We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

Debate House Prices


In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Nuclear power

1356723

Comments

  • grimsalve
    grimsalve Posts: 626 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 500 Posts Name Dropper
    macaque wrote: »
    The explosion we saw a few days ago looked like a hydrogen explosion. You could see a rapid pale flash travelling faster than the cloud. In the aftermath the upper parts of the building had gone but the side walls appeared intact. Buildings at risk of hydrogen deflagration are designed to do this.

    So you're saying it looked like a hydrogen explosion because it was "a rapid pale flash"? How many nuclear reactors have you worked on and do you have any details of these "hydrogen deflagration" designs?
  • A._Badger
    A._Badger Posts: 5,881 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    edited 14 March 2011 at 6:49PM
    macaque wrote: »
    I don't think there has been 'hysterical overreaction' from either side in the debate and your 'informed analysis' appears come from an IT website. I was surprised by the title of Lewis Page's article:

    Given what is going on, that hardly sounds like the introduction to a measured analysis.

    Lewis Page happens to be a former RN officer with a background in defence, science and technology. The Register, meanwhile, is an IT and technology site.

    Still, if you'd prefer, I've just read the following comment from Dr Josef Oehmen, a research scientist at MIT (quoted in James Delingpole's Telegraph piece today).

    In it, Dr Oehmen writes: "I have been reading every news release on the incident since the earthquake. There has not been one single (!) report that was accurate and free of errors (and part of that problem is also a weakness in the Japanese crisis communication). By “not free of errors” I do not refer to tendentious anti-nuclear journalism – that is quite normal these days. By “not free of errors” I mean blatant errors regarding physics and natural law, as well as gross misinterpretation of facts, due to an obvious lack of fundamental and basic understanding of the way nuclear reactors are build and operated. I have read a 3 page report on CNN where every single paragraph contained an error."

    And the hysteria? Plenty of it from ill-informed idiots in the mainstream media - and on blogs, of course.
  • ninky_2
    ninky_2 Posts: 5,872 Forumite
    there are too many people for whatever technology we come up with to be sustainable. if we want modern lifestyles (and i think we'd struggle to give them up now) we need to decrease in numbers so the resources can go around.
    Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves. - Lord Byron
  • amcluesent
    amcluesent Posts: 9,425 Forumite
    No-one has mentioned what's happened to the spent fuel sitting in the cooling ponds. This is the stuff that won't be safe for 10,000 years due to the plutonium in the spent fuel.

    If the tsunami knocked out the pumps for the cooling water, what are the chances that the cooling ponds are now full of filthy salty water which will rapidly corrode all the canisters holding the spent fuel.

    The clean-up of that, plus putting a tsunami-safe sarcophagus around the three reactor buildings where the meltdowns took place will cost $$B.
  • d123
    d123 Posts: 8,747 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    Degenerate wrote: »
    I don't see how an accident at a 1960s designed reactor proves anything about the safety of 2011 nuclear engineering.

    This is the point I was going to make, a problem at a 40+ year old reactor that actually survived a serious earthquake (but not the tsunami that has damaged it's cooling ability) means there is a problem with modern nuclear facilities being built anywhere on the planet?
    ====
  • A._Badger
    A._Badger Posts: 5,881 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    edited 14 March 2011 at 7:05PM
    ninky wrote: »
    there are too many people for whatever technology we come up with to be sustainable. if we want modern lifestyles (and i think we'd struggle to give them up now) we need to decrease in numbers so the resources can go around.


    So what would you suggest, Revd Malthus? The usual socialist remedies of eugenics (a la Webb and the Fabians), Pol Pot's 'year zero'? A nice plague perhaps, or a good war or three?
  • grimsalve
    grimsalve Posts: 626 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 500 Posts Name Dropper
    amcluesent wrote: »
    No-one has mentioned what's happened to the spent fuel sitting in the cooling ponds. This is the stuff that won't be safe for 10,000 years due to the plutonium in the spent fuel.

    If the tsunami knocked out the pumps for the cooling water, what are the chances that the cooling ponds are now full of filthy salty water which will rapidly corrode all the canisters holding the spent fuel.

    spent fuel won't be sitting in cooling ponds because it won't have the ability to generate heat.
    amcluesent wrote: »
    The clean-up of that, plus putting a sarcophagus around the three reactor buildings where the meltdowns took place will cost $$B.

    As far as I know, there hasn't been a meltdown yet. And seawater was not being pumped directly into the reactors (in the same way that coolant is not pumped directly into the combustion chamber of a car engine). But I agree it will potentially cost a lot of money to put things right again.
  • macaque_2
    macaque_2 Posts: 2,439 Forumite
    grimsalve wrote: »
    So you're saying it looked like a hydrogen explosion because it was "a rapid pale flash"? How many nuclear reactors have you worked on and do you have any details of these "hydrogen deflagration" designs?

    No I have not worked on nuclear systems. Guidance notes on damage limiting construction can be found as follows:
    1. Damage Limiting Construction (FM-144)
    2. Venting of Deflagrations (NFPA 68)
    NFPA gives good general advice on venting however FM-144 covers buidling design for hydrogen deflagration in more detail (hydrogen is a special case due to its very high flame velocity)
  • grimsalve
    grimsalve Posts: 626 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 500 Posts Name Dropper
    macaque wrote: »
    No I have not worked on nuclear systems. Guidance notes on damage limiting construction can be found as follows:
    1. Damage Limiting Construction (FM-144)
    2. Venting of Deflagrations (NFPA 68)
    NFPA gives good general advice on venting however FM-144 covers buidling design for hydrogen deflagration in more detail (hydrogen is a special case due to its very high flame velocity)

    If it was hydrogen deflagation then it's reassuring as this means the explosions affected the heat exchangers and not the reactors.
  • amcluesent
    amcluesent Posts: 9,425 Forumite
    I certainly expect the plant managers, designers and operators to do the old hari-kari for making such a mess of things. With all that radiation poisoning, they're glowing red-hot anyways.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.2K Spending & Discounts
  • 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.5K Life & Family
  • 258.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.