Posted on 04/08/2011 4:35:37 PM PDT by matt04
In the aftermath of a disaster, the strengths of any society become immediately visible. The cohesiveness, resilience, technological brilliance and extraordinary competence of the Japanese are on full display. One report from Rikuzentakata — a town of 25,000, annihilated by the tsunami that followed Friday’s massive earthquake — describes volunteer firefighters working to clear rubble and search for survivors; troops and police efficiently directing traffic and supplies; survivors are not only “calm and pragmatic” but also coping “with politeness and sometimes amazingly good cheer.”
Thanks to these strengths, Japan will eventually recover. But at least one Japanese nuclear power complex will not. As I write, three reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station appear to have lost their cooling capacity. Engineers are flooding the plant with seawater — effectively destroying it — and then letting off radioactive steam. There have been two explosions. The situation may worsen in the coming hours.
...
Increasingly, nuclear power is also promoted because it safe. Which it is — except, of course, when it is not.
...
I hope that this will never, ever happen. I feel nothing but admiration for the Japanese nuclear engineers who have been battling catastrophe for several days. If anyone can prevent a disaster, the Japanese can do it. But I also hope that a near-miss prompts people around the world to think twice about the true “price” of nuclear energy, and that it stops the nuclear renaissance dead in its tracks.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
My late father helped design and build them as a GE employee, who worked for them for 39 yrs. At that time in the 70’s, he took about 10 trips over there working with “Japan Electric”.
The placement and surveys, and event prediction and severity are the problem, NOT the design.
Bump.
And they were 1970 vintage design.
And Toshiba AND Hitachi.
And let's get facts straight, the reactors did not fail.....
.....A record earthquake shook the $hit out of the area.
.....Primary power was lost and the reactors scrammed.
.....The reactors were perfectly fine with backup power.
.....A tsunami took out the backup cooling power.
.....TEPCO had the spent fuel pools in the same building as the reactor containment buildings. THIS is where most of the trouble has been. TEPCO did not pay enough attention to getting water into the spent fuel pools. ANYBODY who knows what these are KNOWS spent fuel in a cooling pool must be cooled and that the water will disastrously evaporate if not replenished and cooled. It has nothing to do with the reactor or GE. TEPCO made this decision as they did with the break wall and the placement of emergency power AND the emergency power fuel supply.
Do that to any reactor designed in the same era and they would be having problems too.
I admit I used to work for GE (on the turbine side of the business, not nuclear) for disclosure purposes. I QUIT GE because I could not stand to work for them anymore. But I prefer to keep facts straight.
It’s morons like this who have impeded research into better, SAFER reactors. These are forty year old reactors, for crying out loud!!
Hate to break your bubble, but what happened in Japan could happen here. Despite everyone’s pronouncements to the contrary, (self interest beside the point), nuclear power has never been all that safe. Flame away aholes.
Can't do that. The fuel MUST be cooled continuously. The fuel is buried inside the containment and the vessel. You can't get directly to it.
Chernobyl was and different design and was laid bare. You could get close to the fuel with cover and they installed engineered cooling as they buried it in the sarcophagus. That cannot be done here.
So in one ironic way, Chernobyl benefited with less designed safety (poor containment structures and a core that was combustible). The disaster was worse as a result, but it made the containment after simpler to install.
I am pretty excited over this:
http://inhabitat.com/californias-first-molten-salt-solar-energy-project-gets-green-light/
There are many areas in the USA this system would be applicable to. And it’s certainly a solution for Africa and other moderate climates such as the Middle East and other places with few tornados.
As for nuclear, well, I think the only nation truely proven in the arena of nuclear energy is the USA. We should be running all the plants.
disclaimer: I do not own stock in PG&E or any solar companies
You remember GE, don't you? They're Obama's crony capitalist friends with Jeffrey Immelt appointed the "Jobs and Competitiveness" czar.
The US Navy.
You base this statement on what facts?
You really need to stop getting drunk and posting on FR. Your family is getting worried.
People who don’t build reactors on fault lines or on the sea coast have a chance to build a safe one. The is no economical way to engineer one to be built on a fault line or in the path of a tsunami.
I agree, but facts do not matter with chicken little or people with an anti-GE and/or anti-nuclear axe to grind.
I worked for GE power for 10 years but don't care for GE anymore. Immelt and the lefties have ruined a once proud and properly industrious company. Obama, green, and multiculturalism are their heroes now. But I will not stand for illogical and purely political hits on the BWR or nuclear power.
These were state-of-the-art when built. And I don't believe for a minute that some of these new "safer" nuclear plants are perfectly safe because nothing is perfectly safe. It took 50 years for a BWR to have a significant event like this and nature was required to participate. I'd say they have been remarkably safe over the years. PWR reactors too. Yes, there are SAFER designs now, but not SAFE designs. We need to keep perspective. Life is a risk. We are witnessing the consequences of one of those risks....Earthquake and Tsunami being larger than expected.
Why thank you for proving my original post - “flame away aholes”. Lol.
Google Westinghouse’s AP1000.
You didn’t answer my question. What do you do for a living that makes you an nuclear plant expert?
Waiting for a fact to back up your statement!
One will do for a start.
Not biting, but you do sound like a government worker that just got laid off. Happy furlough.
In the U.S. alone, more than 100,000 coal miners were killed in accidents over the past century.
How many have died in nuclear plant accidents again?
The placement and surveys, and event prediction and severity are the problem, NOT the design.
I agree, but facts do not matter with chicken little or people with an anti-GE and/or anti-nuclear axe to grind.
I worked for GE power for 10 years but don’t care for GE anymore. Immelt and the lefties have ruined a once proud and properly industrious company. Obama, green, and multiculturalism are their heroes now. But I will not stand for illogical and purely political hits on the BWR or nuclear power.
These were state-of-the-art when built. And I don’t believe for a minute that some of these new “safer” nuclear plants are perfectly safe because nothing is perfectly safe. It took 50 years for a BWR to have a significant event like this and nature was required to participate. I’d say they have been remarkably safe over the years. PWR reactors too. Yes, there are SAFER designs now, but not SAFE designs. We need to keep perspective. Life is a risk. We are witnessing the consequences of one of those risks....Earthquake and Tsunami being larger than expected.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.