HOME  |  NEWS  |  BLOGS  |  MESSAGES  |  FEATURES  |  VIDEOS  |  WEBINARS  |  INDUSTRIES  |  FOCUS ON FUNDAMENTALS
  |  REGISTER  |  LOGIN  |  HELP
<<  <  Page 7/16  >  >>
Totally_Lost
User Rank
Silver
Re: Fukishima a success? Doubtful -- Almost Certainly :)
Totally_Lost   5/8/2013 4:11:11 PM
NO RATINGS
PatB says: "At the end of the day, it's been luck not good design that's kept incidents down"

At the end of the day, you are a poor looser, that is unhappy the Nuke power plants exist at all.

Lobby to make things safer ... and people are probably much more likely to cooperate.

Lobby for a complete shutdown, calling a lot of very very good people irresponsible, and you will NEVER have a useful voice to fix problems.

Each of the things you cite, almost certainly have been carefully reviewed in the past. Some are design points to fix on new construction. Some are design points that are probably part of some important list to implement with a well planned schedule.

Lobby to improve things, rather than be an obstructionist.

Totally_Lost
User Rank
Silver
Re: Fukishima a success? Doubtful -- Almost Certainly :)
Totally_Lost   5/8/2013 4:03:45 PM
NO RATINGS
PatB says: "Can you cite something which shows how BF has conformed to NFP 805 or NUReg 1.189?"

Can you cite the regulation that states the reactor must be shutdown if it doesn't conform to that standard?


If so, can you cite the specific regulator that should be fired for failing to shutdown the site per that requirement?


There are a zillion standards, not all are required by every facility for one reason or another. There are regulations that apply to new construction. There are regulations that apply to certain configurations. There are regulations that should never be applied.



If a regulator is not doing his job, then make more than enough noise to make sure he is fired, and replaced by a responsible civil servant that will.


If you believe the regulations should require a shutdown, and they don't currently, then lobby Obama to fix that.


Anything less than that, is simply an unskilled person without any direct experience in the trade being an arm chair regulator to promote a special interest cause, that is not supported by law and our regulations.

It's just conspiracy theory, special interest noise because you do not agree with the people in charge (the regulators), that all nukes should be shutdown just because they are nukes.


patb2009
User Rank
Gold
Re: Fukishima a success? Doubtful -- Almost Certainly :)
patb2009   5/8/2013 3:27:06 PM
NO RATINGS
John says

"we have 30 years of steady safety improvements by regulatory decree, which you deceifully imply has not happened."

1) All plants use Zirconium fuel bundles which is very dangerous when overheated, it causes hydrogen generation, which destroyed Rac 1 at Fuku and TMI unit 2. A metal which doesn't strip water to free hydrogen would be much safer.

2) All these plants are storing spent fuel in the feuling pool, instead of safely in dry casks.

3) very few plants are capable of cross-strapping between plants in event of Station Black out.  

4) Far too many plants are in the flood plains of dams or rivers without adequate protection.

5) far too many plants have critical switch gear in yards unprotected from severe storm or tornado hazard.

At the end of the day, it's been luck not good design that's kept incidents down

patb2009
User Rank
Gold
Re: Fukishima a success? Doubtful -- Almost Certainly :)
patb2009   5/8/2013 3:20:22 PM
NO RATINGS
I don't know what you mean, either Browns Ferry is in conformance to fire protection

standards or it's not.

 

http://allthingsnuclear.org/cumulative-effects-of-non-regulation/

 

Consider the three reactors at the Browns Ferry nuclear plant in Alabama. A disastrous fire in March 1975 nearly caused two of its reactors to melt down. The NRC adopted fire protection regulations in 1980 seeking to prevent another serious nuclear plant fire. But the three reactors at Browns Ferry, along with nearly four dozen other reactors in the U.S., still do not comply with fire protection regulations more than three decades later.

It's not the cumulative effects of regulation that the NRC should be evaluating.

The NRC should be concerned about the cumulative effects of non-regulation.

 

http://allthingsnuclear.org/fission-stories-98-fires-at-browns-ferry-get-your/

In the eight years since that time only four reactors have taken the steps to comply. Today, 47 of those 51 reactors still do not comply with either the 1980 or 2004 fire regulations.

 

 

John  I'm not sure what you mean by Browns Ferry Fear Mongering. Either BF is up to fire protection or it's not. Either they learned their lessons and conform to new regs or they stay with Status quo.  

Can you cite something which shows how BF has conformed to NFP 805 or NUReg 1.189?

 

Totally_Lost
User Rank
Silver
Re: Fukishima a success? Doubtful -- Almost Certainly :)
Totally_Lost   5/8/2013 2:00:55 PM
NO RATINGS
PatB writes: "That's a huge problem waiting to happen"

More fear mongering ... just like your Brown's Ferry post.


we have 30 years of steady safety improvements by regulatory decree, which you deceifully imply has not happened.


Lot's of arm chair anti-nuke "experts" crying wolf ... and lots of deep in the trenches engineers with actual experince in the field, saying that they are improving safety every day.


And we have regulators that can shut down any plant that is unsafe, giving operation permits to allow operation to continue, that by their position, are also declaring the plants safe.


a lot of conspiracy theory, and little real honest facts, from the fear mongers.


What we should be doing, is taxing fossil fuels at $800T/year to cover the health costs and death benefits that industry is imposing on the worlds population.


Then we can talk about real costs being fairly distributed ... instead of society being forced to massively subsidize those losses for the fossil fuel industries.


And change the environmental litigation law so that the loosers pay all costs (both sides of legal, plus other actual costs) for both sides. Time to stop this needless litigation by anti-nuke minority that has no purpose except to drive up nuke costs, for the majority of society to pay.


Totally_Lost
User Rank
Silver
Re: Fukishima a success? Doubtful -- Almost Certainly :)
Totally_Lost   5/8/2013 1:54:15 PM
NO RATINGS
PatB writes: "Market share is decling,   production is kind of peaked out."


True that while Nuke power continues to grow, that other market segments like coal and gas are growing faster ... which is a VERY bad thing, since it means that CO2 production increasing global warming is growing, and the number of polutants that will kill and injure are also growing. And you want to gloat about that?


As far as the production peaking, fracing is certainly producing cheap gas for now, and 20 years of anti-nuke lawsuits unfairly shifted economics to higly poluting coal and gas ... and you might gloat about that, but I personally can not see any responsible person as wanting to gloat about the deaths and health suffering that anti-nuke activists have caused.


As far as outlook from here forward ... fracing protests are shuting down gas exploration and field production enhancements, and drving up gas costs.


We are looking at Carbon taxing by many governments, which will quickly shift significant costs to coal, gas and oil, which will make nuke power very very competitive again.


So ... claiming peaked out, is something of a falicy, in that it assumes that the plants under construction today will not come on line, and the plants that are ordered will not come online either. The fear mongering clearly was attempting to create an environment to stop that growth over the next 5-10 years, but it's highly unlikely that will happen as fossil fuel energy prices spike again as the economy recovers. I suspect that between carbon taxing and energy prices rising, we will see nukes being built at 1970's levels again.


patb2009
User Rank
Gold
Re: Fukishima a success? Doubtful -- Almost Certainly :)
patb2009   5/8/2013 11:23:19 AM
NO RATINGS
http://www.world-nuclear.org/uploadedImages/org/info/Nuclear_Electricity_Production.png

 



Market share is decling,   production is kind of peaked out.

 



 

not a lot of new racs coming online. for a long time

 

but they have been squeezing a lot more out of what they have.

at the price of shaving margins and robustness.

patb2009
User Rank
Gold
Re: Fukishima a success? Doubtful -- Almost Certainly :)
patb2009   5/8/2013 11:08:23 AM
NO RATINGS
http://www.icjt.org/npp/graf.php?drzava=32&kontinent=

 

http://www.icjt.org/npp/graf.php?drzava=22&kontinent=1

 

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull492/art10-pic03.jpg

 

the IAEA graph is illustrative.  The number of reactors built since 86 is very few, there is a spike ongoing but, that will collapse, and most of those units will go unbuilt.

 

Now your graph of capacity is quite interesting, because capacity increased without a lot of new reactors coming onboard.  That was driven by increased capacity factors and uprated power. A number of reactors are operated hotter and higher pressure then they were designed for.

 

That's a huge problem waiting to happen

Totally_Lost
User Rank
Silver
Re: Fukishima a success? Doubtful -- Almost Certainly :)
Totally_Lost   5/8/2013 10:42:29 AM
NO RATINGS
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."

ROTHL ... Capacity doubled in the last 30 years, and you call that "in a coma for 30 years"???

You just  can not stop the fabrications and lies to defend your loosing position.


Your anti-nuke propaganda is without reason. Massive subsidies??? Just how is that different than massive subsidies for nearly all the other major power production and distribution efforts in the last 100 years??


WNA numbers world wide as of 3/5/13 are 435 in operation. 66 under construction. 160 On order or Planned. 319 Proposed and under review. That's your definition of a coma????

As far as "cheap", I find that argument by anti-nuke activists to be pretty toungue in check, when the major cost of Nuke power is the delays caused by anti-nuke nazi activists driving delays with endless lawsuits to drive up the financing costs with delays.


From my perspective, they are a very small minority, "taxing" the majority with lawsuits and delays to advance their flawed fear of nuke power ... and in the process force millions of people to live with the polution of coal and gas fired plants, while advancing CO2 driven global warming. And then this minority has the audacity to call themselves environmentalists concerned about deaths and global health advocates. Hypocrisy at best. Fear mongering decietful, self absorbed people that do not give a damn about the poor strugging to pay their power and heating bills, or those with health problems from the polution is probably closer.



From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nuclear_power_capacity_and_generation.png


Nuclear Power capacity - Wikipedia

 

Totally_Lost
User Rank
Silver
Re: Fukishima a success? Doubtful -- Almost Certainly :)
Totally_Lost   5/8/2013 10:24:14 AM
NO RATINGS
PatB writes: "So given Japan experiences richter 9 quakes, do you think it's socially acceptable to poison the northern half of the island?"


I think we all agree that the Japanese screwed up on their worst case assessments.


With that experience behind us, I'm pretty sure the regulatory boys are pressing for assement review of the other sites that may have similar understated risks.


That said, the 14,500 years of safe reactor operation years remains.


Lose some. Learn some. And work to make it better.


It's still many orders of magnitude better than the number of people that fossil fuels kill and injure in the last 50 years.


It's still significantly cleaner in both particulate and CO2 emmission than the fossil fuels we are poluting with today.


It's still cheaper than the alternatives, including renewables.


<<  <  Page 7/16  >  >>


Partner Zone
Latest Analysis
Some of our culture's most enduring robots appeared in the 80s. The Aliens series produced another evil android, and we saw light robot fare in the form of Short Circuit. Two of the great robots of all time also showed up: The Terminator and RoboCop.
Two students have created a voice-command system for our homes, based on the simple and affordable Raspberry Pi.
Optomec's third America Makes project for metal 3D printing teams the LENS process company with GE Aviation, Lockheed, and other big aerospace names to develop guidelines for repairing high-value flight-critical Air Force components.
This Gadget Freak review looks at a cooler that is essentially a party on wheels with a built-in blender, Bluetooth speaker, and USB charger. We also look at a sustainable, rotating wireless smartphone charger.
Texas Instruments is rolling out a new microcontroller that could make the design of sensor networks and data logging systems simpler and less costly.
More:Blogs|News
Design News Webinar Series
7/23/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York
7/17/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York
6/25/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York
5/13/2014 10:00 a.m. California / 1:00 p.m. New York / 6:00 p.m. London
Quick Poll
The Continuing Education Center offers engineers an entirely new way to get the education they need to formulate next-generation solutions.
Aug 4 - 8, Introduction to Linux Device Drivers
SEMESTERS: 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6


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 Class: August 12 - 14
Sponsored by igus
Learn More   |   Login   |   Archived Classes
Twitter Feed
Design News Twitter Feed
Like Us on Facebook

Sponsored Content

Technology Marketplace

Copyright © 2014 UBM Canon, A UBM company, All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Service