|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
94.174.135.59
In Reply to: RE: Twelve days before Chernobyl posted by Awe-d-o-file on January 13, 2017 at 06:16:48
The passive cooling you mention is a pump which is driven from the steam generated from the heat from the reactor, rater than being electrically powered. Apparently if Fukushima had these pumps installed, the disaster wouldn't have happened.
The pumps have been tested submerged in water, like after a Tsunami, and they continued to work.
I work for the company who designed and builds them.
Follow Ups:
"if Fukushima had these pumps installed, the disaster wouldn't have happened. "
Let's not forget that if the earthquake and subsequent tsunami hadn't happened (which was basically a one-in-a-billion longshot), the disaster wouldn't have happened. But I understand your point, and that seems like a good idea in hindsight. What other disasters can we predict the odds for, and how much are we willing to spend to guard against them? It's important to remember that Fukushima was ONE natural disaster at ONE facility in the entire history of nuclear power generation. (Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were both man-made screw-ups.)
Contrast that to the 200,000 people who died in the Sri Lanka tsunami on Christmas back in 2004. No nukes, no human cause, just nature doing it's thing.
:)
A tsunami was a highly likely event well over 50%, the adjacent sea floor is well up the Japan graph for the likelihood of earthquakes and Tsunamis.But this quake was a rare double release of fault lines, and close together. The Fukushima plant was the most vulnerable in the area, given its not wonderful control and protection systems.
LBNL the consequence was going to be horrendous, given the risky build, even for that reactor design.
Warmest
Tim Bailey
Skeptical Measurer & Audio Scrounger
Edits: 01/13/17 01/13/17 01/13/17
I was speaking generally. Clearly, that area has a higher risk, as do some others. But with 450 reactors around the world, operating non-stop except for maintenance, that's 30 years x 365 days x 450 reactors since Chernobyl, that's 5 million operating days since Chernobyl, and there's been ONE major accident due to nature.
So, "one in a billion" is a stretch. Sue me.
:)
It happened because Japan's governance allowed a not very safe reactor to be built, in a not at all safe place for that kind of reactor to be.Consequence is why we risk manage.
For me, concern about consequence in relation to nuclear power, is sensible, reasonable and pertinent.
Warmest
Tim Bailey
Skeptical Measurer & Audio Scrounger
Edits: 01/14/17
It is well onown that the Fukashima site and the several others of the same design are the highest risk and should all be shut dowm.
No doubt too the quake and tsunami were the primary cause. Power lines fell on their side forcing back up power which in this case failed as well.
I posted mainly because going forward nuclear has gone from a no to a yes for me with being able to use DU and the new plant technology with sodium and passive cooling.
Cheers!
ET
"If at first you don't succeed, keep on sucking till you do suck seed" - Curly Howard 1936
Exactly! A simple design that was overlooked as a solution
ET
"If at first you don't succeed, keep on sucking till you do suck seed" - Curly Howard 1936
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: