Japan Earthquake | Page 1748

  • probably they were washing their communist socks in clean japanese waters.
    by Edano 6/24/2011 9:10:59 PM

  • @all Hello!
    by smoss 6/24/2011 9:13:19 PM

  • hi @smoss
    by dean 6/24/2011 9:13:37 PM

  • @smoss hi
    by elainekirk 6/24/2011 9:14:12 PM

  • @all Recent coverage of Monju and attempts (successful?) to remove machinery dropped into core. @dh Hoping you will offer translation :-)

    by smoss 6/24/2011 9:15:48 PM

  • @edano "probably they were washing their communist socks in clean japanese waters." LOL
    by Panserbjorne9 6/24/2011 9:16:49 PM

  • @smoss I heard today that is only the piece of the cap that they recovered and the fuelling machine is still in there but I couldnt confim either way
    by elainekirk 6/24/2011 9:17:36 PM

  • @Dean, scroll down toward the end of this page please and find a response to the NRC letter. With small changes (e.g. eliminating the reference to the scram log), it may be worth considering posting it, or something similar this effect, on simply info. I was not sure about the cutting of power figure though, but remember you suggested this idea earlier. Your opinion is appreciated, :)
    by Peter Melzer 6/24/2011 9:17:42 PM

  • will go look for it Peter
    by dean 6/24/2011 9:19:20 PM

  • @smoss , you may not know Fantomas, but the plant looks like right out of one of the movies, they just need the blue-face villain at the controls.
    by Peter Melzer 6/24/2011 9:20:05 PM

  • @peter,, is it the one that lilly linked ?
    by dean 6/24/2011 9:20:24 PM

  • Vacationers may avoid beaches this summer www.yomiuri.co.jp
    by Panserbjorne9 6/24/2011 9:22:49 PM

  • @dean , apparently NRC sent out a letter nancy posted earlier today to defend their actions and at 1:23 PM I posted a response.
    by Peter Melzer 6/24/2011 9:22:55 PM

  • yes... I know of that one Peter I had linked it to her earlier.. it's an excellent letter to put on the web
    by dean 6/24/2011 9:23:46 PM

  • @dean , which one?
    by Peter Melzer 6/24/2011 9:24:20 PM

  • Heavy rainfall worries disaster victims in Tohoku www.yomiuri.co.jp
    by Panserbjorne9 6/24/2011 9:24:44 PM

  • by dean 6/24/2011 9:26:59 PM

  • @RBeaner let me explain.. I saw the leth post and it wasn't one which was appreciated by the room,,, basically insinuating that there were no tech or news posts and then mentioned that what was put up was crap...I then posted and asked what leth had to add,,, I thought LETHS comment wouldn't last long,, and when it was gone I deleted mine..
    by dean 6/24/2011 9:29:46 PM

  • Tepco pensions may be tapped for redress search.japantimes.co.jp
    by Panserbjorne9 6/24/2011 9:30:43 PM

  • Peter.. I hope I had the right posting on the NRC ...
    by dean 6/24/2011 9:30:46 PM

  • ooooooo.. @ Peter I see.. I'll go to the 1:23
    by dean 6/24/2011 9:31:45 PM

  • @Peter.. I'm sorry I don't go back that far ... I had shut down and don't have it.. would you please post again
    by dean 6/24/2011 9:32:36 PM

  • Has anyone seen a recent number for accumulated water on site?
    by RadioGuy 6/24/2011 9:37:17 PM

  • I just finished reading the NRC letter. Two statements caught my eye:

    1) "All U.S. nuclear power plants are built to withstand external hazards, including earthquakes, flooding, and tsunamis, as appropriate."

    How can we be certain that the measures implemented in the US are appropriate? We have not even yet fully uncovered the causes for the reactor accidents at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station.

    If we examine the excerpt of the seismic scram log published for unit 1 for example (posted by edano yesterday upload.wikimedia.org ), the shutdown of unit 1 proceeded as envisaged during the first minutes after the quake. According to Tepco, the situation turned to the worse, after the tsunami disabled the diesel generators depriving the reactor safety systems of AC power.

    The diesels' failure may represent one major cause underlying the accident. However, the reactor safety systems of unit 1, as well as of units 2 and 3, are supposedly designed such that the reactor can be cooled and its core covered with water for eight hours, using DC battery power and decay heat alone. Both were still available at Fukushima after the loss of AC power. Despite, lack of coolant caused fuel damage at unit 1 within four hours. How can the NRC claim that reactors of similar design are safe in the US, considering that we do not fully understand the causes instrumental to the catastrophic reactor failures at Fukushima?

    2) "The NRC believes that it is highly unlikely that a similar combination of events such as those which occurred in Japan could occur in the United States..."

    Since a different combination of similar events cannot be ruled out, this belief seems unwarranted.

    US reactors of similar design as at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station should be permitted to operate only at 70 percent of their full electrical power output, until a clear understanding of the causes for the three catastrophic reactor failures is reached, most notably because each failure was anticipated to occur only once in ten-thousand years or less.

    by Peter Melzer via Upload.wikimedia.org 6/24/2011 9:40:43 PM

  • I haven't @Radio
    by dean 6/24/2011 9:41:08 PM

  • www.neimagazine.com @Radio check this table out
    by dean 6/24/2011 9:42:34 PM

  • @Dean, below is my post of this afternoon. RBeaner was wondering whether reducing power output was a useful idea. I remember you mentioning this once before. One could repost the NRC letter on Simply Info and add a response along the lines I laid out.
    by Peter Melzer 6/24/2011 9:43:30 PM

  • @Peter and @RBeaner.. reducing the power is an excellent idea because it increases the safety margins to damage levels from accidents. most of the accident analyses assume the reactor is operating and capacity level
    by dean 6/24/2011 9:47:49 PM

  • @dean , perhaps you can point us to a reasonable percentage. When lillymunster is visiting later tonight we inform her of the idea, :)
    by Peter Melzer 6/24/2011 9:53:11 PM

  • @Edano I think insulting posts should be allowed...maybe for a little while. We are losing valuable posters because they don't fit in a box. We need to stop this sensitivity crap. I imagine anything Leth Said, probably could use saying.
    by RBeaner 6/24/2011 9:54:08 PM

  • @dean So whats the decay differential between 100% vs 70%.
    by RBeaner 6/24/2011 9:56:12 PM

  • @smoss , what I find remarkable in this video is the choice of location. Note the steep slopes on three sides. Fast breeders carry high risks of violently explosive accidents. If this facility blew entirely, the thrust would be directed out to Sea.
    by Peter Melzer 6/24/2011 9:59:00 PM

  • @all Will Davis (Atomic Power Review) participates in 2 recent interviews atomic.thepodcastnetwork.com www.thestreet.com
    by smoss 6/24/2011 10:01:12 PM

  • @Peter I agree, Monju seems to be preped positionally for an major accident. I wish I knew if that was "file" footage or something more recent...
    by smoss 6/24/2011 10:03:11 PM

  • @smoss , appreciating tepco's risk perception a bit better since Fukushima, seeing this kind of prudence is highly disconcerting.
    by Peter Melzer 6/24/2011 10:10:20 PM

  • @Peter ***Opinion Alert*** I feel that over the next 6 months, that we will see JAEA under pressure, because of so many NPPs off-line. With that, I am fearful that they will turn to Monju and attempt to get it up and running sooner rather than later...
    by smoss 6/24/2011 10:13:41 PM

  • @elainekirk : here they say : Fallen device retrieved from Monju prototype reactor english.kyodonews.jp
    by Edano 6/24/2011 10:15:08 PM

  • @Edano yup thats what I thought I have seen somebody on twitter I will go ask her if she knows if it was cap and loader
    by Elaine Kirk 6/24/2011 10:16:53 PM

  • @all Monju reactor unclogged for restart
    search.japantimes.co.jp
    by smoss 6/24/2011 10:20:50 PM

  • A working life: The nuclear reactor operator
    Fukushima has not shaken Malvern Jones' faith in the safety of facilities like Sizewell B. With new sites to come, he explains why www.guardian.co.uk
    by Panserbjorne9 6/24/2011 10:22:28 PM

  • @smoss @Panserbjorne9 I think I need to put the kettle on...
    by Elaine Kirk 6/24/2011 10:24:17 PM

  • @Peter, I will come up with some approach to a number,,, or some way to look at reductions in power to affect the safety margins..
    by dean 6/24/2011 10:26:40 PM

  • @RBeaner, the approach I've seen taken is to look at accident analyses as you know that have margins or safety factors to some damage or off normal plant consequence and then set the reactor power level so that event has better margins of protection
    by dean 6/24/2011 10:28:24 PM

  • @all Must say "bye!" for now...
    by smoss 6/24/2011 10:29:00 PM

  • @smoss see you later I hope
    by Elaine Kirk 6/24/2011 10:30:36 PM

Japan Earthquake | Page 1748

Who's Blogging
  • hudebnikhudebnik
  • albleealblee
  • UKValUKVal
  • Jonathan KeeblerJonathan Keebler
  • Oliver (ScribbleLive)Oliver (ScribbleLive)
  • kaykodhkaykodh
  • MarkfmMarkfm
  • AngieAngie
  • Mid ValleyMid Valley
  • Matt (ScribbleLive)Matt (ScribbleLive)
  • George GibbGeorge Gibb
  • elainekirkelainekirk
  • PKelleyPKelley
  • lillymunsterlillymunster
  • deandean
  • bobo
  • EdanoEdano
  • DebDeb
  • Pedro Jesus
  • IanGoddardIanGoddard