersofrsale.com
cm
"cybercat" <cyberpurrs@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fpqjga$pde$1@aioe.org...
> This might be OT--is there an alt.refurbish.old appliances?
>
> We have a cool old freezer, a GE Hotpoint 20 that came with our house. I
> love it! It still works great, and I like old stuff. It matches the 1949
> fridge in the same utility room, enamel and chrome, very cool. (Also ...
> both have run nonstop for the ten years we have had this house, whereas
> the new, plastic and crap side-by-side we bought five years ago lasted
> three years.)
>
> Thing is, condensation has made the top of it rust. The former owner
> obviously did some repainting or something at some point, but it has
> rusted through again.
> I have it defrosted and cleaned, opened up and drying out now.
>
> If you were going to refinish the top of this thing, how would you do it?
> I want to really seal the rust the best I can, then paint white like the
> rest of the thing.
>
> Thank you in advance for any help.
>
| |
|
|
I have recently been measuring the power consumed by a 1969 and a 2008
fridge freezer of nearly equal size, about 14 c ft for each unit. I
used two of those power measuring meters that are available these
days.
The 1969 unit uses about 10% more power than the newer unit.
This isn't saving a lot of money since the new unit's power
consumption is approximately equal to a 40W bulb running continuously.
(Btw this is typical a power consumption of modern refrigerators.)
At 18 c Kw/Hr a mere 4 W saving per hour isn't ever going to amount to
much money.
Refrigerators/freezers typically use less than a 60W bulb running
continuously.
At 18 cents/KwHr this costs $ (60/1000) X 24 X365 X 0.18 pa
= $94.60 pa
Here in Australia refrigerators and freezers typically cost $900 or so
new. Even if your new refrigerator/freezer used zero power compared to
the old rerfigerator at $94.60 pa it would take about 10 years to pay
for the new refrigerator.
In practice, as measured on my actual 1969/2008 units and with a mere
10% _measured_ difference in efficiency, it would be more like 100
years payback time.
Fix your 1950's unit and enjoy!
I'd suggest power savings with new units would be minimal.
Otoh convincing folk to buy new units means a lot of $$$$$ to
manufacturers.
Ross
| |
| nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu 2008-02-24, 9:25 am |
| RMD <ebff_qnyl@lnubb.pbz> wrote:
>At 18 c Kw/Hr a mere 4 W saving per hour isn't ever going to amount to
>much money...
>I'd suggest power savings with new units would be minimal.
You need new units... "Kw/Hr" and "watts per hour" are meaningless units.
Learn the difference between power and energy.
Nick
| |
| cshenk 2008-02-24, 9:25 am |
| "cybercat" <wrote
> We have a cool old freezer, a GE Hotpoint 20 that came with our house. I
> love it! It still works great, and I like old stuff. It matches the 1949
Great units. We ended up giving one away to the local 'soup kitchen' as we
also had a newer one bought when we were living in Japan.
> Thing is, condensation has made the top of it rust. The former owner
> obviously did some repainting or something at some point, but it has
> rusted through again.
> I have it defrosted and cleaned, opened up and drying out now.
It is fixable. How much depends on what you want to spend and if it's in a
highly visible location.
> If you were going to refinish the top of this thing, how would you do it?
> I want to really seal the rust the best I can, then paint white like the
> rest of the thing.
Ours was in the garage so it wasnt critical to have it 'perfect' but the
finished job turned out near enough to that for use inside had we wanted to.
It was bought used and had rust spots. Don used a medium grade sand paper
then a fine one to finish it off. Then he primed it with a regular store
metal primer and used spray paint. That was some 9 years ago and when we
gave it away 3 months ago, no sign of rust returning.
Since he hand sanded it, he took it in small slots of time, say 10-15 mins a
day. We were not in a rush. I think he took perhaps 2 hours total sanding
time over 2-3 weeks. In the interum, we were using it just fine.
He primed it with stuff you just paint on. Came time to spray, we just
turned it off (not sure of sucking any of the spray in and it doesnt take
long) then plugged it back in when done with the spray.
Sure, you can take the door off or the whoile unit to have it powder coated
or done by a car-chop, but if you do not need that much perfection, it's
easy to do at home.
| |
| hallerb@aol.com 2008-02-24, 9:25 am |
| On Feb 24, 3:23=EF=BF=BDam, ebff_q...@lnubb.pbz (RMD) wrote:
> I have recently been measuring the power consumed by a 1969 and a 2008
> fridge freezer of nearly equal size, about 14 c ft for each unit. I
> used two of those power measuring meters that are available these
> days.
>
> The 1969 unit uses about 10% more power than the newer unit.
>
> This isn't saving a lot of money since the new unit's power
> consumption is approximately equal to a 40W bulb running continuously.
> (Btw this is typical a power consumption of modern refrigerators.)
>
> At 18 c Kw/Hr a mere 4 W saving per hour isn't ever going to amount to
> much money.
>
> Refrigerators/freezers typically use less than a 60W bulb running
> continuously.
>
> At 18 cents/KwHr this costs $ (60/1000) X 24 X365 X 0.18 pa
>
> =3D $94.60 pa
>
> Here in Australia refrigerators and freezers typically cost $900 or so
> new. Even if your new refrigerator/freezer used zero power compared to
> the old rerfigerator at $94.60 pa it would take about 10 years to pay
> for the new refrigerator.
>
> In practice, as measured on my actual 1969/2008 units and with a mere
> 10% _measured_ difference in efficiency, it would be more like 100
> years payback time.
>
> Fix your 1950's unit and enjoy!
>
> I'd suggest power savings with new units would be minimal.
>
> Otoh convincing folk to buy new units means a lot of $$$$$ to
> manufacturers.
>
> Ross
was that a test over a week or a few minutes?
newer appliances have much better insulation so overall energy
consumption is less.
its not just a matter of running current............
| |
| ransley 2008-02-24, 9:25 am |
| On Feb 23, 8:07=A0pm, "cybercat" <cyberpu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> This might be OT--is there an alt.refurbish.old appliances?
>
> We have a cool old freezer, a GE Hotpoint 20 that came with our house. I
> love it! It still works great, and I like old stuff. It matches the 1949
> fridge in the same utility room, enamel and chrome, very cool. (Also ...
> both have run nonstop for the ten years we have had this house, whereas th=
e
> new, plastic and crap side-by-side we bought five years ago lasted three
> years.)
>
> Thing is, condensation has made the top of it rust. The former owner
> obviously did some repainting or something at some point, but it has ruste=
d
> through again.
> I have it defrosted and cleaned, opened up and drying out now.
>
> If you were going to refinish the top of this thing, how would you do it? =
I
> want to really seal the rust the best I can, then paint white like the res=
t
> of the thing.
>
> Thank you in advance for any help.
Get a Kill A Watt meter and find out what it costs to run, those old
units were energy hogs, You might get a 2 yr payback on a new unit.
| |
| cshenk 2008-02-24, 1:25 pm |
| "ransley" wrote
>Get a Kill A Watt meter and find out what it costs to run, those old
>units were energy hogs, You might get a 2 yr payback on a new unit.
Extremely doubtful. Yes newer ones are more efficient but not that
radically so when new units of that size are 700$ and up. She's much better
off just banking the food savings money until it eventually needs more freon
(which she wont be able to get for the older unit nor is it cost effective
to try to adapt them). She's probably getting 40$ a year electric more for
it vice a newer model. I know. I had one like it. It will take 17 YEARS
to pay off at that rate.
| |
| ransley 2008-02-24, 1:25 pm |
| On Feb 24, 11:00=A0am, "cshenk" <cshe...@cox.net> wrote:
> "ransley" wrote
>
>
> Extremely doubtful. =A0Yes newer ones are more efficient but not that
> radically so when new units of that size are 700$ and up. =A0She's much be=
tter
> off just banking the food savings money until it eventually needs more fre=
on
> (which she wont be able to get for the older unit nor is it cost effective=
> to try to adapt them). =A0She's probably getting 40$ a year electric more =
for
> it vice a newer model. =A0I know. =A0I had one like it. =A0It will take 17=
YEARS
> to pay off at that rate.
New units are up to 75% more efficient, it could cost 20+ a month to
run what she has now or save 400 in 2 years by getting a new unit. Im
sure you never tested them.
| |
| cshenk 2008-02-24, 1:26 pm |
| "ransley" wrote
[color=darkred]
>New units are up to 75% more efficient, it could cost 20+ a month to
>run what she has now or save 400 in 2 years by getting a new unit. Im
>sure you never tested them.
No I never 'tested'. I didnt need to as I have live experience . *I had
one*. You'll note the only other person to reply who has had one said the
same. You are acting like the new ones run for free. They dont. The
difference in cost per month is a few dollars. Can be 3 or 4 depending on
how expensive electric is where you are.
Perhaps you missed that it's a difference per cost that matters here. Want
to argue with a 12 year electrical bill history showing? I *know* what I am
talking about. She should save the unit as long as possible and not create
more landfill.
| |
| Edwin Pawlowski 2008-02-24, 1:26 pm |
|
"cshenk" <cshenk1@cox.net> wrote in message
>
> Perhaps you missed that it's a difference per cost that matters here.
> Want to argue with a 12 year electrical bill history showing? I *know*
> what I am talking about. She should save the unit as long as possible and
> not create more landfill.
My experience differs from your. Put that hunk of metal in the recycle bin
and save tons of fuel with a new one. Payback can easily be two to four
years. Not to mention features of a newer model.
| |
| cybercat 2008-02-24, 1:26 pm |
|
"Edwin Pawlowski" <esp@snet.net> wrote in message
news:QSiwj.12362$J41.8879@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "cshenk" <cshenk1@cox.net> wrote in message
>
> My experience differs from your. Put that hunk of metal in the recycle
> bin and save tons of fuel with a new one. Payback can easily be two to
> four years. Not to mention features of a newer model.
There are more important things than money, Edwin. If I wanted to trash this
old beauty, I would have said so. I will restore it, and keep it for another
30 years.
| |
| cybercat 2008-02-24, 1:26 pm |
|
"cshenk" <cshenk1@cox.net> wrote
>
> Perhaps you missed that it's a difference per cost that matters here.
> Want to argue with a 12 year electrical bill history showing? I *know*
> what I am talking about. She should save the unit as long as possible and
> not create more landfill.
I will, but not for that reason. I am keeping it because I love the look and
feel
of it, and it works great! Our electric bill is low for people who use so
many
electronics, too. The best reason to keep it: it, and the 1949 GE
refrigerator
next to it has run without a hitch for ten years, after running in the same
spots
from at least 1969 to 1998 when we bought this house. The owner left me
all the documentation for all of the appliances that came with the house.
These
are in the utility in the finished basement. While the 1970s fridge in the
kitchen
died along with the 1980s dishwasher and the 1980s hood fan over the stove,
these beauties have hummed along smoothly for all these years. And, again,
when we replaced the kitchen fridge with a new Whirlpook with all the bells
and whistles, it broke after 3 years. I was so pissed at paying over a grand
for a bunch of plastic, I won't have it fixed. I am the cook in the house,
and
if I want to go downstairs to get my stuff, I guess I can.
| |
| cybercat 2008-02-24, 1:26 pm |
|
"ransley" <Mark_Ransley@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Get a Kill A Watt meter and find out what it costs to run, those old
>units were energy hogs, You might get a 2 yr payback on a new unit.
Did I say I was interested in saving money? I'd rather pay more just so
that I can handle enameled steep and chrome and glass rather than plastic.
| |
| cybercat 2008-02-24, 1:26 pm |
|
"CM" <Kayakaz@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:Ag9wj.653058$kj1.290001@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Wow cool stuff. I would love to see pictures before or after.
>
> We love old cool stuff.... our phone has a dial on it our coffee pot is
> from the early 50's and we camp in trailers from the 30's through the 50's
> which can have cool old appliances in them that often times work just
> fine.
>
Neat! I will take pictures, thanks for the idea!
| |
| cybercat 2008-02-24, 1:26 pm |
| Nate Nagel" <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote
> There is no "seal." You remove the lid, remove the seal/handle/hardware
> etc, take it to a body shop, and have them media blast it and refinish it
> like a car body.
>
> You *could* brush a coat of POR-15 on it which is one of only a few
> products available that will actually seal rust, but then when you try to
> wetsand it to prep for paint, you'll discover that it's also hard as nails
> and doesn't sand well.
>
> Good luck with your project, I agree with you, 40s/50s stuff is cool and
> worth saving. I only wish the previous owners of my house had felt the
> same way... (the old kitchen cabinets in the laundry room are much more to
> my liking than the ones in the kitchen...)
>
Nate, I really like this idea. I will look into it. Transporting it to the
body shop might be a problem--it is huge, just the top, even, and heavy. We
are one of the few families in this city without a sport utility vehicle,
though few people here need them. Thanks.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
| hallerb@aol.com 2008-02-24, 5:25 pm |
|
> Nate, I really like this idea. I will look into it. Transporting it to the
> body shop might be a problem--it is huge, just the top, even, and heavy. We
> are one of the few families in this city without a sport utility vehicle,
> though few people here need them. Thanks.
>
> --
body shops transport large body panels etc all the time. take a photo
in, if theres oney to be made they may transport it.
can you get the door off?
| |
| ransley 2008-02-24, 5:25 pm |
| On Feb 24, 11:50=A0am, "cshenk" <cshe...@cox.net> wrote:
> "ransley" wrote
>
>
> No I never 'tested'. =A0I didnt need to as I have live experience . =A0*I =
had
> one*. =A0You'll note the only other person to reply who has had one said t=
he
> same. =A0You are acting like the new ones run for free. =A0They dont. =A0T=
he
> difference in cost per month is a few dollars. =A0Can be 3 or 4 depending =
on
> how expensive electric is where you are.
>
> Perhaps you missed that it's a difference per cost that matters here. =A0W=
ant
> to argue with a 12 year electrical bill history showing? =A0I *know* what =
I am
> talking about. =A0She should save the unit as long as possible and not cre=
ate
> more landfill.
I have both, a 1950 freeezer now used as clothes storage and new
stuff. I have used a KAW meter on Both and I am right as www.EnergyStar.G=
ov
will confirm. Its BS to state " you save little" , if you want to
waste energy go ahead , be a hog, my neighbor keeps 1500w of
incandesants on 24x7, but its not apropriate to do so in this day and
age, and its a waste of $$. So the rich dont give a shit.
| |
|
| On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 12:50:43 -0500, "cshenk" <cshenk1@cox.net> wrote:
>"ransley" wrote
>
>
>
>No I never 'tested'. I didnt need to as I have live experience . *I had
>one*. You'll note the only other person to reply who has had one said the
>same. You are acting like the new ones run for free. They dont. The
>difference in cost per month is a few dollars. Can be 3 or 4 depending on
>how expensive electric is where you are.
>
>Perhaps you missed that it's a difference per cost that matters here. Want
>to argue with a 12 year electrical bill history showing? I *know* what I am
>talking about. She should save the unit as long as possible and not create
>more landfill.
What she said. If the OP can keep this old beauty going for a while
longer at not much more $$, he/she should. Landfill is a huge issue
now.
| |
| Nate Nagel 2008-02-24, 5:25 pm |
| cybercat wrote:
> Nate Nagel" <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote
>
>
>
> Nate, I really like this idea. I will look into it. Transporting it to the
> body shop might be a problem--it is huge, just the top, even, and heavy. We
> are one of the few families in this city without a sport utility vehicle,
> though few people here need them. Thanks.
>
If you were near me I'd offer my Ugly Truck... sounds like you live in
an area just like mine! Maybe when the gas prices go up some more I can
pick up a used Yukon Denali or something for cheap so I can haul greasy
car parts in leather lined luxury... do they make them in turbodiesel
with a manual transmission?
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
| |
| willshak 2008-02-24, 5:25 pm |
| on 2/24/2008 2:18 PM cybercat said the following:
> Nate Nagel" <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote
>
>
> Nate, I really like this idea. I will look into it. Transporting it to the
> body shop might be a problem--it is huge, just the top, even, and heavy. We
> are one of the few families in this city without a sport utility vehicle,
> though few people here need them. Thanks.
Don't you have a friend with a pickup truck? If not, make a new friend
with a PU truck.
I have one. Where are you? :-)
--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @
| |
| hallerb@aol.com 2008-02-24, 8:25 pm |
| the power company wishes everyonew was like the OP
| |
| cybercat 2008-02-24, 8:25 pm |
|
<hallerb@aol.com> wrote in message
news:33510a7a-f9ff-4efb-b7b8-324c954b0e1d@34g2000hsz.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> body shops transport large body panels etc all the time. take a photo
> in, if theres oney to be made they may transport it.
Oh, cool! Thanks. I will call around.
>
> can you get the door off?
Yes, I think I can.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
| Edwin Pawlowski 2008-02-24, 9:25 pm |
|
"KLS" <xymergy@suds.com> wrote in message
> What she said. If the OP can keep this old beauty going for a while
> longer at not much more $$, he/she should. Landfill is a huge issue
> now.
So landfills are more important that using up fossil fuels?
| |
| cybercat 2008-02-25, 3:25 am |
|
"Edwin Pawlowski" <esp@snet.net> wrote in message
news:enqwj.10461$0o7.9064@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "KLS" <xymergy@suds.com> wrote in message
>
> So landfills are more important that using up fossil fuels?
Fossil fuels?
| |
| cshenk 2008-02-25, 3:25 am |
| "cybercat" wrote
>
> Fossil fuels?
He's apparently assuming your electric plant is run on fossil fuels I guess?
Dunno, my area is a mix of hydropower and nuclear facilities.
| |
| hallerb@aol.com 2008-02-25, 9:25 am |
| On Feb 25, 2:47=EF=BF=BDam, "cshenk" <cshe...@cox.net> wrote:
> "cybercat" wrote
>
while[color=darkred]
issue[color=darkred]
>
>
>
> He's apparently assuming your electric plant is run on fossil fuels I gues=
s?
> Dunno, my area is a mix of hydropower and nuclear facilities.
oh nuclear at least that doesnt pollute spent fuel killer hazardous
for millions of years.........
we are about to see a resurgence of nuke plants, i wonder what
troubles that will cause?
| |
| salty@dog.com 2008-02-25, 9:26 am |
| On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 05:08:02 -0800 (PST), "hallerb@aol.com"
<hallerb@aol.com> wrote:
>On Feb 25, 2:47?am, "cshenk" <cshe...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>oh nuclear at least that doesnt pollute spent fuel killer hazardous
>for millions of years.........
>
>we are about to see a resurgence of nuke plants, i wonder what
>troubles that will cause?
Should make the terrorists happy, as their work will be so much
simplified.
| |
| Smitty Two 2008-02-25, 1:25 pm |
| In article <fpqjga$pde$1@aioe.org>, "cybercat" <cyberpurrs@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> This might be OT--is there an alt.refurbish.old appliances?
>
> We have a cool old freezer, a GE Hotpoint 20 that came with our house. I
> love it! It still works great, and I like old stuff. It matches the 1949
> fridge in the same utility room, enamel and chrome, very cool. (Also ...
> both have run nonstop for the ten years we have had this house, whereas the
> new, plastic and crap side-by-side we bought five years ago lasted three
> years.)
>
> Thing is, condensation has made the top of it rust. The former owner
> obviously did some repainting or something at some point, but it has rusted
> through again.
> I have it defrosted and cleaned, opened up and drying out now.
>
> If you were going to refinish the top of this thing, how would you do it? I
> want to really seal the rust the best I can, then paint white like the rest
> of the thing.
>
> Thank you in advance for any help.
To those who are touting energy efficiency of newer appliances, here is
a little refresher: Energy efficiency in refrigerators and freezers is
mostly about insulation. The really old appliances, such as yours, were
actually made with a fair amount of insulation. Then along came the
1970's, an era when American manufacturers decided that cheaper was
better.
So the wall thickness declined, reducing insulation thickness. A very
important ancillary benefit was that the interior volume of a
refrigerator could be increased, without increasing its outside
dimensions. That was a hot selling feature.
Now this decreased insulation thickness had a pesky side effect, besides
making the cooling system run all day long: The outside of the
refrigerators became cold, and condensate started to form. Who wants a
fridge that's wet on the outside?
Engineering to the rescue. Let's put a *heating* coil just inside the
outer shell, to keep it warm and dry. Yep, that worked, but it also
leaked heat into the inside of the fridge, making it run even longer
than it would have with the reduced wall thickness alone. Now, we have a
complete formula for maximum energy inefficiency.
After a short time, as you'll recall, there came a period of energy
awareness, and everyone wanted to save it. Not wanting to appear
indifferent, the refrigerator manufacturers concocted a new "feature." A
little switch that turned the heating coil off. They called that switch
the "energy saver" switch, remember? And the instructions said, if
moisture forms on the outside of the fridge, turn "energy saver" off -
IOW, turn heater on.
Now fast forward, to the new breed of "energy efficient" appliances. The
insulation thickness has been increased again, the heating coil is gone.
A miracle of modern engineering? No, a return to common sense.
People living "off the grid" buy refrigerators that have about a foot of
insulation, and they run for virtually nothing by comparison, because
there's no heat loss.
(My first real job, back in '73, was working on the assembly line of a
major refrigerator manufacturer. I took the outer cabinets fresh from
the spray painting room, and installed the heating coil. Bent it by
hand, and stuck it in there with little wads of clay in the corners. My
friend worked at the tail end of the line, smearing white toothpaste
over the scratches just before crating the beasts.)
| |
| hallerb@aol.com 2008-02-25, 1:25 pm |
| On Feb 25, 11:13=EF=BF=BDam, Smitty Two <prestwh...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> In article <fpqjga$pd...@aioe.org>, "cybercat" <cyberpu...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
the[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
>
ted[color=darkred]
>
? I[color=darkred]
est[color=darkred]
>
>
> To those who are touting energy efficiency of newer appliances, here is
> a little refresher: Energy efficiency in refrigerators and freezers is
> mostly about insulation. The really old appliances, such as yours, were
> actually made with a fair amount of insulation. Then along came the
> 1970's, an era when American manufacturers decided that cheaper was
> better.
>
> So the wall thickness declined, reducing insulation thickness. A very
> important ancillary benefit was that the interior volume of a
> refrigerator could be increased, without increasing its outside
> dimensions. That was a hot selling feature.
>
> Now this decreased insulation thickness had a pesky side effect, besides
> making the cooling system run all day long: The outside of the
> refrigerators became cold, and condensate started to form. Who wants a
> fridge that's wet on the outside?
>
> Engineering to the rescue. Let's put a *heating* coil just inside the
> outer shell, to keep it warm and dry. Yep, that worked, but it also
> leaked heat into the inside of the fridge, making it run even longer
> than it would have with the reduced wall thickness alone. Now, we have a
> complete formula for maximum energy inefficiency.
>
> After a short time, as you'll recall, there came a period of energy
> awareness, and everyone wanted to save it. Not wanting to appear
> indifferent, the refrigerator manufacturers concocted a new "feature." A
> little switch that turned the heating coil off. They called that switch
> the "energy saver" switch, remember? And the instructions said, if
> moisture forms on the outside of the fridge, turn "energy saver" off -
> IOW, turn heater on.
>
> Now fast forward, to the new breed of "energy efficient" appliances. The
> insulation thickness has been increased again, the heating coil is gone.
> A miracle of modern engineering? No, a return to common sense.
>
> People living "off the grid" buy refrigerators that have about a foot of
> insulation, and they run for virtually nothing by comparison, because
> there's no heat loss.
>
> (My first real job, back in '73, was working on the assembly line of a
> major refrigerator manufacturer. I took the outer cabinets fresh from
> the spray painting room, and installed the heating coil. Bent it by
> hand, and stuck it in there with little wads of clay in the corners. My
> friend worked at the tail end of the line, smearing white toothpaste
> over the scratches just before crating the beasts.)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
new appliances also used closed cell foam insulation which is way
better than fiberglass and more efficent compressors etc,.
its not just a matter of a heter or insulation thickness
| |
| Stormin Mormon 2008-02-25, 5:25 pm |
| A good refrigeration guy may be able to replace the compressor.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..
"Edwin Pawlowski" <esp@snet.net> wrote in message
news:Ne5wj.13368$Ej5.371@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote in message
> Good luck with your project, I agree with you, 40s/50s stuff is cool and
> worth saving.
Worth saving for appearance, NOT worth savings for the cost of operation.
Most older appliances cost many times to operate compared to the new stuff.
| |
| buffalobill 2008-02-25, 8:25 pm |
| On Feb 23, 9:07 pm, "cybercat" <cyberpu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> This might be OT--is there an alt.refurbish.old appliances?
>
> We have a cool old freezer, a GE Hotpoint 20 that came with our house. I
> love it! It still works great, and I like old stuff. It matches the 1949
> fridge in the same utility room, enamel and chrome, very cool. (Also ...
> both have run nonstop for the ten years we have had this house, whereas the
> new, plastic and crap side-by-side we bought five years ago lasted three
> years.)
>
> Thing is, condensation has made the top of it rust. The former owner
> obviously did some repainting or something at some point, but it has rusted
> through again.
> I have it defrosted and cleaned, opened up and drying out now.
>
> If you were going to refinish the top of this thing, how would you do it? I
> want to really seal the rust the best I can, then paint white like the rest
> of the thing.
>
> Thank you in advance for any help.
subject to if a child can get out of it safely; if it has a death trap
latch add whatever modern safety lock is recommended these days.
meantime the freezer operation costs could be weighed versus
unplugging the freezer entirely versus time and money on gasoline to
the stores.
freezer for convenience operation can be enhanced with exterior
insulation and keeping it full to keep operational costs low. often
overlooked in cold climates can be the outdoors. a critter resistant
insulated cooler for the outdoor sheltered cold porch perhaps could
help with seasonal storage.
| |
| Dr. Hardcrab 2008-02-25, 8:25 pm |
|
<hallerb@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3870368d-dd8e-4e12-adef-e4839bdadb0d@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 25, 2:47�am, "cshenk" <cshe...@cox.net> wrote:
> "cybercat" wrote
>
>
>
>
> He's apparently assuming your electric plant is run on fossil fuels I
> guess?
> Dunno, my area is a mix of hydropower and nuclear facilities.
>oh nuclear at least that doesnt pollute spent fuel killer hazardous
>for millions of years.........
>we are about to see a resurgence of nuke plants, i wonder what
>troubles that will cause?
About the same amount of trouble they have EVER caused in this country:
ZILCH
| |
| Edwin Pawlowski 2008-02-25, 8:25 pm |
|
"Smitty Two" <prestwhich@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> People living "off the grid" buy refrigerators that have about a foot of
> insulation, and they run for virtually nothing by comparison, because
> there's no heat loss.
Correction. There is little heat loss (or gain). Impossible to have no heat
loss as long as there is a temperature differential.
| |
| Edwin Pawlowski 2008-02-25, 8:25 pm |
|
"cybercat" <cyberpurrs@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> Fossil fuels?
Oil, natural gas, coal.
No matter what your local power company uses, they swap power and at some
point your electricity is generated by other fuels. The poster said it was
good to keep things rather than load up a landfill. While that is generally
a good idea, taking up space in a landfill is not so bad if you save using
up non-renewable energy for many more years. If you are a global warming
advocate, you are causing more greenhouse gasses also.
The question is one of balance between living it a cold dark cave or having
every luxury device ever made.
| |
| hallerb@aol.com 2008-02-25, 9:25 pm |
| On Feb 25, 9:04=EF=BF=BDpm, "Edwin Pawlowski" <e...@snet.net> wrote:
> "cybercat" <cyberpu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>
> Oil, natural gas, coal.
>
> No matter what your local power company uses, they swap power and at some
> point your electricity is generated by other fuels. =EF=BF=BDThe poster sa=
id it was
> good to keep things rather than load up a landfill. =EF=BF=BDWhile that is=
generally
> a good idea, taking up space in a landfill is not so bad if you save using=
> up non-renewable energy for many more years. =EF=BF=BDIf you are a global =
warming
> advocate, you are causing more greenhouse gasses also.
>
> The =EF=BF=BDquestion is one of balance between living it a cold dark cave=
or having
> every luxury device ever made.
the old unit can be recycled, the metals sent to china so they can
sell us more stuff......
| |
| cybercat 2008-02-25, 9:25 pm |
|
"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:47c3454c$0$6147$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>A good refrigeration guy may be able to replace the compressor.
>
It works great! Has been with no repairs for ten years for sure, likely for
more like 40+
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
| willshak 2008-02-25, 9:25 pm |
| on 2/25/2008 7:30 PM Dr. Hardcrab said the following:
>
> <hallerb@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:3870368d-dd8e-4e12-adef-e4839bdadb0d@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 25, 2:47�am, "cshenk" <cshe...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> About the same amount of trouble they have EVER caused in this
> country: ZILCH
I live about 25 miles from the Indian Point Nuclear facility in
Buchanan NY. It has been there for 30 years. Every time a light bulb
burns out there, the wackos come out with their "See, we told you it was
dangerous" signs.
I lose no sleep being within fallout distance from it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian...ear_power_plant
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @
| |
| hallerb@aol.com 2008-02-25, 9:25 pm |
| On Feb 25, 9:40=C2=A0pm, willshak <wills...@00hvc.rr.com> wrote:
> on 2/25/2008 7:30 PM Dr. Hardcrab said the following:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
[color=darkred]
>
r a while[color=darkred]
uge issue[color=darkred]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I live about =C2=A025 miles from the Indian Point Nuclear facility in
> Buchanan NY. It has been there for 30 years. Every time a light bulb
> burns out there, the wackos come out with their "See, we told you it was
> dangerous" signs.
> I lose no sleep being within fallout distance from it.http://en.wikipedia.=
org/wiki/Indian_Point_nuclear_power_plant
>
> Bill
> In Hamptonburgh, NY
> To email, remove the double zeroes after @- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
people who lived around chernobyl werent concerned either.......
http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/k...d/chapter1.html
is a fascinating look at the effected area of russia, with tons of
photos
| |
| Smitty Two 2008-02-26, 3:25 am |
| In article <EhKwj.4846$Mh2.468@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com>,
"Edwin Pawlowski" <esp@snet.net> wrote:
> "Smitty Two" <prestwhich@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> Correction. There is little heat loss (or gain). Impossible to have no heat
> loss as long as there is a temperature differential.
True. Of course when I said "no" I meant "a negligible amount."
| |
| Stormin Mormon 2008-02-27, 3:25 am |
| Three Mile ISland...
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..
"Dr. Hardcrab" <drhardcrab@hotmail.SPAMcom> wrote in message
news:j4Jwj.6143$Dz4.1985@trnddc01...
> Dunno, my area is a mix of hydropower and nuclear facilities.
>oh nuclear at least that doesnt pollute spent fuel killer hazardous
>for millions of years.........
>we are about to see a resurgence of nuke plants, i wonder what
>troubles that will cause?
About the same amount of trouble they have EVER caused in this country:
ZILCH
| |
| Stormin Mormon 2008-02-27, 3:25 am |
| Someone mentioned the energy efficiency. New compressor will improve the
energy efficiency.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..
"cybercat" <cyberpurrs@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:47c36e52$0$25987$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:47c3454c$0$6147$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>A good refrigeration guy may be able to replace the compressor.
>
It works great! Has been with no repairs for ten years for sure, likely for
more like 40+
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
| hallerb@aol.com 2008-02-27, 9:25 am |
|
>
> About the same amount of trouble they have EVER caused in this country:
> ZILCH
ahh sadly one mistake creates another chernobyl like event.
while the reactor cores and compartively well protected in the
containment building, the large concrete domeed building ........
the spent fuel rods are stored in roughly insecure normal building. if
a terrorist sent a small plane loaded with explosives into one of
these facilities, cooling water can be interrupted.
you have a major disaster.
I support more nuke plants once the nuclear waste issue is addressed.
currently they are thinking of burying it in yucca mountain nevada
| |
| salty@dog.com 2008-02-27, 9:25 am |
| On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 22:14:36 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
<cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Three Mile ISland...
On Turesday there was a huge power outage in Florida caused by a shut
down of a nuke plant for safety issues.
| |
| hallerb@aol.com 2008-02-27, 9:25 am |
| On Feb 27, 8:26=EF=BF=BDam, sa...@dog.com wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 22:14:36 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
>
> <cayoung61**spambloc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Turesday there was a huge power outage in Florida caused by a shut
> down of a nuke plant for safety issues.
all public buildings nationwide should be required to have a minimal
back up power capability.
to run emergency lights, get elevators to ground level, and stuff like
that.
people stuck in elevators is really dumb in this day and age
| |
|
| salty@dog.com wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 22:14:36 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
> <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Turesday there was a huge power outage in Florida caused by a shut
> down of a nuke plant for safety issues.
NO!!!
There was an a outage, the cause of which is still undetermined.
"Two nuclear reactors at Florida Power & Light's Turkey Point station in
South Florida shut down Tuesday afternoon, the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission said.
It is unclear if the loss of power caused the outage or if the outage
caused the reactors to trip. "Turkey Point temporarily lost off-site
power, and both reactors tripped," said NRC spokesman Roger Hannah.
The cause of the outages remains unclear, Tampa Electric spokeswoman
Laura Duda told the newspaper.
She described a "significant disturbance" on the state's electric grid.
It could have been a transmission problem, or a large electricity
generating unit unexpectedly going off line, or another problem
altogether. "We are working with other utilities to figure out what the
problem was," she said."
Whatever it was, it was purely operational, not safety-related.
--
| |
|
| hallerb@aol.com wrote:
....
> people who lived around chernobyl werent concerned either.......
And Chernobyl was a _completely_ different reactor design than any in
the US (or elsewhere, for that matter) without any containment.
That Chernobyl was a disaster is true but it has no relevance to
light-water reactors.
--
| |
| salty@dog.com 2008-02-27, 9:26 am |
| On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:10:28 -0600, dpb <none@non.net> wrote:
>salty@dog.com wrote:
>
>NO!!!
>
YES!!!!!!!!!
| |
|
| hallerb@aol.com wrote:
....
> ahh sadly one mistake creates another chernobyl like event.
Not physically possible w/ a LWR reactor design.
....
> the spent fuel rods are stored in roughly insecure normal building. if
> a terrorist sent a small plane loaded with explosives into one of
> these facilities, cooling water can be interrupted.
No, they're pools...
> you have a major disaster.
Nothing whatsoever like what you're imagining...
> currently they are thinking of burying it in yucca mountain nevada
Again, no, they're not "thinking of burying it" -- it is named
monitored retrievable storage for a reason.
--
| |
|
| salty@dog.com wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:10:28 -0600, dpb <none@non.net> wrote:
>
>
> YES!!!!!!!!!
What would that have been and how do you know?
The root cause of the event is still undetermined.
--
| |
| salty@dog.com 2008-02-27, 1:26 pm |
| On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:50:49 -0600, dpb <none@non.net> wrote:
>salty@dog.com wrote:
>
>What would that have been and how do you know?
>
>The root cause of the event is still undetermined.
Incorrect.
A switch failed causing a huge "ripple" in the grid, which in turn
caused the nuke plants to react defensively by shutting down to avoid
being overstressed by the sudden imbalance. IOW, they shut down for
"safety reasons".
| |
| hallerb@aol.com 2008-02-27, 1:26 pm |
| On Feb 27, 10:16=EF=BF=BDam, dpb <n...@non.net> wrote:
> hall...@aol.com wrote:
>
> ...
>
>
> And Chernobyl was a _completely_ different reactor design than any in
> the US (or elsewhere, for that matter) without any containment.
>
> That Chernobyl was a disaster is true but it has no relevance to
> light-water reactors.
>
> --
the US nearly had its chernobyl, 3 mile island. some roids melted, it
was a close thing....
plus a meltdown like situation can occur at any time, with the spent
fuel rods in unhardened buildings, a easy terrorist target. and
reactors with waste storage tend to be near population centers and
rivers for cooling water.
http://www.nuclearflower.com/highres.htm
now take a look at some of these photos and explain how the risk is
worth it?
| |
| cybercat 2008-02-27, 1:26 pm |
|
"dpb" <none@non.net> wrote in message news:fq412a$8m5$1@aioe.org...
> hallerb@aol.com wrote:
> ...
>
>
> Not physically possible w/ a LWR reactor design.
>
> ...
>
>
> No, they're pools...
>
>
> Nothing whatsoever like what you're imagining...
>
>
> Again, no, they're not "thinking of burying it" -- it is named monitored
> retrievable storage for a reason.
>
I can see that thread drift is alive and well in this group!
One of the funnest things in Usenet. 
About the freezer: the job is going on hold until I can do without the
services of the freezer for a while. I had a chance to score a USDA Choice
whole been sirlion for $1.99 a pound, nine pounds of beef, couldn't pass it
up.
Thanks for all advice.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
|
| hallerb@aol.com wrote:
> On Feb 27, 10:16�am, dpb <n...@non.net> wrote:
>
> the US nearly had its chernobyl, 3 mile island. some roids melted, it
> was a close thing....
No, it is not possible to do a Chernobyl w/ a LWR. Do you understand
the difference in reactor designs?
> plus a meltdown like situation can occur at any time, with the spent
> fuel rods in unhardened buildings, ...
Again, no -- after the spent fuel assemblies are removed and been in
storage for a while they do not have enough self-generated heat to
require forced cooling. A very large percentage of the fuel in storage
at various facilities in the US has been out of the reactor for so long
it could be in open air and still not be a thermal problem. Some
biological shielding is, of course, still required and that is actually
as much of the purpose of the pool water as is cooling.
--
| |
|
| salty@dog.com wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:50:49 -0600, dpb <none@non.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> Incorrect.
>
> A switch failed causing a huge "ripple" in the grid, which in turn
> caused the nuke plants to react defensively by shutting down to avoid
> being overstressed by the sudden imbalance. IOW, they shut down for
> "safety reasons".
That is operational design trip, not a safety system-induced trip.
There's a difference between the two.
--
--
| |
| Stormin Mormon 2008-02-27, 5:25 pm |
| How dare you post on topic!?!?!?
Hey, glad the chest freezer is still working fine.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..
"cybercat" <cyberpurrs@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:47c5ac79$0$26050$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
I can see that thread drift is alive and well in this group!
One of the funnest things in Usenet.
About the freezer: the job is going on hold until I can do without the
services of the freezer for a while. I had a chance to score a USDA Choice
whole been sirlion for $1.99 a pound, nine pounds of beef, couldn't pass it
up.
Thanks for all advice.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
| autobus_prime@yahoo.com 2008-02-27, 5:25 pm |
| Folks:
Oh fer gosh sakes, this thing is an artifact. I'm not going to tell
people to scrap
their classic pink '58 Cadillac, or to avoid restoring a steam
locomotive because
it's got 3% thermal efficiency. If someone wants to pay a few extra
dollars to
keep this going as a working museum piece, that's okay with me, and I
think
it ought to be okay with anybody.
Ice cream every meal is not a good practice, but ice cream never?
Why?
Efficient, inefficient, this machine is an antique. Probably more
than 99% of
its brothers have gone for scrap. If those few that remain in good
order are
kept running, they're not going to materially effect power
consumption, no
more than those '58 Caddies are raising oil prices. Do people have
any
concept of just how *many* fridges are in use?
A purely utilitarian philosophy is a purely dismal one.
A P
| |
| salty@dog.com 2008-02-27, 5:25 pm |
| On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:52:54 -0600, dpb <none@non.net> wrote:
>salty@dog.com wrote:
>
>That is operational design trip, not a safety system-induced trip.
>There's a difference between the two.
>
>--
Please feel free to continue with your fantasy. I won't bother attempting to
wake you from your dream.
See Ya
| |
|
| salty@dog.com wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:52:54 -0600, dpb <none@non.net> wrote:
>
>
> Please feel free to continue with your fantasy. I won't bother attempting to
> wake you from your dream.
No fantasy at all -- having spent 30 years in reactor design and utility
operations, I know the difference between safety and non-safety
system--I designed them.
--
| |
| HeyBub 2008-02-27, 5:25 pm |
| hallerb@aol.com wrote:
>
> the US nearly had its chernobyl, 3 mile island. some roids melted, it
> was a close thing....
>
> plus a meltdown like situation can occur at any time, with the spent
> fuel rods in unhardened buildings, a easy terrorist target. and
> reactors with waste storage tend to be near population centers and
> rivers for cooling water.
>
> http://www.nuclearflower.com/highres.htm
>
> now take a look at some of these photos and explain how the risk is
> worth it?
Certainly the risk is worth it. That's already been established.
If it can be shown that nuclear power causes less deaths per KWs generated
than any other form of electrical generation, then nuclear should be a
hands-down winner.
Well, it can.
Consider the mining and transportation (from, say Montana to Chicago) of
tens of thousands of railcars full of coal. Consider that hydroelectric dams
don't fail very often, but when they do...
And so on.
The thing that nuclear has that the others don't is the "terror factor."
| |
| Dr. Hardcrab 2008-02-27, 5:25 pm |
|
"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:47c4d8db$1$24118$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Three Mile ISland...
I still consider that a near miss:
Although 25,000 people lived within five miles (8 km) of the site at the
time of the accident,[5] no identifiable injuries due to radiation occurred,
and a government report concluded that "There will either be no case of
cancer or the number of cases will be so small that it will never be
possible to detect them. The same conclusion applies to the other possible
health effects."
>
> --
> Christopher A. Young
> Learn more about Jesus
> www.lds.org
> .
>
>
> "Dr. Hardcrab" <drhardcrab@hotmail.SPAMcom> wrote in message
> news:j4Jwj.6143$Dz4.1985@trnddc01...
>
>
>
>
> About the same amount of trouble they have EVER caused in this country:
> ZILCH
>
>
| |
|
| Dr. Hardcrab wrote:
>
> "Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:47c4d8db$1$24118$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
> I still consider that a near miss:
....
Actually, in the end it was a very good test and demonstration of the
adequacy of the system design to handle a LOCA (albeit an operator-error
induced one, but a LOCA nonetheless).
--
| |
| cybercat 2008-02-27, 8:25 pm |
|
<autobus_prime@yahoo.com> wrote
> A purely utilitarian philosophy is a purely dismal one.
>
Perfectly lovely comment. Thank you.
| |
| cshenk 2008-02-27, 8:25 pm |
| "cybercat" wrote
[color=darkred]
> Perfectly lovely comment. Thank you.
Not to mention that the soup kitchen here was delighted to get one for free
from us, roughly same vintage. Big enough to store a 1/2 side of beef
easily with a bit spare around the edges <grin>.
| |
| Edwin Pawlowski 2008-02-27, 9:25 pm |
|
<hallerb@aol.com> wrote in message
http://www.nuclearflower.com/highres.htm
> now take a look at some of these photos and explain how the risk is
> worth it?
You can get killed walking across the street, yet they keep building more
streets.
Sad as the photos are, that is a different setup than anything in the US.
We can't burn oil and coal forever either.
| |
| hallerb@aol.com 2008-02-28, 3:25 am |
| On Feb 27, 10:48=EF=BF=BDam, dpb <n...@non.net> wrote:
> hall...@aol.com wrote:
>
> ...
>
>
> Not physically possible w/ a LWR reactor design.
>
> ...
>
>
> No, they're pools...
>
>
> Nothing whatsoever like what you're imagining...
>
>
> Again, no, they're not "thinking of burying it" -- it is named
> monitored retrievable storage for a reason.
>
> --
well after some time it wouldnt be retrievable. and nevada is fighting
the plan, based at least partially on the risk of a earthquake opening
the mountain at some point in a thousand years.
just how does one prevent a person in the future from accidently
breeching the storage area? our country is just over 200 years old.
now a thousands or more. how does one guarantee a future resident
doesnt drill a well, not knowing the hazard
| |
| hallerb@aol.com 2008-02-28, 3:25 am |
| On Feb 27, 10:18=EF=BF=BDpm, "Edwin Pawlowski" <e...@snet.net> wrote:
> <hall...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> http://www.nuclearflower.com/highres.htm
>
>
> You can get killed walking across the street, yet they keep building more
> streets.
>
> Sad as the photos are, that is a different setup than anything in the US.
> We can't burn oil and coal forever either.
we have on us soil a couple thousand year supply of coal.........
isnt that enough for you?
arent you the one who claimed chernobyl only killed one city, yet this
proves the dead area is very large....
plus the river sends contaminated water down river indefinetely.
no one says how long term storage will be paid for a yucca mountain is
no guarantee
| |
| cybercat 2008-02-28, 3:25 am |
|
"cshenk" <cshenk1@cox.net> wrote in message
news:xonxj.8354$yk5.5539@newsfe18.lga...
> "cybercat" wrote
>
>
> Not to mention that the soup kitchen here was delighted to get one for
> free from us, roughly same vintage. Big enough to store a 1/2 side of
> beef easily with a bit spare around the edges <grin>.
>
Neat!
| |
| Edwin Pawlowski 2008-02-28, 9:25 am |
|
<hallerb@aol.com> wrote in message
> we have on us soil a couple thousand year supply of coal.........
But we still need better wqays to mine and burn it
> arent you the one who claimed chernobyl only killed one city, yet this
> proves the dead area is very large....
No, that was not me
| |
| salty@dog.com 2008-02-28, 9:25 am |
| On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 16:22:51 -0600, dpb <none@non.net> wrote:
>salty@dog.com wrote:
>
>No fantasy at all -- having spent 30 years in reactor design and utility
>operations, I know the difference between safety and non-safety
>system--I designed them.
So, then, there is no chance of you having some sort of perverted and heavily
biased view in favor of what provided your livelyhood for 30 years.
| |
|
| hallerb@aol.com wrote:
> On Feb 27, 10:48�am, dpb <n...@non.net> wrote:
>
> well after some time it wouldnt be retrievable. and nevada is fighting
> the plan, based at least partially on the risk of a earthquake opening
> the mountain at some point in a thousand years.
>
> just how does one prevent a person in the future from accidently
> breeching the storage area? our country is just over 200 years old.
>
> now a thousands or more. how does one guarantee a future resident
> doesnt drill a well, not knowing the hazard
The logical solution is to recycle as does the rest of the world. The
only reason we're not is because during the Carter administration the
NRC was commanded to not consider the licensing application for the
GE-proposed recycling facility, effectively creating the problem of the
open-end fuel cycle we're still having to deal with.
The only reason for that was Carter's inability to separate commercial
nuclear fuel and reprocessing/recycling from weapons proliferation.
As in the comparison you keep trying to make between Chernobyl and other
LWR reactor designs, the only real similarity is that they both use some
of the same words.
--
| |
|
| salty@dog.com wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 16:22:51 -0600, dpb <none@non.net> wrote:
>
>
> So, then, there is no chance of you having some sort of perverted and heavily
> biased view in favor of what provided your livelyhood for 30 years.
Not on a definition, no.
A safety system reactor trip has a precise meaning, and this wasn't it.
--
| |
|
| dpb wrote:
> Dr. Hardcrab wrote:
> ...
>
> Actually, in the end it was a very good test and demonstration of the
> adequacy of the system design to handle a LOCA (albeit an operator-error
> induced one, but a LOCA nonetheless).
Probably ought to clarify that a bit--the LOCA (loss of coolant
accident) part wasn't actually an operator error; it occurred when the
PORVs (pilot-operated relief valves) did not automatically reseat after
they opened.
The problem occurred on the operator response to the incident wherein
they interceded w/ the HPI (High pressure injection) systems and later
the RCPs (reactor coolant pumps) on the basis of their misinterpretation
of the pressurizer level instrumentation indication and the fact they
did not recognize they had a leak (stuck PORV).
This came about because the PORV location was close enough to the
pressurizer outlet that the liquid-water interface became comingled
owing to the flow disturbance. This confused the level indication which
was a dP cell across the interface.
Consequently, they erroneously concluded that somehow they were in
danger of filling the pressurizer solid w/ water which is a no-no, hence
they turned off the HPI to avoid (they thought) doing that. Then, after
a while as they continued to lose cooling water, the RCPs began to
cavitate and they were turned off to prevent damage to them. At that
point they then had a core becoming uncovered and no longer had forced
circulation of what coolant they did have and things went downhill from
there.
As I noted previously, the shift which came on next recognized the
symptoms when they were going through the shift turnover meetings and
began recovery operations immediately.
As a very brief synopsis, this leaves out a lot of detail, of course,
but is a general description of what went wrong at TMI. There are a
couple of obvious things here, the most obvious of which was the
question of how, if the system were in danger of going solid, could
there have been such low coolant level as to have caused RCP cavitation?
What went right, of course, was that HPI was incorporated in the system
and once it was restarted to cover the core and the RCPS were again on
to circulate flow, the accident was on its way towards mitigation.
Of course, the sad part is that if the operators had simply left the
system alone, there would have been nothing but an operational incident
of the stuck PORV (for which there was already a pending corrective
action/notice in place) and after a short outage to repair/correct it,
the plant would have been back in operation.
--
| |
|
| hallerb@aol.com wrote:
....
> we have on us soil a couple thousand year supply of coal.........
>
> isnt that enough for you?
Well, ignoring CO2 and other emissions now, are you?
I'm fine w/ fossil-fired units as long as they're not wasting oil and
natural gas as we currently are (both of which are far too valuable to
be frittered away on central-station generation).
But, if the greenhouse gas argument has any legs at all, there's only
one real alternative, and that is nuclear. (I know, there's
solar/wind/geothermal/tidal/..., but none of those has the facility to
replace large central-station generation 24/7 at anyways near the
capacity required.)
If you think the Chernobyl pictures are a problem, look at the air
pollution problems China and India are making from their fossil-fired
generation and consider that impact as they continue to build at the
rate they are. And, while considering, consider that whatever we do in
the US isn't going to make any difference whatsoever in their
governments' policies of what is in their best short term interests.
So, if you want to make any positive impact whatsoever, you had best get
on the nuclear bandwagon--it's the only real alternative. What may
happen in another 20-50 years for C sequestration and all is hard to
guess, but my personal opinion is it is at least that long before
there's any hope of any of the currently-proposed technologies being
large-scale viable at anything close to competitive costs. Meanwhile,
we already know how to build and operate safe, cost-competitive nuclear
power plants -- all we need is to do it.
> arent you the one who claimed chernobyl only killed one city, yet this
> proves the dead area is very large....
IF YOU"RE GOING TO KEEP CLAIMING THIS AT LEAST GO BACK AND FIND WHERE IT
WAS AND DO THE COMPLAINING TO THE PERPETRATOR.
....
> no one says how long term storage will be paid for a yucca mountain is
> no guarantee
The costs are paid by the fund the nuclear utilities contribute to --
this has been pointed out to you previously.
Yucca Mountain is no guarantee for what? It is what it is -- a
temporary storage facility until the US finally gets off its duff and
begins to reprocess fuel and make use of the vast resource we're now
just sitting on.
This again is not a technical challenge, it's a political problem
created by folks like you who have no solutions, only complaints, most
of them as ludicrous as the arguments you've tried to make here.
--
|
|
|
|
|