Electronics News

Slideshow: Profs Say Fukushima Plant Passed Ultimate Test

Page 1 / 2 Next >
View Comments: Newest First|Oldest First|Threaded View
<<  <  Page 4/16  >  >>
User Rank
Re: Good news for nuclear
Totally_Lost   5/10/2013 6:47:22 PM
So back the the original post, and the topic that the significantly improved plant design at Fukushima, even with the leaks, prevented what could have been 100 times worse than a plant with a Chernobyl design. Fukushima didn't perform as well as TMI, but the multiple layers of containment design did keep it from getting far worse.

A good engineering discussion would discuss what did work well, what could be better, and how to retrofit existing plants to perform better as well.

A bad political discusion that starts off with declaring it was completely a failure, and a nuke free world wide zone is the only solution is not really an option here .... unless killing a LOT more babies is someone's goal.

Stating every design is a bad as the Chernobyl design, and equating Chernobyl and TMI failures, is just political activism lies.

What do we need to do better to make sure US plants contain a melt down completely, not just the 95% solution that we got from Fukushima? Or are we already there, with designs superior to Fukushima?

And no ... more of the anti-nuke propaganda that everything will fail as badly as Chernobyl isn't acceptable.

User Rank
Re: Good news for nuclear
Totally_Lost   5/10/2013 5:50:59 PM
as for Nazi and Troll ....

This "discussion" isn't allowed to include how to make nuke power safer. By a very clear statement, the anti-nuke proponents here have declared that there simply will never be a safe nuke, and that they will shout over any discussion that isn't moving toward a nuke free world.

Eco Nazi's believe that only their narrow illogical view of the world, is the only one that counts. They are unwilling to compromise in the face of a majority acting against their wishes.

The small minority anti-nuke factions specifically decided to impose their views on the rest of society, by what ever means, and what ever cost, to prevail. Using relentless litigation to make the world a nuke free zone, is being an Eco Nazi ... because they have choosen to assert their will with what ever available means ... including propaganda that is factually in error, as long as it serves the purpose of making the world a nuke free zone.

Trolling certainly applies, as it's a minority view, with lie after lie attempting to dominate the discussion toward a nuke free world. Including being openly disrespectful of any position that would like to explore making nuke power safer.

It certainly isn't a discussion about making the world a safer place ... when the alternative is millions of fossil fuel deaths each year.

It certainly isn't a discussion about making nuke power safe ... when the ONLY acceptable discussion point is making the world a nuke free zone.

It certainly isn't a discussion about even engineering issues ... when the ONLY acceptable discussion points are illogical idealogical advancement toward a nuke free world.

Engineers accept that everything will fail sometime, and work toward making that as safe as possible .... this certainly isn't an engineering discussion, when the idealogy is a nuke free world, or else.

User Rank
Re: Good news for nuclear
Totally_Lost   5/10/2013 3:58:33 PM
Yes it is supposed to be for educated engineers ... and yet the emotionally driven lies continue to be presented as undeniable facts ... which is far from the truth.

In most cases, it's engineers without formal training or experience in the nuke power industry, asserting that they are "the experts", and that those actually working in the field are irresponsible.

We already have several of your "experts" making a horrible mess of statistics.

And others making a horrible mess of differentiating failures of poorly designed facilities, and asserting that significantly safer modern western designs will fail like a research reactor or a poorly designed Soviet reactor from 50 years ago.

Start acting like engineers ... and if you lack the direct experience and formal training, then stop asserting to be "THE ONLY" experts in the discussion.

And I am not an engineer in the nuke-power field, and have never worked in it. I do have friends that have, and I rather respect their view a LOT more than the anti-nuke drivel.

I did spend from 1972 to 1994 in San Luis Obispo, in the middle of the Mothers for Peace Anti-Nuke protests over Diablo Canyon facility. I had friends in both camps ... protestors, and working at the plant. I realize from hard experience, the anti-nuke discussion was never about making nukes safer ... it's about using any means at all to make the world a nuke free zone. The lies that anti-nuke camp tells, are nothing new to me.

User Rank
Re: Good news for nuclear
Amclaussen   5/10/2013 3:32:30 PM
Why don't YOU stop insulting others (we all can see your inflammatory comments on this same post!).

Why don't you take time to review my profile, or do you need a picture to focus your attacks better? Calling a fellow engineer a "Troll" just because he does NOT support you phanatical desire to go nuclear is not proper, nor valid.

This is a discussion forum for (supossedly) civilized, educated engineers, that want to CONTRIBUTE their expertise and viewpoint). you have already attacked others that have contributed VALUABLE viewpoints (like pabt2009 and Ichen52, whose, BTW, gave very valid comments, without resorting to words like "nazi" and similar.

Please try to refocus your comments.  If you like Nuclear, fine!. but refrain to call other people with insulting terms when they can show you any disadvantage or danger that your favorite technology carries with it.  Maybe in that way you can learn a little more.

Have a nice day.

Amclaussen. 35 years doing engineering, R&D and studying all the time.

User Rank
Re: Good news for nuclear
Totally_Lost   5/10/2013 2:58:09 PM
Ichien52 - "Statistically we are at the point of 14,500 to 15,000 reactor years worldwide. In reality, there have been 11 serious core damage incidents (including the 3 at Fukushima). That gives an actual core damage rate of one per 1300 operating years."

As with most events, there are multiple concurrent failure statistics, each of which is completely independent. The probability for the earthquake/tidal wave causing severe facility damage affecting multiple reactors, is completely independent of the probably of a singular core accident for other reasons.

There is a strict way in the mathmatics of statistics to combine events, where there is a reason to combine them. Inland reactors, simply do not have a probability of tidewaves, so they are not equal with sites that are at risk. Every site has a long list of independent failure probabilities, that need to be combined for the probability of a failure at that specific site. Combining the probabilities for all sites world wide, is rather tricky, and will not yield the number presented above.

For those without a formal statistics background ... it's easy to lie with what appear to be convincing numbers. As they say, figures don't lie, but those that lie sure can figure.

Most of the meltdowns occured at facilities that didn't have the same degree of multiple layers of safety that modern western reactors have. At TMI two layers of defense failed from multiple human errors, but two others contained that failure. So while there was a meltdown, two of the four layers of defense worked as designed, and it was not worse. That was a successful failure. The  Chernobyl reactor didn't have the extra layers of containment that western designs require, so the failure was not contained. Because every site is different, it's simply not valid to treat a bare research reactor failure the same as a modern western reactor that is simply designed to remain safe in a failure ... actually with multiple failures.

It's actually expected that a contained meltdown will happen every 20 years or so. It's also expected that an uncontained meltdown of a modern western reactor will simply not happen without some very extra ordinary event to drive it. The half truths to tell the lie that Chernobyl and Fukushima will happen every 3 years, is simply a big lie, hiding behind a half truth.

So in a nut shell, the statistics you cite, do not yeild a 1 in 3 year failure rate like Chernobyl or Fukushima. Anyone with a formal background in statistics, making that assertion, is purposefully telling a lie. Anyone without a formal background attempting to support the anti-nuke propaganda based on that as a proof, is what we call a clueless idiot, that probably has already been told that the statisical "proof" is invalid, and chooses to continue with the lies to support the cause.

Unfortunately the anti-nuke propaganda is based on FUD, that hopes that they can stop nuke power with fear.

User Rank
Re: Fukishima a success? Doubtful -- Almost Certainly :)
patb2009   5/10/2013 10:36:51 AM

I'd suggest you review some of these  






Liebreich really points it out, the utility models are going to have to change fast, we are seeing rapidly declining costs in PV and declining costs in Wind, the LCOE on wind is running 70 Euros/MWH  that's about 10 cents/KWH, really not a bad figure and that number is going to continue to decline.  



User Rank
Re: Good news for nuclear
lchien52   5/10/2013 9:30:45 AM
Thats the troubling thing. The nuclear experts use a probability of core damage to assess risks. A value called core damage frequency. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_damage_frequency is a startling read.

The core damage frequency projections are in failures per so-many reactor-years of operation. The European Commission study projected 5x10^-5 or about one failure per 20,000 reaactor-years, worldwide. The US value by the Electric Power Research Institute is about 1 in 50,000 reactor-years.

There are around 500 operating reactors. With the above figures the rate of core failure should be about 1 in 40 to 1 in 100 years.

Statistically we are at the point of 14,500 to 15,000 reactor years worldwide. In reality, there have been 11 serious core damage incidents (including the 3 at Fukushima). That gives an actual core damage rate of one per 1300 operating years.

Continuing at that actual rate with 500 reactors, we can expect a major incident every 3 years!

So my point is that they've done all these studies that say how safe and reliable it is, but in reality the numbers they projected are more than ten-fifteen times too optimistic when compared to the actual core failure rate.


User Rank
Re: Fukishima a success? Doubtful -- Almost Certainly :)
Totally_Lost   5/9/2013 10:30:33 PM
PatB writes: "if Nuclear power was as cheap and effective, it would be being built at a high rate world wide. Instead, Nuke construction has basically been in a coma for 30 years and without massive subsidies would be dying."


BTW ... the massive subsidies are going to wind and solar ... they would be DOA without it

read this:





Wind power is so cost effective, that even with huge government subsidies and bailouts, Vestas is on the rocks, sheding employees all around my area. So maybe wind is already DOA



The real cost in major  solar and wind projects, is serious balance of trade and international debt problems, with China as the primary supplier for wind, solar, and storage technology.

More US jobs lost, more US debt, so let's bankrupt western economies with a rush toward wind and solar.

User Rank
Re: Good news for nuclear
Totally_Lost   5/9/2013 6:37:40 PM


and why don't you update your profile with a face too, and stop being an anonymous troll

User Rank
Re: Good news for nuclear
Totally_Lost   5/9/2013 6:23:46 PM
and we have " Just a little sample of the hipocrisy of the governants in turn.  Amclaussen."

the gross hipocrisy to accept killing, injuring, and suffering of millions more each year from fossil fuel polutants ... just to save a few dozen lives, and a few thousand illnesses of a different kind.

the gross hipocrisy to to believe that voices other than yours deserve to be silenced by a moderator.

well maybe the pro-nuke voices need to start saying something, like step aside you coward baby killers, and let someone do the job you are too afraid to try at.

I don't like your math .... let millions die and suffer each year ... just because you are afraid someone might prove you wrong.

So ... here is the challenge ... create three teams:

Team 1) Bring a complete non-toxic low cost solar/wind/storage base/peak generation  solution to market that is cheaper than fossil fuel and nuke power generation, and doesn't require a huge debt or balance of trade problem sourcing from asia (will probably take about 20-30 years, and may not happen for technical reasons). Build these out to replace fossil fuel peak generation, and base generation facilities, and force the shutdown off all fossil fuel and nuke generation facilities, including fossil fuel use for transportation.

Team 2) Build a rail gun up the side of a very tall mountain to launch all nuke waste into the sun. This might also be necessary to dispose of toxic renewable power  solutions that fail.

Team 3) Build advanced better than state of the art, clean, safe nuke generation plants to replace fossil fuel base and peak generation facilities, as both an interim solution until Team 1 succeeds, and as a back up plan if Team 1 fails.

Either way, we can eliminate most fossil fuel use and deaths in a decade or so. If Team 1 wins, then Team 2 launches all radioactive clean up mess into the sun.

<<  <  Page 4/16  >  >>
Partner Zone
More Blogs from Electronics News
It would be difficult and highly unlikely, but it’s certainly possible for computer hackers to change the outcome of next month’s presidential election, experts say.
Charlie Miller, whose hacking exploits on a Jeep Cherokee sparked a recall of 1.4 million Fiat Chrysler vehicles, will explain how he did it and why society needs to be aware of vehicle vulnerabilities at the upcoming ARM TechCon 2016 in Santa Clara, CA.
Digital signal processors are gaining momentum in applications from voice activation to sports watches to holographic computing.
Using a hybrid design, a new cooling unit promises to cut energy consumption by a whopping 75% when it removes heat from electronic enclosures.
By eliminating pumps, sensors, and actuators, a start-up has created a home appliance that autonomously grows food, and costs about half as much as its predecessors.
Quick Poll
The Continuing Education Center offers engineers an entirely new way to get the education they need to formulate next-generation solutions.
Oct 10 - 14, Embedded System Design Techniques™: Getting Started Developing Professional Embedded Software
SEMESTERS: 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6 |  7 | 8 | 9 | 10

Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.
Next Course September 27-29:
Sponsored by 3M
Learn More   |   Login   |   Archived Classes
Twitter Feed
Design News Twitter Feed
Like Us on Facebook

Technology Marketplace

Copyright © 2016 UBM Canon, A UBM company, All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Service