UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,066
Default Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...-idUSKBN13Y047

Nuclear is NOT safe or cheap option.
  #2   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39,563
Default Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN

On 16/12/16 20:21, harry wrote:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...-idUSKBN13Y047

Nuclear is NOT safe or cheap option.


.......once harry has written the regulatins....
  #3   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,066
Default Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN

On Friday, 16 December 2016 18:59:07 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/12/16 20:21, harry wrote:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...-idUSKBN13Y047

Nuclear is NOT safe or cheap option.


......once harry has written the regulatins....


But I didn't.
  #4   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39,563
Default Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN

On 16/12/16 21:12, harry wrote:
On Friday, 16 December 2016 18:59:07 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/12/16 20:21, harry wrote:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...-idUSKBN13Y047

Nuclear is NOT safe or cheap option.


......once harry has written the regulatins....


But I didn't.

Your chums did. Other wise nuclear would be 2c a unit.

  #5   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,774
Default Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN

On 16/12/2016 18:21, harry wrote:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...-idUSKBN13Y047

Nuclear is NOT safe or cheap option.


Not when you build the reactor in an earthquake zone.

--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk


  #6   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39,563
Default Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN

On 16/12/16 21:31, alan_m wrote:
On 16/12/2016 18:21, harry wrote:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...-idUSKBN13Y047

Nuclear is NOT safe or cheap option.


Not when you build the reactor in an earthquake zone.

earthquake didn't touch that reactor. It was a wave 2 meters higher than
designed that dun it.

Even then bugger all radiation got out.

No need to evacuate anyone.
  #7   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,774
Default Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN

On 16/12/2016 19:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/12/16 21:31, alan_m wrote:
On 16/12/2016 18:21, harry wrote:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...-idUSKBN13Y047

Nuclear is NOT safe or cheap option.


Not when you build the reactor in an earthquake zone.

earthquake didn't touch that reactor. It was a wave 2 meters higher than
designed that dun it.


A wave caused by an earthquake, and not for the first time in that area.


--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk
  #8   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,853
Default Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN

On 16/12/2016 18:21, harry wrote:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...-idUSKBN13Y047

Nuclear is NOT safe or cheap option.

After the Tsunami that killed 15,000 people and devastated several major
towns that have had to be rebuilt in the same tsunami zone... remind me,
how many people have been killed by the radiation leak? Not the
evacuation for fear of it, but the radiation itself?

There have been deaths from the evacuation, just as there would be from
someone falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.

Andy
  #9   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN

harry wrote

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...-idUSKBN13Y047


Nuclear is NOT safe or cheap option.


Perfectly safe if you dont do really stupid stuff
like sighting it where a tsunami can be a problem.

  #10   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,069
Default Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN


On 16/12/2016 19:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


earthquake didn't touch that reactor. It was a wave 2 meters higher than
designed that dun it.


Your usual sophistry. The tsunami that knocked out emergency power to
the cooling systems at Fukushima was caused by an earthquake.

Did your 40-year old theoretical degree have an "evasive ****" module?

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")


  #11   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,069
Default Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN

En el artículo , Vir
Campestris escribió:

There have been deaths from the evacuation, just as there would be from
someone falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.


Some of the analysis of the events post-Chernobyl concluded that more
harm was done to the surrounding population by evacuation than would
have been by allowing them to remain.

But then hindsight is a wonderful thing.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")
  #12   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,979
Default Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN

On 16-Dec-16 8:10 PM, alan_m wrote:
On 16/12/2016 19:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/12/16 21:31, alan_m wrote:
On 16/12/2016 18:21, harry wrote:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...-idUSKBN13Y047

Nuclear is NOT safe or cheap option.


Not when you build the reactor in an earthquake zone.

earthquake didn't touch that reactor. It was a wave 2 meters higher than
designed that dun it.


A wave caused by an earthquake, and not for the first time in that area.



Neither the wave nor the earthquake did any damage to the nuclear
reactors themselves. What caused the problem was not being able to get
external power back on line within the next eight hours and the cooling
pumps then shutting down. The design dates back to the 1960s and more
modern designs would have survived. Reactors of similar design have also
since been modified since to avoid the same problems.

--
--

Colin Bignell
  #13   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,066
Default Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN

On Saturday, 17 December 2016 03:53:48 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
harry wrote

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...-idUSKBN13Y047


Nuclear is NOT safe or cheap option.


Perfectly safe if you dont do really stupid stuff
like sighting it where a tsunami can be a problem.


That's exactly where Hinkley Point is sited.
  #14   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,998
Default Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN

Yes, I was just thinking that. However, I never did understand how people
put price tags on such things accurately. It ins only going to be known when
its done what complications there might be. You, after all don't want to cut
corners to stay in budget on something highly dangerous, do you? Unless his
implication is that some kind of fraud to screw more money from the job then
it costs what it costs to be safe.
Half way through building a bridge you don't suddenly decide to l use lower
grade materials to keep it in budget as sooner or later lots of people will
fall into the river!

Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 16/12/16 20:21, harry wrote:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...-idUSKBN13Y047

Nuclear is NOT safe or cheap option.


......once harry has written the regulatins....



  #15   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,069
Default Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN

En el artículo , Chris Hogg
escribió:

Technology does progress, Harry. Good enough until La Palma falls in
half!




just got back from a week there.

This caught my eye though:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...4/110412-most-
dangerous-nuclear-plant-armenia/

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")


  #16   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,069
Default Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN

En el artículo , Nightjar
escribió:

Neither the wave nor the earthquake did any damage to the nuclear
reactors themselves. What caused the problem was not being able to get
external power back on line within the next eight hours and the cooling
pumps then shutting down.


What was interesting was that Tepco had actually built new diesel backup
generators in a more secure location and these weren't affected, but
they didn't relocate the switchgear from the basement of the reactor
building, so when that flooded with tsunami seawater the generators were
effectively disabled.

wikipedia: "In the late 1990s, three additional backup generators for
Units 2 and 4 were placed in new buildings located higher on the
hillside, to comply with new regulatory requirements. All six units were
given access to these generators, but the switching stations that sent
power from these backup generators to the reactors' cooling systems for
Units 1 through 5 were still in the poorly protected turbine buildings.
The switching station for Unit 6 was protected inside the only GE Mark
II reactor building and continued to function.[63] All three of the
generators added in the late 1990s were operational after the tsunami.
If the switching stations had been moved to inside the reactor buildings
or to other flood-proof locations, power would have been provided by
these generators to the reactors' cooling systems"

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")
  #17   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,783
Default Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN

On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 10:21:47 -0800, harry wrote:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...-idUSKBN13Y047

Nuclear is NOT safe or cheap option.


Jeff Rense's site has done an amazingly thorough job of keeping track of
the alarming spread of pollution from Fukishima: www.rense.com
  #18   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,061
Default Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN

In article ,
Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 10:21:47 -0800, harry wrote:


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...-idUSKBN13Y047

Nuclear is NOT safe or cheap option.


Jeff Rense's site has done an amazingly thorough job of keeping track of
the alarming spread of pollution from Fukishima: www.rense.com


The site also tells us that the CIA is "Muslim run"

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
  #19   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,019
Default Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN

On 12/17/2016 12:35 PM, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , Nightjar
escribió:

Neither the wave nor the earthquake did any damage to the nuclear
reactors themselves. What caused the problem was not being able to get
external power back on line within the next eight hours and the cooling
pumps then shutting down.


What was interesting was that Tepco had actually built new diesel backup
generators in a more secure location and these weren't affected, but
they didn't relocate the switchgear from the basement of the reactor
building, so when that flooded with tsunami seawater the generators were
effectively disabled.

wikipedia: "In the late 1990s, three additional backup generators for
Units 2 and 4 were placed in new buildings located higher on the
hillside, to comply with new regulatory requirements. All six units were
given access to these generators, but the switching stations that sent
power from these backup generators to the reactors' cooling systems for
Units 1 through 5 were still in the poorly protected turbine buildings.
The switching station for Unit 6 was protected inside the only GE Mark
II reactor building and continued to function.[63] All three of the
generators added in the late 1990s were operational after the tsunami.
If the switching stations had been moved to inside the reactor buildings
or to other flood-proof locations, power would have been provided by
these generators to the reactors' cooling systems"

Thanks, I didn't know that. Seems an odd oversight. I'd like to think
the UK operators would not have made such an error, and that it would
certainly have been picked up by the Regulator.
  #20   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,019
Default Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN

On 12/17/2016 12:22 PM, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , Chris Hogg
escribió:

Technology does progress, Harry. Good enough until La Palma falls in
half!




just got back from a week there.

This caught my eye though:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...4/110412-most-
dangerous-nuclear-plant-armenia/

Not terribly tsunami-prone though. And designed for magnitude 9
earthquake, according to Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metsam...ar_Power_Plant

Slightly lazy journalism I thought, centred on "lack of primary
containment".

The other point, of course, is that at any time some plant has to be the
"most dangerous". Quite reassuring that it is 40 years old and unlikely
to continue operating for much longer. Also, not unreasonable for plant
in poorer countries to be built to lower standards.


  #21   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,019
Default Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN

On 12/17/2016 1:37 PM, charles wrote:
In article ,
Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 10:21:47 -0800, harry wrote:


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...-idUSKBN13Y047

Nuclear is NOT safe or cheap option.


Jeff Rense's site has done an amazingly thorough job of keeping track of
the alarming spread of pollution from Fukishima: www.rense.com


The site also tells us that the CIA is "Muslim run"

Nice! :-)
  #22   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,168
Default Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN

On 17/12/2016 09:21, Nightjar wrote:
On 16-Dec-16 8:10 PM, alan_m wrote:
On 16/12/2016 19:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/12/16 21:31, alan_m wrote:
On 16/12/2016 18:21, harry wrote:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...-idUSKBN13Y047

Nuclear is NOT safe or cheap option.


Not when you build the reactor in an earthquake zone.

earthquake didn't touch that reactor. It was a wave 2 meters higher than
designed that dun it.


A wave caused by an earthquake, and not for the first time in that area.



Neither the wave nor the earthquake did any damage to the nuclear
reactors themselves. What caused the problem was not being able to get
external power back on line within the next eight hours and the cooling
pumps then shutting down. The design dates back to the 1960s and more
modern designs would have survived. Reactors of similar design have also
since been modified since to avoid the same problems.



The really stupid thing is they had generators available but nobody
wanted to say fly them in and fix the problem.

It wasn't an earthquake that caused the melt down it was the Japanese
culture.


In the UK someone would have said sod this, take the bloody generators
in and nothing would have happened.
  #23   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 336
Default Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN

On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 13:37:12 +0000, charles wrote:

In article ,
Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 10:21:47 -0800, harry wrote:


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...-idUSKBN13Y047

Nuclear is NOT safe or cheap option.


Jeff Rense's site has done an amazingly thorough job of keeping track
of the alarming spread of pollution from Fukishima: www.rense.com


The site also tells us that the CIA is "Muslim run"


Actually, I preferred this bit of the site:

begin quote
World-Renowned Talk Show Host, Producer
And Broadcast Journalist Jeff Rense Says...

"I have taken BioSuperfood virtually every day since the Fukushima
catastrophe of March 2011. Of all the nutritional approaches to dealing
with the effects of radiation and radiation exposure only ONE has been
PROVEN to be effective€¦BioSuperfood.

Developed by doctors and scientists after the Chernobyl disaster,
countless lives were saved and protected by this powerhouse 100% all
natural product. The proof of BioSuperfood's protective and
rehabilitating effects are now beyond question. I implore you to consider
adding this potentially life-saving, life-enhancing algae food to your
daily diet.

BioSuperfood will strengthen your immune system and enhance your energy
and stamina like no other single product I have ever encountered. It's
well past time to get serious about the ever-increasing radiation in our
environment€¦radiation that doesn't stop at the West Coast. BioSuperfood
is priceless in that regard." -- Jeff Rense
end quote
  #24   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,019
Default Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN

On 12/17/2016 3:16 PM, dennis@home wrote:
On 17/12/2016 09:21, Nightjar wrote:
On 16-Dec-16 8:10 PM, alan_m wrote:
On 16/12/2016 19:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/12/16 21:31, alan_m wrote:
On 16/12/2016 18:21, harry wrote:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...-idUSKBN13Y047

Nuclear is NOT safe or cheap option.


Not when you build the reactor in an earthquake zone.

earthquake didn't touch that reactor. It was a wave 2 meters higher
than
designed that dun it.


A wave caused by an earthquake, and not for the first time in that area.



Neither the wave nor the earthquake did any damage to the nuclear
reactors themselves. What caused the problem was not being able to get
external power back on line within the next eight hours and the cooling
pumps then shutting down. The design dates back to the 1960s and more
modern designs would have survived. Reactors of similar design have also
since been modified since to avoid the same problems.



The really stupid thing is they had generators available but nobody
wanted to say fly them in and fix the problem.

It wasn't an earthquake that caused the melt down it was the Japanese
culture.


In the UK someone would have said sod this, take the bloody generators
in and nothing would have happened.


To be fair, I don't think it would have been a trivial fix, and you have
to remember the difficulty of access to coastal sites in the immediate
aftermath.
  #25   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,979
Default Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN

On 17-Dec-16 12:35 PM, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , Nightjar
escribió:

Neither the wave nor the earthquake did any damage to the nuclear
reactors themselves. What caused the problem was not being able to get
external power back on line within the next eight hours and the cooling
pumps then shutting down.


What was interesting was that Tepco had actually built new diesel backup
generators in a more secure location and these weren't affected, but
they didn't relocate the switchgear from the basement of the reactor
building, so when that flooded with tsunami seawater the generators were
effectively disabled.

wikipedia: "In the late 1990s, three additional backup generators for
Units 2 and 4 were placed in new buildings located higher on the
hillside, to comply with new regulatory requirements. All six units were
given access to these generators, but the switching stations that sent
power from these backup generators to the reactors' cooling systems for
Units 1 through 5 were still in the poorly protected turbine buildings.
The switching station for Unit 6 was protected inside the only GE Mark
II reactor building and continued to function.[63] All three of the
generators added in the late 1990s were operational after the tsunami.
If the switching stations had been moved to inside the reactor buildings
or to other flood-proof locations, power would have been provided by
these generators to the reactors' cooling systems"


My understanding was that they could still have got at least one backup
generator back on line if the fuel tanks had not been washed away.

--
--

Colin Bignell


  #26   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,019
Default Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN

On 12/17/2016 3:37 PM, Mark Allread wrote:
On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 13:37:12 +0000, charles wrote:

In article ,
Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 10:21:47 -0800, harry wrote:


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...-idUSKBN13Y047

Nuclear is NOT safe or cheap option.


Jeff Rense's site has done an amazingly thorough job of keeping track
of the alarming spread of pollution from Fukishima: www.rense.com


The site also tells us that the CIA is "Muslim run"


Actually, I preferred this bit of the site:

begin quote
World-Renowned Talk Show Host, Producer
And Broadcast Journalist Jeff Rense Says...

"I have taken BioSuperfood virtually every day since the Fukushima
catastrophe of March 2011. Of all the nutritional approaches to dealing
with the effects of radiation and radiation exposure only ONE has been
PROVEN to be effective€¦BioSuperfood.

Developed by doctors and scientists after the Chernobyl disaster,
countless lives were saved and protected by this powerhouse 100% all
natural product. The proof of BioSuperfood's protective and
rehabilitating effects are now beyond question. I implore you to consider
adding this potentially life-saving, life-enhancing algae food to your
daily diet.

BioSuperfood will strengthen your immune system and enhance your energy
and stamina like no other single product I have ever encountered. It's
well past time to get serious about the ever-increasing radiation in our
environment€¦radiation that doesn't stop at the West Coast. BioSuperfood
is priceless in that regard." -- Jeff Rense
end quote

Must be what harry is on....
  #27   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN

harry wrote
Rod Speed wrote
harry wrote


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...-idUSKBN13Y047


Nuclear is NOT safe or cheap option.


Perfectly safe if you dont do really stupid stuff
like siting it where a tsunami can be a problem.


That's exactly where Hinkley Point is sited.


Dont get tsunamis there, stupid.

And even with Fukushima, it would be trivial
to ensure that a tsunami is never a problem too.

  #28   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 393
Default Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN

On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 21:47:37 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote:

There have been deaths from the evacuation, just as there would be
from someone falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a
panic.


You think the evacuation was unnecessary? What would have happened
if there was no evacuation? You think everyone should return to
their homes and get on with their lives as before?
  #29   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 393
Default Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN

On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 21:45:03 +0200, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

No need to evacuate anyone.


What, until the melt-down?
  #30   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 25,191
Default Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN

On 17/12/2016 18:42, mechanic wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 21:47:37 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote:

There have been deaths from the evacuation, just as there would be
from someone falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a
panic.


You think the evacuation was unnecessary? What would have happened
if there was no evacuation? You think everyone should return to
their homes and get on with their lives as before?


Given that most of the "exclusion zone" is less radioactive than many
populated British towns, perhaps its not such a bad idea.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/


  #31   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,069
Default Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN

En el artículo , Nightjar
escribió:

My understanding was that they could still have got at least one backup
generator back on line if the fuel tanks had not been washed away.


Mine had been that the backup generators were in the basement of the
main building, i.e. several metres below sea level, that the basement
rooms weren't watertight, and that the generators basically were
underwater.

That wikipedia paragraph, assuming it's accurate, puts an interesting
slant on things.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")
  #32   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,069
Default Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN

En el artículo ,
newshound escribió:

Slightly lazy journalism I thought


Yes, agreed.

, centred on "lack of primary
containment"


Chernobyl had no primary containment; that incident would have been
nowhere near as bad with PC.

The other point, of course, is that at any time some plant has to be the
"most dangerous"


Aye.

. Quite reassuring that it is 40 years old and unlikely
to continue operating for much longer. Also, not unreasonable for plant
in poorer countries to be built to lower standards


40-year-old standards, yes. At least it'll hopefully not be online much
longer. I couldn't help wondering why they didn't restart reactor 1 as
well.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")
  #33   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,069
Default Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN

En el artículo , Mark
Allread escribió:

rense
implore you to consider
adding this potentially life-saving, life-enhancing algae food to your
daily diet

/rense

Noocular does tend to bring out the swivel-eyed brigade, doesn't it

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")
  #34   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,979
Default Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN

On 17-Dec-16 7:13 PM, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , Nightjar
escribió:

My understanding was that they could still have got at least one backup
generator back on line if the fuel tanks had not been washed away.


Mine had been that the backup generators were in the basement of the
main building, i.e. several metres below sea level, that the basement
rooms weren't watertight, and that the generators basically were
underwater.


The original ones were. That is why they added more that were high
enough to survive. Unfortunately, their fuel tanks were about 1m lower
than the highest water level and a tank full of diesel floats.

That wikipedia paragraph, assuming it's accurate, puts an interesting
slant on things.


It is consistent with informed articles that I read at the time.


--
--

Colin Bignell
  #35   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,069
Default Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN

En el artículo , Nightjar
escribió:

It is consistent with informed articles that I read at the time.


Thanks. Wikipedia is a lovely resource but one has to be aware that it
can be edited by anyone with an axe to grind. And with the current
vogue for "fake news"...

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")


  #36   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,979
Default Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN

On 17-Dec-16 7:43 PM, Nightjar wrote:
On 17-Dec-16 7:13 PM, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , Nightjar
escribió:

My understanding was that they could still have got at least one backup
generator back on line if the fuel tanks had not been washed away.


Mine had been that the backup generators were in the basement of the
main building, i.e. several metres below sea level, that the basement
rooms weren't watertight, and that the generators basically were
underwater.


The original ones were. That is why they added more that were high
enough to survive. Unfortunately, their fuel tanks were about 1m lower
than the highest water level and a tank full of diesel floats.


I should, perhaps, add that they would have been just above the water,
if the earthquake had not caused the land to drop by about 1m.


--
--

Colin Bignell
  #37   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,019
Default Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN

On 12/17/2016 7:18 PM, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo ,
newshound escribió:

Slightly lazy journalism I thought


Yes, agreed.

, centred on "lack of primary
containment"


Chernobyl had no primary containment; that incident would have been
nowhere near as bad with PC.

The other point, of course, is that at any time some plant has to be the
"most dangerous"


Aye.

. Quite reassuring that it is 40 years old and unlikely
to continue operating for much longer. Also, not unreasonable for plant
in poorer countries to be built to lower standards


40-year-old standards, yes. At least it'll hopefully not be online much
longer. I couldn't help wondering why they didn't restart reactor 1 as
well.

No, also lower standards. Partly to reflect different risk levels in
less populated countries, but also cost benefit. We've always been very
critical of the Chernobyl design, a UK review in the early 70's
concluded that RBMK wasn't licensable here, in part because of
controllablity. But the Soviet republics were behind the west in site
welding technology for large pressure vessels. The RBMK allows more
factory manufacturing, with field assembly using relatively conventional
welding. Also, it was scaleable. And their regional economy was even
more held back by lack of electricity than the UK one was. I am less
familiar with the VVER, but see no reason to doubt that the Soviet
designers looked at trade-offs in the same way that we did. After all,
they seemed to have designed Metsamor against an appropriate level of
earthquake for the Armenia.
  #38   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,896
Default Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN

In article , Mark
Allread scribeth thus
On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 13:37:12 +0000, charles wrote:

In article ,
Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 10:21:47 -0800, harry wrote:


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...-idUSKBN13Y047

Nuclear is NOT safe or cheap option.


Jeff Rense's site has done an amazingly thorough job of keeping track
of the alarming spread of pollution from Fukishima: www.rense.com


The site also tells us that the CIA is "Muslim run"


Actually, I preferred this bit of the site:

begin quote
World-Renowned Talk Show Host, Producer
And Broadcast Journalist Jeff Rense Says...

"I have taken BioSuperfood virtually every day since the Fukushima
catastrophe of March 2011. Of all the nutritional approaches to dealing
with the effects of radiation and radiation exposure only ONE has been
PROVEN to be effective€¦BioSuperfood.

Developed by doctors and scientists after the Chernobyl disaster,
countless lives were saved and protected by this powerhouse 100% all
natural product. The proof of BioSuperfood's protective and
rehabilitating effects are now beyond question. I implore you to consider
adding this potentially life-saving, life-enhancing algae food to your
daily diet.

BioSuperfood will strengthen your immune system and enhance your energy
and stamina like no other single product I have ever encountered. It's
well past time to get serious about the ever-increasing radiation in our
environment€¦radiation that doesn't stop at the West Coast. BioSuperfood
is priceless in that regard." -- Jeff Rense
end quote


He the same copywriter for Russ Andrews perchance;?....

--
Tony Sayer



  #39   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,066
Default Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN

On Saturday, 17 December 2016 18:43:47 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
harry wrote
Rod Speed wrote
harry wrote


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...-idUSKBN13Y047


Nuclear is NOT safe or cheap option.


Perfectly safe if you dont do really stupid stuff
like siting it where a tsunami can be a problem.


That's exactly where Hinkley Point is sited.


Dont get tsunamis there, stupid.



You really are a thicko aren't you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristo...l_floods,_1607
  #40   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default Fukushima clear up costs double. AGAIN



"harry" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 17 December 2016 18:43:47 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
harry wrote
Rod Speed wrote
harry wrote


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...-idUSKBN13Y047


Nuclear is NOT safe or cheap option.


Perfectly safe if you dont do really stupid stuff
like siting it where a tsunami can be a problem.


That's exactly where Hinkley Point is sited.


Dont get tsunamis there, stupid.



You really are a thicko aren't you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristo...l_floods,_1607


That's not a tsunami, stupid.

Trivial to make it immune to floods like that.

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
No longer worth it to plug in Electric Cars or Plug-In Hybrids inAreas wit High Electricity Costs and Low Gasoline Costs SMS Home Repair 67 November 10th 14 02:59 AM
A Clear Explaination of Exposed Rods At Fukushima Number 4 Reactor [email protected] Metalworking 6 April 7th 11 02:38 PM
boiler costs - rough costs / options dirt dibbler UK diy 1 July 5th 07 11:39 AM
Ozone generator to clear mold, will it clear termites too? Miki Home Ownership 2 January 8th 05 02:08 PM
draining CH after Fernox Restorer - how clear is clear? dave @ stejonda UK diy 5 June 27th 04 10:28 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:08 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"