Gee, go away to TAM for a few days and all the global warming threads are all resolved more irrational that ever.
Expanding a bit on what BenBurch has indicated...Nuclear plants have numerous models/codes that are used and fortunately reflect reality. All of the accident analysis, plus ASME code required analysis and others. Some of the models/codes can be tested, but much of the design cannot be fully tested. Seismic codes are paramount --but, we have yet to pick up an entire plant and place it on a shaker table. (that would be such a cool test though) Core design is all based on codes, but we can test much of what happens there. However, the hot pin is based on a model and we certainly don't run any loss of coolant accidents or main steam line breaks. Many normal plant processes are based on code simulations. Of course we put a lot of them together and use these models to build simulators to train operators. Rumor has it that Boeing does the same thing with jets.
For TMI, it validated certain codes, but showed weakness in others. The amount of iodine released was much lower than expected and iodine scrubbers have been removed from plants now. However, zirc hydriding was not predicted and that was a big mistake. Now we have hydrogen recombiners. Overall, we were conseravtive.
Climate models will continue to be refined and compared with measurements...by the time they are fully validated, we should have alligators in the arctic.
glenn
Poptech: have you and mhaze ever been seen in the same place at the same time? mhaze has the same distrust/fear of models. I am sensing socks and puppets.
