+ Post New Thread
Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 157
General Chat Thread, Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant in General; I think we'll have to agree to disagree here, as the plant survived the quakes perfectly with all control methods ...
  1. #61

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,680
    Thank Post
    516
    Thanked 2,451 Times in 1,897 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    832
    I think we'll have to agree to disagree here, as the plant survived the quakes perfectly with all control methods working as they should even at force 8.9 (which, as stated is hundreds of times stronger than the 7.9 build spec) and the issues have been caused purely by a 1 in 1000 year event occurring at the same time.

  2. #62
    tommej's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Lincolnshire
    Posts
    697
    Thank Post
    38
    Thanked 130 Times in 99 Posts
    Rep Power
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by pcstru View Post
    Since 1800 there are 10 quakes that have measured or exceeded a magnitude of 8. If they were evenly spread that would be one every 20 years on which basis you could expect the 40 year lifetime of the reactor, to have two quakes which exceed the design spec. This is a nuclear installation we are talking about. The correct number of events which could be projected to exceed the design spec would be zero, yet the data suggests there is a 1 in 10 chance that the plant will experience an event outside of the design spec. If you think that is an acceptable probability for a nuclear plant, I'm frankly astonished.

    Nuclear design engineers should - or would you be happy living near a reactor which has a 1 in 50 chance of experiencing an event which is beyond the design spec. How about if you have 50 of them in the country?
    In the words of the Turkish PM "no investment without risk, noting that if people wanted a no-risk environment, they should "not build crude oil lines in their country and not use gas in their kitchens.""

    Turkey not to suspend nuclear power plant construction after nuclear crisis in Japan - People's Daily Online

    Nuclear industry is the only one in the world which has to plan for "the worst case scenario".

  3. #63


    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,002
    Thank Post
    265
    Thanked 795 Times in 602 Posts
    Rep Power
    289
    Quote Originally Posted by tommej View Post
    In the words of the Turkish PM "no investment without risk, noting that if people wanted a no-risk environment, they should "not build crude oil lines in their country and not use gas in their kitchens.""
    No one is saying that you can operate without risk. My experience suggests that the discipline of Risk Management is very poorly understood and in the case of Fukushima, the fact of that seems indisputable. The engineering might have dealt relatively well with the situation but putt the Registers troll headline beside a picture of the wreckage of Fukushima and you have a piece of black comedy. They do have a point but they are missing a rather big one too.

    Nuclear industry is the only one in the world which has to plan for "the worst case scenario".
    Simply not true. Do you think that BP shareholders would now tolerate BP operating deep water drilling without planning for the "worst case" - or you think they are incapable of learning that lesson and happy to splash out another $20billion? Do you think Airbus build passenger aircraft without considering the risks and managing them? Every industry has to deal with risk - even schools. Nuclear simply has to contend with the fact that consequences are potentially catastrophic for large number of people over a large area. Risk is about probability AND consequences and that's the first thing people seem to have difficulty understanding.

  4. #64


    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,002
    Thank Post
    265
    Thanked 795 Times in 602 Posts
    Rep Power
    289
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    I think we'll have to agree to disagree here
    Good grief - where's the fun in that 'eh? :-)

  5. #65

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    West Midlands
    Posts
    410
    Thank Post
    73
    Thanked 75 Times in 58 Posts
    Rep Power
    44
    Just a thought - although the (main) earthquake was (what is now deemed) a level 9, the epicentre (or should that be epicenter localzuk? ) was many (70-odd?) miles away, so surely what actually "hit" the power plant would be much less - maybe even less that a 7.9 "on site"?

    Otherwise i could legitimately claim that my garden shed withstood a magnitude 9 earthquake - albeit due to the fact that it was halfway around the world from the incident!

    mb

  6. #66
    tommej's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Lincolnshire
    Posts
    697
    Thank Post
    38
    Thanked 130 Times in 99 Posts
    Rep Power
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by pcstru View Post
    Simply not true. Do you think that BP shareholders would now tolerate BP operating deep water drilling without planning for the "worst case" - or you think they are incapable of learning that lesson and happy to splash out another $20billion? Do you think Airbus build passenger aircraft without considering the risks and managing them? Every industry has to deal with risk - even schools. Nuclear simply has to contend with the fact that consequences are potentially catastrophic for large number of people over a large area. Risk is about probability AND consequences and that's the first thing people seem to have difficulty understanding.
    BP have already got a contract to drill again.

    Yes each industry has to "prepare" for such events. None of them are reported in such a way in the media.

  7. #67
    tommej's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Lincolnshire
    Posts
    697
    Thank Post
    38
    Thanked 130 Times in 99 Posts
    Rep Power
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by Martin View Post
    Just a thought - although the (main) earthquake was (what is now deemed) a level 9, the epicentre (or should that be epicenter localzuk? ) was many (70-odd?) miles away, so surely what actually "hit" the power plant would be much less - maybe even less that a 7.9 "on site"?

    Otherwise i could legitimately claim that my garden shed withstood a magnitude 9 earthquake - albeit due to the fact that it was halfway around the world from the incident!

    mb
    You can try to downplay the earthquake if you like, it was still the 4th biggest in history, probably a 1 in a 1000 year occurance.

  8. #68

    JJonas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    North Walsham, Norfolk
    Posts
    3,105
    Thank Post
    386
    Thanked 432 Times in 320 Posts
    Rep Power
    383
    Last edited by JJonas; 16th March 2011 at 12:11 PM.

  9. Thanks to JJonas from:

    Martin (16th March 2011)

  10. #69
    tommej's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Lincolnshire
    Posts
    697
    Thank Post
    38
    Thanked 130 Times in 99 Posts
    Rep Power
    77

  11. #70
    penfold_99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    East Sussex
    Posts
    929
    Thank Post
    56
    Thanked 162 Times in 114 Posts
    Rep Power
    67
    The path the world has taken with nuclear recator technology has primarily been used to produce Plutonium from uranium 235 for weaponisation. It also has the issue of producing large amount nuclear waste. This is a serious issue for continuance production of electricity, wear to store it.

    A better way to produce electricity from nuclear technology would be to use thorium 228, it only produces a fraction of the waste but the waste only has a half life of 2 year (afaik). The technology is a lot safer as it Can be completely turned off.

    China has opted to only built thorium from now on.

  12. #71
    tommej's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Lincolnshire
    Posts
    697
    Thank Post
    38
    Thanked 130 Times in 99 Posts
    Rep Power
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C_Billion-euro_nuclear_shutdown_in_Germany_1603111.html
    Chancellor Angela Merkel decreed yesterday that the country's nuclear power reactors that began operation in 1980 or earlier should be immediately shut down. Those units closed yesterday and were joined by another unit already in long-term shutdown, making a total of 8336 MWe in generation offline under her direction.

    Using the latest German power prices from the International Energy Agency, the market value of that power (including transmission etc) would be between €1.0 billion and €2.6 billion ($1.3 billion to $3.6 billion).

    The impact on the German government from loss of income via its unique nuclear fuel tax could be around €235 million ($328 million).
    Cya merkel!

  13. #72

    plexer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    13,460
    Thank Post
    646
    Thanked 1,614 Times in 1,444 Posts
    Rep Power
    419
    Not quite a 2 year half life according to this:

    The greener nuclear alternative - Unleashed (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

    But does seem a better idea.

    Ben

  14. #73

    sonofsanta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Lincolnshire, UK
    Posts
    4,952
    Thank Post
    862
    Thanked 1,443 Times in 991 Posts
    Blog Entries
    47
    Rep Power
    616
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    the plant survived the quakes perfectly with all control methods working as they should even at force 8.9 (which, as stated is hundreds of times stronger than the 7.9 build spec)
    Actually... 8.9 is just 10 times stronger than 7.9. Logarithmic scale and all that.

    (Although I'm on the side of "bloody hell those reactors have done well to stand up to that like they have", and have long been of the opinion that we need more nuclear in this country anyway. My only fear right now is that Japan is doing what Japan does best and being very secretive and covering something up)

    Anyway, actually came back to post this interesting nugget from the BBC live feed thing:
    1355: Simon in Oita, Japan writes: "The sensationalist approach of some of the media is starting to grate - stoking fear to sell their product. The British Embassy have provided a very calm and rational analysis of the nuclear threat, along with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology blog and other sources of knowledge (the BBC site has been a lifeline). The engineers at the plant are obviously facing a chain reaction of problems in the most logical manner and deserve our support."
    So maybe the BBC are starting to realise there's a bit of a backlash against the media frenzy. If I want mad exaggeration and panic in my news, Sky News is on my Freeview box; I'd rather the BBC were the calm, intelligent voice of the media and weren't getting caught up in this ratings-based madness.

  15. #74
    penfold_99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    East Sussex
    Posts
    929
    Thank Post
    56
    Thanked 162 Times in 114 Posts
    Rep Power
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by plexer View Post
    Not quite a 2 year half life according to this:
    The greener nuclear alternative - Unleashed (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
    But does seem a better idea.
    Ben
    Sorry my nuclear physics knowledge is a bit rusty.

  16. #75
    Butuz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Wales, UK
    Posts
    1,579
    Thank Post
    211
    Thanked 220 Times in 176 Posts
    Rep Power
    63
    Yes I have to admit I have been quite shocked at the sensationalism of the BBC coverage. I'd expect it from the daily mail or sky but not from the BBC! just goes to show not alot will get int the way of a good* news story!

    * By good I mean good form the news ratings point of view, not good from any one elses point of view

    Butuz

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Tactical Nuclear Penguin!
    By tech_guy in forum General Chat
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 2nd December 2010, 12:01 AM
  2. Tactical Nuclear Penguin, eat your heart out...
    By Domino in forum General Chat
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 23rd July 2010, 02:16 PM
  3. Tactical Nuclear Penguin
    By TwoZeroAlpha in forum General Chat
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 8th December 2009, 10:33 AM
  4. 60th Anniversary of the building of the nuclear bomb
    By ninjabeaver in forum General Chat
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 13th July 2005, 06:10 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •