Japan Nuclear Coverage

[egbert]

I'm talking about the building the emergency generators are in. If that collapses on the generators their functionality may be a tab bit reduced.

That didn't happen to the diesel generators at Fukushima; why would you think it would be any different in the U.S. plants of the same design?

Got any details of these generator housings?

[JimC]

The Fukushima plant was actually fine after the earthquake. It was the tsunami that wiped out the switchgear and incapacitated the emergency diesel power.

Yeah, we know. Your point is?

Presumably his point is that reactors situated inland away from tsunamis, but in earthquake zones, may be able to successfully shut down and maintain cooling without issues...

Mind you, a big enough quake would render that academic, I imagine...

[egbert]

Generators were my job in the Navy. Drop a building on them and they don't work so good.

That's why you don't build additional buildings on top of nuclear power plants.

By the way, nuclear power plants were my job in the Navy.

I'm talking about the building the emergency generators are in. If that collapses on the generators their functionality may be a tab bit reduced.

Yes, indeed. Just Imagine if the Empire State Building were dropped on them, hoe their functionality would be reduced! Do not, however, even consider the effect a salt water inundation would have on a running generator. and its switchgear. That would be a reality consideration, and, in the interest of trolldom, we must NOT, EVER, think about realty!

[egbert]

Maybe because they didn't want radioactive seawater sluicing out into their littoral areas?

Gee, I wonder where the seawater that they're spraying on via firetrucks, dropping on via helicopters, and pumping in, is "sluicing out into"????? DUH!

See?[/quote]

The only thing I see is a troll who has done a 180.

[egbert]

Advice: more time looking at information, less time posting. The hydrogen explosions removed secondary containment. The issue at Chernobyl was an exposed reactor core being torn apart by graphite explosions.

Well, gee, I defer to your obvious VASTLY superior nuclear knowledge. "Graphite explosions", huh?

[JimC]

Advice: more time looking at information, less time posting. The hydrogen explosions removed secondary containment. The issue at Chernobyl was an exposed reactor core being torn apart by graphite explosions.

Well, gee, I defer to your obvious VASTLY superior nuclear knowledge. "Graphite explosions", huh?

Well, it happens to be true that the Chernobyl reactor design included a graphite moderator, whose combustion after the initial failure was a major factor in the explosion which spread fission products far and wide...

[egbert]

But golly, FOUR COUNT 'EM FOUR reactors sounds a lot scarier.

Why don't you tell us about the AMOUNT of nuclear material, potentially at risk of environmental exposure, compared to the amount of nuclear fuel at Chernobyl? We like FACTS, not BS.

[Pappa]

My guess is that Japan will come out of this with a revolution in the efficiency of renewables we will all be using in 15 years time.

Now that's an outcome I'd love to see.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The Fukushima plant was actually fine after the earthquake. It was the tsunami that wiped out the switchgear and incapacitated the emergency diesel power.

Yeah, we know. Your point is?

Presumably his point is that reactors situated inland away from tsunamis, but in earthquake zones, may be able to successfully shut down and maintain cooling without issues...

Mind you, a big enough quake would render that academic, I imagine...

The American Midwest used to be an sea. Just sayin'.

Yo, egbert, try to read the whole thread, you're going out-of-context for the past two pages. Nothing sayin' that's a bad thing, just that you look totally confused. (And that's quite a feat around here.)

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[Svartalf]

But golly, FOUR COUNT 'EM FOUR reactors sounds a lot scarier.

Why don't you tell us about the AMOUNT of nuclear material, potentially at risk of environmental exposure, compared to the amount of nuclear fuel at Chernobyl? We like FACTS, not BS.

OK 'bert, how 'bout YOU stun us with your comprehensive knowledge and perfect understanding the the subject and its related issues and expose calmly and clearly where the other posters flubbed and what really happened and what consequence's are to be expected?

[Warren Dew]

Well, we can certainly trust the US Navy for nuclear info ! Tell us about the USS Thresher....

Sure. Thresher sank due to a leak in seawater piping, likely because seawater piping at the time was brazed rather than welded. The nuclear fuel is intact and has not significantly affected the environment. I'm not sure how that's relevant to the current discussion, though.

[Warren Dew]

Presumably his point is that reactors situated inland away from tsunamis, but in earthquake zones, may be able to successfully shut down and maintain cooling without issues...

Correct. More specifically, the Fukushima reactors in particular would have been fine if they'd been inland on higher ground. Like other inland reactors, they'd then be cooled by a river or cooling towers rather than the ocean, of course.

Mind you, a big enough quake would render that academic, I imagine...

This was a Richter 9 earthquake. No Richter 10 earthquake has ever been recorded.

[egbert]

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=24760

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Does ya got a point there, partner?