Hybrid Car – More Fun with Less Gas

Nuclear reactors in the news - accurate reporting? - Page 5

register ::  Login Password  :: Lost Password?
Posted by vaughn on March 21, 2011, 8:13 pm
 


Sorry John, you needed to read the reference to totally understand what I wrote.
It says: "When the diesel generators were gone, the reactor operators switched
to emergency battery power. The batteries were designed as one of the backups to
the backups, to provide power for cooling the core for 8 hours. And they did."
"Within the 8 hours, another power source had to be found and connected to the
power plant. The power grid was down due to the earthquake. The diesel
generators were destroyed by the tsunami. So mobile diesel generators were
trucked in."
"This is where things started to go seriously wrong. The external power
generators could not be connected to the power plant (the plugs did not fit). So
after the batteries ran out, the residual heat could not be carried away any
more."

So in addition to the huge portable generators you are talking about, they also
apparently had smaller portable units, but had never tried them.

I respectfully stand by everything that I wrote earlier.  These folks have been
negligent. I wish it weren't so, but it looks to me like this accident could
have been far better managed.

Vaughn




Posted by Tom P on March 21, 2011, 8:33 pm
 
On 03/21/2011 09:13 PM, vaughn wrote:

wrote.

What I find disturbing about the Fukushima accident is that in the final
analysis, the catastrophe is not the result of the earthquake, nor the
tsunami, but lack of coolant.



Posted by Neon John on March 21, 2011, 11:01 pm
 On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 16:13:31 -0400, "vaughn"



So

Yeah, I read that from one of the major media outlets.  Gave me a good
chuckle.  The  notion of plugging in a megawatt class generator with a
plug is truly humorous.


Well, the RHR (residual heat removal) pumps are several hundred HP
each.  The service water pumps that supply raw (sea) water to the RHR
heat exchanges are also several hundred HP each.  At 746 watts per HP,
you can do the rough math to see just how big a "portable" generator
would have to be.

I imagine that they did semi-trailer some generators to the site but I
also imagine that the problem was inadequate capacity and perhaps
incompatible voltage.  And perhaps the fact that it was getting too
radiologically hot in the area where they'd have to be connected for
men to work there.


You throw such pejorative words as negligent around so easily while
sitting in your nice computer chair thousands of miles away.  As
someone with experience in that type of plant (oh wait, I have
experience so I must have an agenda, right?) I see very little to
criticize so far.  In fact, I very much admire the work that  they've
done so far, at least to the extent that I can know about it 3rd hand.

I imagine that there will eventually be something like TMI's Kemmeny
Commission report on the incident.  With that and other information
that will come out in the trade press, we'll have actual hard facts to
judge them by.

John

Posted by danny burstein on March 22, 2011, 3:54 am
 

Wat'cha wanna bet that the 60 versus 50 cycles per second
Japanese peculiarity reared its ugly head here?

(Parts of Japan are at 50, parts at 60.)

--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
             dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

Posted by Curbie on March 21, 2011, 8:43 pm
 I avoid discussions of a political or religious nature like the
plague, but I think a policy discussion of energy need to include BOTH
unvarnished pros and cons along with the question of "if NOT one
particular plan, than what".

I'm neither pro nor anti-nuke (if NOT nuclear, than what), but I would
like to see a well vetted plan for the storage/disposal of spent
nuclear fuel and waste included by the advocates. If I'm not mistaken,
any nuclear plan would commit 1000's of years of future citizens to
pay for the care and protection of spent nuclear fuel.

I avoid discussions of a political or religious nature like the
plague, but I think a policy discussion of energy need to include BOTH
unvarnished pros and cons along with the question of "if NOT one
particular plan, than what".

I'm neither pro nor anti-nuke (if NOT nuclear, than what), but I would
like to see a well vetted plan for the storage/disposal of spent
nuclear fuel and waste included by the advocates.

 If I'm not mistaken, any nuclear plan would commit 1000's of years of
future citizens to pay for the care and protection of spent nuclear
fuel. I thought the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository was
killed, do we even have another site approved?

I'm not sure a clear picture of anything comes from listening to
advocates from just one or the other.

Curbie


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