| quote | Originally posted by Scottzilla79: Weren't we talking about reactors to be constructed in the US?
|
|
That's why I used the word "used" as opposed to current usage. At the time we were building graphite core reactors we weren't aware of the dangers. In fact, it's typically the unexpected failure scenarios that get us, not the anticipated ones.
| quote | Originally posted by Scottzilla79: And isn't it an engineers job to try to mitigate human error in such contraptions? Of course they are not perfect but that is at least a large part of what they do isn't it?
|
|
Actually, there are more than just engineers involved. Cost accountants, financiers, etc, are all involved. Decisions get made outside of the engineering purview that can negatively affect the engineering principles all the time. One could engineer a reactor and *all* of its subsystems to withstand the worst possible situation, whether that be earthquake, terrorist attack, deliberate or inadvertent sabotage, etc, but then it would be so expensive it would not be cost-effective to build. So, you design for less than a magnitude 9 earthquake and don't design your critical subsystems to withstand a tsunami because your predictions say that's not likely to happen. You don't design your reactor control systems to prevent operators from deliberately driving parameters out of safe range for "testing" purposes because as long as everyone follows the rules voluntarily that can't happen.
It's all about costs and risks. You can't design for every possible thing because then it's too expensive to build and operate. Engineers, banks, managers, all decide what risks are acceptable to them (and by nature acceptable to the general public) and what aren't. It's clear that they muffed that in Japan pretty badly, and the taxpayer is going to have to bail them out big-time.
There's more to it than just calculating that the wall needs to be 6 feet thick with rebar aranged as such.
| quote | Originally posted by Scottzilla79: From what I've read the graphite was the major cause of the radioactive material being disbursed as much as it was in Chernobyl. And just because some graphite reactors "still exist" does not mean they will be built in this country.
|
|
The graphite as used created an environment where things could go really wrong if a certain chain of events was allowed to happen.
| quote | Originally posted by Scottzilla79: For countries that rely on nuclear that still have graphite reactors, its much more realistic to expect them to build a better reactor than to cut x% of their energy consumption. |
|
I honestly do not agree with the concept that it's an either/or proposition on nuclear. Many people honestly believe that it's either nuclear uranium or it's nothing at all. To me, that seems like a false choice. Japan relies on nuclear because that's the path they chose long ago, not because that was the only path available to them then or now. I believe that many people in Japan today and in the future will come to regret that choice, and that Japan will continue to suffer financially and ecologically for generations to come as a result.