View Single Post
NUCENG
#197
Jun27-11, 01:08 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 916
Quote Quote by nikkkom View Post
Yes:

"Starting from 7:30 pm all four units lost their 225 kV power supplies, while units 2 and 4 also lost their 400 kV power supplies. The isolator circuits that should have allowed units 2 and 4 to supply themselves with electricity also failed, causing these two reactors to automatically shut down, and diesel backup generators started up, maintaining power to plants 2 and 4 until the 400 kV supply was restored at around 10:20 pm. In the pumping room for unit 1, one set of the two pairs of pumps in the Essential Service Water System failed due to flooding; had both sets failed then the safety of plant would have been endangered. In both units 1 and 2, flooding in the fuel rooms put the low-head safety injection pumps and the containment spray pumps, part of the Emergency Core Cooling System (a back-up system in case of coolant loss) out of use. Over the following days, an estimated 90,000 m3 (3,200,000 cu ft) of water would be pumped out of the flooded buildings."

How close was this to a meltdown of unit 1? One set of pumps away? Do you realize that this is simply not acceptable to the general public?

Moreover, "close call" events are an excellent predictor of safety problems, even if they themselves were resolved with no bad effects whatsoever. NASA ignored close calls with eroded O-rings in SRBs, result - Challenger accident. NASA ignored close calls with falling foam - Columbia accident.

Continue ignoring close calls at NPPs and you will continue to get Fukushimas.



Ft Calhoun is similar to Blayais in a sense that its flood defences are inadequate. Since it's 12 years since Blayais flood happened, I don't see any reasonable excuses why it is so.



Yes I do read my posts.
And I still don't see where I said Ft Calhoun is anywhere close to Fukushima. Where is it?



Because if I eat bad food or drive a broken car, at maximum a few people can die. It can't cause thousands of square kilometers permanently evacuated. NPP accident can. Therefore, NPP should be significantly more secure than my car.
Again with the nonsense. Blayais mitigated their event and issued lessons learned. You assume nobody else did anything in response with no evidence to support your claim. You further assume that other plants have inadequate protection, because that is what you want to believe. In my last post I quoted two sentences in which you linked Ft Calhoun and Blayais and Fukushima. And now you say that the 500,000 worldwide deaths per year from traffic accidents is somehow better than an unknown number of latent cancer deaths from Fukushima because it is only a few at a time.

http://www.transport-links.org/trans...771_Pa3568.pdf

That is so grossly wrong as to be unbelievable. You clearly do not understand the concept of risk and risk management. You substitute opinion for fact and expect that noone will challenge you. You are intellectually lazy and make claims you can't support.

You have come to the wrong forum. You have a right to your opinion, however uninformed, but don't expect to win any respect here.