" wrote in
:

On Aug 24, 8:48*am, Han wrote:
" wrote in
news:c4e81643-
:

plus tuesday the east coast had a earthquake, one nuke power plant
lost all power both primary and backup.

the backup backup worked, so the plant didnt meltdown.

Can we have a link to this please?

http://preview.tinyurl.com/3btogrl

1 of 4 "regular" backup diesels had a leak, so the backup backup was
a fifth diesel. *All was fine, so far (they're checking things, as
they should). *What is a bit disconcerting is that the quake was only
15 mil
es
away, and a 5.8 magnitude, while the plant was designed for 6.2,
which (I think) is only 5 times or so more powerful than a 5.8.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid


Thanks for the link. Niow we know that what was posted
was the usual incorrect alarmist nonsense:

" plus tuesday the east coast had a earthquake, one nuke power plant
lost all power both primary and backup. the backup backup worked,
so the plant didnt meltdown."

Truth is they had 5 backup generators, only one of which had to
be shut down because of a coolant leak. That's a long
way from losing all backup power. There isn't any indication
that the 5th generator was even necessary to keep the plant
cooled.

I like nuclear energy and believe it is generally safe. However, when an
earthquake occurs that is only 0.4 on the Richter scale less powerfull
than what the plant was designed for, I do think that a check of the
plant is called for. I am not being alarmist, just careful. I live
close enough to Indian Point NY to not like the current state of affairs
with those plants. I believe they do not meet all the design and
management criteria that I would like them to meet in a more ideal
situation. But I'm not worried. There are coal plants closer by ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid