Pennock's Fiero Forum
  Totally O/T - Archive
  The Chernobyl Disaster: 25 Years Ago (Page 2)

T H I S   I S   A N   A R C H I V E D   T O P I C
  

Email This Page to Someone! | Printable Version

This topic is 2 pages long:  1   2 
Previous Page | Next Page
The Chernobyl Disaster: 25 Years Ago by Larryh86GT
Started on: 03-24-2011 10:04 AM
Replies: 45
Last post by: Larryh86GT on 03-28-2011 02:33 PM
Scottzilla79
Member
Posts: 2573
From: Chicago, IL
Registered: Oct 2009


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post03-28-2011 11:30 AM Click Here to See the Profile for Scottzilla79Send a Private Message to Scottzilla79Direct Link to This Post

 
quote
Several US reactors USED graphite moderator designs, and some of these are still in use around the WORLD.


Weren't we talking about reactors to be constructed in the US?

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?

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.

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.
IP: Logged
JazzMan
Member
Posts: 18612
From:
Registered: Mar 2003


Feedback score:    (7)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 653
User Banned

Report this Post03-28-2011 12:37 PM Click Here to See the Profile for JazzManSend a Private Message to JazzManDirect Link to This Post
 
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.

IP: Logged
Formula88
Member
Posts: 53788
From: Raleigh NC
Registered: Jan 2001


Feedback score: (3)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 554
Rate this member

Report this Post03-28-2011 12:48 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Formula88Send a Private Message to Formula88Direct Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by JazzMan:


Several US reactors used graphite moderator designs, and some of these are still in use around the world. The reactor design worked well, it's just that it had some potentially disasterous failure modes. To the extent that uranium fission reactors cannot be designed to be inherently safe no matter the failure mode possibilities, using graphite for a moderator isn't as important as one first would believe. From a pure engineering standpoint graphite has advantages. Of course, engineers don't usually take into account all the ways that human idiocy and malevolence come into play. How can they, they're engineers of things, not humans.


I don't recall mentioning anything about graphite.
Chernobyl would have never been allowed to be built in the US because it lacks a containment vessel that would meet US standards in the 1970's.
IP: Logged
Scottzilla79
Member
Posts: 2573
From: Chicago, IL
Registered: Oct 2009


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post03-28-2011 12:51 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Scottzilla79Send a Private Message to Scottzilla79Direct Link to This Post
How is it so clear to you what has happened in Japan? All i hear is the story changing from day to day, yet you seem to be omniscient. I wish the folks who were in these threads earlier who had real knowledge of the workings of a nuclear plant would come back in. I hate to think that only one side is being heard.
IP: Logged
JazzMan
Member
Posts: 18612
From:
Registered: Mar 2003


Feedback score:    (7)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 653
User Banned

Report this Post03-28-2011 02:00 PM Click Here to See the Profile for JazzManSend a Private Message to JazzManDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Scottzilla79:

How is it so clear to you what has happened in Japan? All i hear is the story changing from day to day, yet you seem to be omniscient. I wish the folks who were in these threads earlier who had real knowledge of the workings of a nuclear plant would come back in. I hate to think that only one side is being heard.


If I were being sarcastic, I'd say, "It's clear to me because I can see it in the news", but in reality I think I'm either not being clear enough or can't be clear enough. Either way, the result is the same.

The thread on the Japanese nuclear disaster has lots of links and information in it. Though not my primary source of info, it amount of info there is of good depth with cites. To summarize what's clear to me: The engineers in Japan didn't anticipate a quake of this size and the resulting tsunami. Or possibly, they did but it was deemed too expensive/impractical to design against a magnitude 9 quake and large tsunami. The mere fact they're having the failures they are now seems to imply pretty plainly, at least to me, that the systems they had in place to prevent this kind of disaster failed. If they hadn't, we wouldn't even be talking about it in the first place. Since it will likely take decades to clean up and remediate the results of the failure we could be talking about it for years after all the other effects of the quake and tsunami are gone.

Your "omniscient" comment was intended to be derogatory and/or derisive, correct? Just making sure I got the intent correct, sometimes these things aren't clear to me.

IP: Logged
Larryh86GT
Member
Posts: 1757
From: Near sunny Buffalo NY
Registered: Jan 2008


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post03-28-2011 02:33 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Larryh86GTSend a Private Message to Larryh86GTDirect Link to This Post
A cartoon explaining the Japanese nuclear crisis:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...is-internet-hit.html
IP: Logged
Previous Page | Next Page

This topic is 2 pages long:  1   2 


All times are ET (US)

T H I S   I S   A N   A R C H I V E D   T O P I C
  

Contact Us | Back To Main Page

Advertizing on PFF | Fiero Parts Vendors
PFF Merchandise | Fiero Gallery | Ogre's Cave
Real-Time Chat | Fiero Related Auctions on eBay



Copyright (c) 1999, C. Pennock