Hybrid Car – More Fun with Less Gas

Nuclear reactors in the news - accurate reporting? - Page 4

register ::  Login Password  :: Lost Password?
Posted by Jim Wilkins on March 23, 2011, 12:49 am
 

The report of the plug being blown upward was a comment about a video
I didn't download.

jsw

Posted by daestrom on March 23, 2011, 10:55 pm
 
On 3/22/2011 20:49 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:

I had seen the video on CNN showing number 3 exploding and a lot of
'stuff' went up quite high, but it is hard to tell what.  If the H2 had
accumulated in the top of the reactor building, it would have been above
the shield plug.  There's very little space between the plug and the
containment dome for H2 to accumulate, I have doubts enough H2 could
collect there to blow it very high up if at all.

daestrom

Posted by sno on March 21, 2011, 6:16 pm
 On 3/21/2011 10:11 AM, Morris Dovey wrote:

Very well written....thank you much for the link....

I agree this article or others like it should be spread...over the
internet and other places...

Here is another link that has interviews concerning what might be
coming.....second interview concerns what might be the results of the
japanese nuclear problems....

http://www.financialsensenewshour.com/broadcast/fsn2011-0321-1.mp3

Check it out...

have fun....sno



--
Correct Scientific Terminology:
Hypothesis - a guess as to why or how something occurs
Theory - a hypothesis that has been checked by enough experiments
  to be generally assumed to be true.
Law - a hypothesis that has been checked by enough experiments
  in enough different ways that it is assumed to be truer then a theory.
Note: nothing is proven in science, things are assumed to be true.


Posted by vaughn on March 21, 2011, 6:43 pm
 

Interesting article!  However the very title "Fukushima is a triumph for nuke
power" informs us that the author is writing from a definite point of view.
Therefore, every word must be passed through our own personal BS filter.
Whatever Fukushima turns out to be, it will certainly be no triumph for nuclear
power.

There's really no getting around it.  The operators have been distinctly
negligent.  It seems that the worst of the disaster could have been avoided if
the operators had had the proper portable generators available and had
occasionally TRIED THEM.  Further, it seems to me that they had at least a day
or two to set up some way of remotely filling the spent fuel pools, but never
thought to do it.  Those pools could turn out to be a bigger problem that the
reactor cores themselves

There will need to be changes expensively applied to the nuclear power industry
as a result of these hard lessons the world is learning.  We may even need to
shut down some older plants.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no anti-nuke.  As I have said before, the real
ecological damage from this accident will come from the inevitable new delays in
building new nuclear plants.  Instead, we will be pumping millions of tons of
toxic waste into our atmosphere from the new coal plants we will inevitably
build and continue to use.  And then there is global warming to consider...

Vaughn



Posted by Neon John on March 21, 2011, 7:52 pm
 On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 14:43:37 -0400, "vaughn"



You apparently know little about nuclear plant diesels.  First off,
they had  multiply redundant generators for each unit and the ARE
exercised fairly often.  I might remind you that they started and ran
just fine until the tsunami hit.  Third, these generators are huge.
Multi-megawatt.  Too large to fit on anything short of a barge.  You
don't just roll one of these babies out of your garage and crank 'er
up.

The only fault that I see in this whole thing is not building the sea
wall and the generator vault intakes and exhausts a bit higher.  This
is 5th quarter quarterbacking at its worst, though.


You presume that they knew the conditions in the spent fuel pits from
the beginning.  With a total plant blackout, the fuel pit level
indicators did not work.  Since the fuel pit is designed to contain
enough water for a couple of weeks of no external cooling, the
operator's attentions were correctly directed at the more immediate
problem - that of cooling the reactor.

In case  you're going to ask the next obvious question, no, they could
not send someone up there to look around after the first fuel failed.
Much too radiologically hot.


What's this "we" stuff, white man?!  I haven't seen a whole lot here
that could be considered "lesson learned".  Rule #1 is that you don't
build plants near fault lines.  We don't.  The Japanese have little
choice.  Our plants are tech spec'd for 500 year floods.  That's why
Sequoyah's diesel generators, for example, sit on top of an about 120
foot hill that is over 200 feet above the level of the Chickamauga
lake.  And the buildings are STILL water-tight with high intake and
exhaust openings.

And even though these plants were nearing the end of their "nominal"
lives, they went far beyond the call of duty and protected the public
even through an unprecedented (for Japan) earthquake AND an
unprecedented tsunami.

This is a HUGE win for the engineers who designed the GE plant over 50
years ago.  Those who are still alive should be patting themselves on
the back constantly.

in

Well then  you can be part of the solution.  One of the sites that
I've been following published a Fox news opinion poll.  One question
was whether the respondent supported more nuclear construction. Before
the Japanese event, 63% did.  After, 61%.  

Instead of speculating about things that  you don't know about like
"portable" diesel generators for  nuclear plants, what you should do
is write letters to your political slime and to the NRC reinforcing
your support for nuclear power.  Then let the people who know what
they're doing do their thing and build more plants.

BTW, if you're interested in yet another view of the event, I've been
writing about it here:

http://www.johndearmond.com/category/nuclear/

John

This Thread
Bookmark this thread:
 
 
 
 
 
 
  •  
  • Subject
  • Author
  • Date
please rate this thread