Cumulus Support

wd40 wrote:The impact of this on our and everyone else nuclear programs is yet to be told.

It appears that everyone (all over the planet) is/has been taking a way and see approach/attitude to nuclear power stations. What I cannot figure out is that a nuclear station located (almost directly) above a fissure (techtonic plate) could loose all its reactor cooling pumps with one quake while the power turbines keep producing electricity (unaffected by the quake)...

I have nothing about nuclear power stations - I still think they are the most efficient way of producing 'clean' electricity for us energy hungry consumers.

But I have a lot for the stupidity of Man in its "lets cut corners in order to save money" and its lack of foresight...

They shot themselves(And so would our power plants if it happened here) in the foot when the quake by procedure pushed them to shutdown therefore loosing station power forcing them to shutdown using off site power and or the diesel generators. It may have been an automated shutdown based on accelerometers.

Unless it has changed, we shutdown our nuclear units here on large earth quakes. This will be one of those things everyone will question. At the time it made good sense now, not so much.

Using seawater tells me they are very desperate.

Randy

{sarcastic mode on}

Randy, no matter how automated nuclear power stations are, there is still that unreliable part where Man has to make a decision/choice... ...such as the need to send a voice/written message requesting permission to push the fxxxxxx red button that will shut off everything...

And by the time the required authorisation 'trickles down' the up-side-down management pyramid, the reactor core is overheating...

But there is also this 'cutting corners' approach/attitude when designing and building safety provisions in any constructions ... why build a structure to withstand a 9.9 earthquake or winds exceeding 400kmh when such an earthquake or wind storm (cyclone/hurricane/tornado/typhoon/twister) might not happen for/in 1000 years... ...costs, costs, costs!

There is that (unsubstantiated) rumour that the employees (engineers?) at the nuclear power station were requested (by government representative? or management?) to keep the production of the electricity going at all costs - there were many surrounding large cities needing that electric power...

wd40 wrote: Using seawater tells me they are very desperate.

Incredible large amounts of 'regular' cold (soft or sea) water are required just to keep the temperature down and prevent a core meltdown (thus the need of 'heavy water' for normal reactor core cooling). But, where is all that 'contaminated' cooling water going to! Looking at aerial photographies of the nuclear power station site, my guess is that it goes back into the sea ... sure, why not use the sea again, after all, the sea is/has been/will remain mankind greatest dumping ground - garbage/rubbish dump - sewage treatment plant!!!

{sarcastic mode off}

Wow, Ray. Great big wow.

Could you take down the Canadian flag icon so people don't accidentally think you represent all of us?
Or even anyone else?

Thanks.

gemini06720 wrote:{sarcastic mode on}

. . .such as the need to send a voice/written message requesting permission to push the fxxxxxx red button that will shut off everything...

And by the time the required authorisation 'trickles down' the up-side-down management pyramid, the reactor core is overheating... . . .

{sarcastic mode off}

All powers needed to punch it out resides in the control room.

Moving on.

This video is scares me just to watch it.

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/asi ... 20539.html

gemini06720 wrote:thus the need of 'heavy water' for normal reactor core cooling.

Not exactly, heavy water is used in a Heavy Water Reactor, that's the type (CANDU) that you have in Canada. The Japanese reactors are Boiling Water Reactors, they use regular, "light", water.