• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged nuclear power safe?

Rasmus said:
1. "Nuclear power is reasonable safe because of all the redundancy built into the system."

2. Chernobyl goes BOOM.
Click to expand...

I don't think they were talking about nuclear plants they couldn't know anything about.

3. "Nuclear power in the west is reasonably safe, because unlike those plants you cannot induce a core melt either willfully or accidentally pressing any of the buttons in the contropl room."

4. Terrorists hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings.
Click to expand...

Trying to see the relationship between 3 and 4...

8. "But anyway, it did not blow up and we didn't see all of that coming all at once and the last line of defense held like it should have, right? Also, we don't get tsunamis and earthquakes here."
Click to expand...

Isn't it rather "so things worked out but we're still going to upgrade them to withstand something more dangerous." ?

10. "Oops, we totally didn't see that coming. We'll take care of it with the next design, though! Then we'll be safe!"
Click to expand...

Nonsense. There can ALWAYS be something that happens, no matter how safe you are. If this is what you're arguing against you're in a losing battle.
 
Soapy Sam said:
Well, I've seen that happen often on rigs. It's usually fixable with a hacksaw and a new plug. Or ductape and rebar.
Remember the CO2 scrubbers on Apollo 13?
Click to expand...

That's what I was wondering, electrical power doesn't have to go through a magic plug, you can hard wire two cables once you hack off the offending plug and socket.
 
Thunder said:
every morning I wake up, and the news gets worse. :(
Click to expand...

Unless you went to sleep on Thursday and slept all through the weekend.

More than 10,000 people died in a terrible earthquake and the resultant tsunami, nearly 2000 homes were washed into the ocean when a dam broke near Sukagawa, a burning oil refinery releases chemicals into the air and into the ground, and the media is treating the Fukushima reactor as if it's the main news.
 
Rasmus said:
Post #219.

My issue is this


1. "Nuclear power is reasonable safe because of all the redundancy built into the system."

2. Chernobyl goes BOOM.
Click to expand...

Chernobyl only went boom because the lazy [rule 10]ers who worked there decided they couldn't be bothered with safety protocols because they thought it was too much of a hassle, compounded by the containment being absolutely awfully built.


Frankly, the only reason people didn't bring up Chernobyl as a possible safety issue for nuclear power is because the Soviet Union wasn't exactly the most open nation in the world. A single, Soviet nuclear plant built in the 1950's with substandard safety features that were ignored anyway isn't an argument.

The current "issue" in Japan is a perfect example of why nuclear power is absolutely safe. A power plant built what, 10 years after Chernobyl? It managed to withstand an earthquake far in advance of any that it was built to withstand, followed by aftershocks, and then a tsunami for goodness sake and the safety features, now 40 years out of date, worked.
 
Skwinty said:
The pellets will not dissolve in water, salt or clean.

The reaction would probably be just cooling although the net effect of salt water will be accelerated corrosion of metal components.

These plants will never be used again.
Click to expand...

That's what I heard some expert say on the TV news last night, as I was cooking dinner. That they are flooding with seawater means they'll never use the plants again, due to the corrosive nature of seawater.
 
Chernobyl did not have a containment. It had what we would have called a confinement structure.

Now, not all reactors need a containment; The 10,000 W and less research reactors, for example.

But Chernobyl was a very large reactor.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
The current "issue" in Japan is a perfect example of why nuclear power is absolutely safe. A power plant built what, 10 years after Chernobyl? It managed to withstand an earthquake far in advance of any that it was built to withstand, followed by aftershocks, and then a tsunami for goodness sake and the safety features, now 40 years out of date, worked.
Click to expand...

I think we can finally agree on something !
 
Yes, the use of sea water is the last option for cooling.

I have worked at a nuclear power station since 1984.
The station is a first generation PWR made by Framatome. Original designer was Westinghouse.

There are 2 X 960MW units and the entire nuclear island is built on a seismic raft. There are seismic fault lines near Cape Town, but have been inactive for many years.

The plant was also designed to withstand a tsunami of average 8m and max of 14m waves. The plant is continually modified as technology progresses and will have it's life extended beyond 40 years. (currently achieved 26 years of safe operation)

The pipe work for use of sea water as emergency cooling has been in place since conception, so it is not a new idea. There are many redundant systems in place that need to be exhausted first though.
 
Reading the Wikipedia page on Chernobyl, they mention a recent study that mentions "985,000" deaths resulting from the incident.

Isn't that like 100 times more than liberal estimates used to say ? Is that even possible ?
 
Just watched a news stuff on TV. Their take : "expert are unanimous : in the worst case scenario this could be worst than chernobyl" (image shown : a nuclear reactor exploding litterally and the beton building burning).

At least I know those guy are clown now.
 
I love my BBC. It's a respectable, fairly honest and good quality news outlet and I'm proud of it, but the unbelievable crap it's spewing about this plant is making me write a letter of complaint.
 
BenBurch said:
Chernobyl did not have a containment. It had what we would have called a confinement structure. .
Click to expand...
I was under the impression this was containment. Since it isn't, this scaremongering is even more insane. What experts are being asked about this and what questions are they being asked, I wonder to make the news people scream about the sky falling in?
 
a_unique_person said:
That's what I was wondering, electrical power doesn't have to go through a magic plug, you can hard wire two cables once you hack off the offending plug and socket.
Click to expand...
Having actually worked with industrial equipment I'm calling ********. There is no *********** plug on those generators.
Well, I've seen that happen often on rigs. It's usually fixable with a hacksaw and a new plug. Or ductape and rebar.
Remember the CO2 scrubbers on Apollo 13?
Click to expand...
Head hurts immensely. That is a horribly stupid idea that has a good chance of completely destroying the cooling system.
 
Last edited:
angrysoba said:
I'm sure this has come up already but could someone tell me, in a nutshell, what was so disastrous about Three Mile Island.
Click to expand...
Mostly, it happened right after the movie The China Syndrome came out.

Great for the movie, bad for nuclear power in the US.

eta: I see timhau already mentioned this.
 
Last edited:
my friend posted this map on FB.

i ripped him a new one for it. my sister and her bf freaked when they saw it.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Seriously, thunder, it's perfectly safe. The doomsday crap peddled by practically all media outlets, even reputable ones, is scaremongering nonsense.
Click to expand...

but if the core melts, won't it spew highly radioactive crap into the air..for days?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom