Reply With Quote
and this is the same blueprint USA's power plants use
They based the designs on a max quake in the mid 7's based on historic recordings.
oops.
and this is the same blueprint USA's power plants use
The bell curve, über alles.
Not exactly the same blueprint but there are 23 plants in the US that use the same Mark I containment vessel. Newer plants use the improved Mark II and Mark III designs.
just heard the spokesman for Nuclear plants this morning.
"In California our plants are designed to sustain 7.x earthquake cause that is the highest recorded in California. In other areas depends on historical data of the area."
Yeah, 7.x ain't gonna cut it, considering what happened in 1906.
Chernobyl cost the USSR/Russia $200,000,000,000 because they didn't design it properly and didn't have enough training to recognize a pending disaster until it was too late. Katrina cost the US $120,000,000,000 because we didn't build stronger levees to handle hurricanes over Cat 3.
Are we ever going to learn?
But is a Tsunami going to follow a New Madrid quake?
You know, it's the Tsuunami that wiped out the backup generation to maintain the pumping of cooling water, right?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42066534...s-asiapacific/
Uranium rods 'highly likely' melting at third nuclear plant, official says
Still, no imminent threat of anything bad. Just a permanent loss of some reactors.
The news I think would love for this to be a larger disaster than it already is. In my view,they are wasting time of the disaster aspect rather than focusing on the resolve, of how a nation handles it.
so why would Japanese bother to constantly flood the containers with water, have a update press conference every 1/2 hour, relocate 1/2 million ppl and American ships need to be repositioned??
no worries right?
Actually I did not know it was the tsunami that did that.
I also have little background to be able to say whether or not an actual quake might disable any given reactor, and what size quake it would take to cause serious problems.
I assume that reactors are designed with some level of hardening to earthquakes, but I can't say how much punishment any given reactor could survive. Can you?
Losing 3 nukes is like a $50B+ hit for replacement costs, and would take up to 10 years or more.
Uh... the reactors were lost when they were flooded with seawater. As soon as that happened, they were done forever. You can't introduce salt water into a controlled core environment like that without destroying the entire plant.
So, 1) methinks you don't know as much about the topic as you are purporting (shocking, I know), and 2) that this is a significant event. Why announce it if it means nothing (i.e., everyone knew the reactors were already gone, so why make this statement if it's redundant)?
Melted cores, without cooling, can quickly overheat and explode, and right now they are not being adequately cooled.
Last edited by Cry Havoc; 03-14-2011 at 01:10 PM.
FIFY
In every nuclear power plant problem or accident, the people running it were found to have understated the magnitude of the problem.
I hope you aren't relying on "official" pronouncements.
I reserve judgment.
Japanese reactors were built to withstand mid-7 level quakes. This was significantly larger than that. I'm fairly certain that no US nuclear plant is built to withstand anything over an 8.0 on the moment-magnitude scale.
Magnitude X Probability = total risk.
The consequences are severe enough that I would want stronger mitigation in terms of hardened design, in that case.
The odds of an earthquake of that magnitude somewhere in the US approach 1, given enough time. Simple probability.
The US has had several quakes that have exceeded 8.0 in the last 200 years alone. Alaska, New Madrid, and San Francisco were all estimated to have been at or over 8.0. New Madrid's might have been the weakest of the 3, but due to how loose the soil is in the central US, the effects can be much worse.
They are probably already damaged beyond repair.
Because the cleanup cost will be so much less if the reactor rods stay intact.
Yes, the 9.0 quake was 80 miles out at sea and 15 miles deep. Even farther than 80 miles from the reactors. I'll bet the quake didn't register a 7 at the reactor site. However, that's an educated guess. Any idea what the force was there?
If so, the cleanup cost took a serious cost increase.
As I said before, as soon as you flood a nuclear core with sal er, it's a coffin. When that happened, they were sinking them for good. They'll never power on again.
I'm fairly certain "cleanup costs" is not what's scaring people right now.
In Japanese measurements, the quake was recorded in Fukushima as an "upper 6". That's probably around a 7 or above in moment magnitude scale, as it lists the conditions as being "Impossible to keep standing and to move without crawling." and "Occasionally, less earthquake-resistant buildings collapse. In some cases, even highly earthquake-resistant buildings suffer damage to walls and pillars."
Of course, this is all discounting damage from the tsunami.
It depends if they can contain the core within the chamber. It if actually does melt down and go through the floor of the reactor, then yes, it's going to be disastrous and increase chances for a major accident. At that point though, cleanup costs are secondary to preventing loss of life.
lol. My hometown out in West Texas just had a minor quake this morning. 3.8, but it was very shallow and pretty noticeable.
you make it seem like "cleanup costs" are the #1 priority for the Japanese handling this.
Nuclear meltdown is a health hazard first and foremost. why would they even be saying things like "good news is wind is blowing away from Japan"
Didn't the reactors went through a proper SCRAM? Now I don't know, and didn't seek those details.
I agree with all you have said except I don't think these reactors pose any potential threat like Chernobyl, or Three mile island. I'm pretty certain most of this is now media hype, to sell stories and keep people tuned in.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions