On Wednesday, March 16, 2011 9:37:11 PM UTC-4, dpb wrote:

I prefer to look at the _OPERATING_ reactors and their collective output.

In doing so, don't you risk cherry-picking, though? If you look at only the successful missions, space shuttle solid rocket boosters don't seem to have problems at low temperatures.

--Eric Smith

On Mar 17, 10:28*am, "Eric S. Smith: Left-Field Marshal"
wrote:
On Wednesday, March 16, 2011 9:37:11 PM UTC-4, dpb wrote:
I prefer to look at the _OPERATING_ reactors and their collective output.

jamesgangnc wrote in
:

On Mar 17, 10:28*am, "Eric S. Smith: Left-Field Marshal"
wrote:
On Wednesday, March 16, 2011 9:37:11 PM UTC-4, dpb wrote:
I prefer to look at the _OPERATING_ reactors and their collective
output.

In doing so, don't you risk cherry-picking, though? *If you look at
only the successful missions, space shuttle solid rocket boosters
don't seem to have problems at low temperatures.

--Eric Smith

There are actually reactor designs now that can be passively cooled
after scrammed. No power need ed to the cooling system.

All the same we probably should not build reactors in geologically
active areas or high population density areas like Japan and our West
Coast. We have plenty of low population density areas in the central
US that are also geologically stable.

It wasn't the quake that damaged the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power
Station, it was inadequate backup systems and failure to prepare for a
tsunami that was twice the height as their worst case scenario. Plus (of
course) design flaws and operator error.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 17 Mar 2011 15:15:11 GMT, Han wrote:

jamesgangnc wrote in
:

On Mar 17, 10:28Â*am, "Eric S. Smith: Left-Field Marshal"
wrote:
On Wednesday, March 16, 2011 9:37:11 PM UTC-4, dpb wrote:
I prefer to look at the _OPERATING_ reactors and their collective
output.

In doing so, don't you risk cherry-picking, though? Â*If you look at
only the successful missions, space shuttle solid rocket boosters
don't seem to have problems at low temperatures.

--Eric Smith

There are actually reactor designs now that can be passively cooled
after scrammed. No power need ed to the cooling system.

All the same we probably should not build reactors in geologically
active areas or high population density areas like Japan and our West
Coast. We have plenty of low population density areas in the central
US that are also geologically stable.

It wasn't the quake that damaged the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power
Station, it was inadequate backup systems and failure to prepare for a
tsunami that was twice the height as their worst case scenario. Plus (of
course) design flaws and operator error.

What operator error?

--Vic

On 3/17/2011 9:28 AM, Eric S. Smith: Left-Field Marshal wrote:
On Wednesday, March 16, 2011 9:37:11 PM UTC-4, dpb wrote:

I prefer to look at the _OPERATING_ reactors and their collective
output.

In doing so, don't you risk cherry-picking, though?...

Not in realistically assessing risk, no, not really.

Those that have been decommissioned aren't going to be a future problem
since they're not in the population at risk.

Many of those that populate the list that make the other poster's
argument that "they're bad" are on the list because they were either one
of the very, very early reactors that were either demonstration units or
reached normal end of life and were thus decommissioned for that reason.

There are a few that are there simply owing to the regional
politics--Rancho Seco and Seabrook are two in that category.

Still others were experimental or one-of-a-kind advanced concepts that
were either uneconomical or had other difficulties in implementation of
new concepts that just turned out to be non-viable commercial operations
(Ft St Vrain, the HTGR is a good example there).

Of the existing population, all are similar vintage LWRs and virtually
every one has seen an improvement in overall availability and reduction
in events over the years.

This is owing in large part to the vigilance of both NRC oversight and
the operators.

Certainly continued vigilance is important and those in particularly
prone areas should evaluate their readiness and design basis events in
view of the current events but there's no reason to panic.

--

In article ,
Vic Smith wrote:



What operator error?

--Vic

Someone apparently "forgot" to fill the diesel fuel tank for the
generator that was supposed to power the backup cooling pump. And,
allegedly, that wasn't discovered as the cause of the generator failure
until hours or days later.

On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 11:15:58 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
Vic Smith wrote:



What operator error?

--Vic

Someone apparently "forgot" to fill the diesel fuel tank for the
generator that was supposed to power the backup cooling pump. And,
allegedly, that wasn't discovered as the cause of the generator failure
until hours or days later.


Every account I've read says the generators were wiped out by the
tsunami.
I think I'll wait for the book.

--Vic

Vic Smith wrote in
:

It wasn't the quake that damaged the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power
Station, it was inadequate backup systems and failure to prepare for a
tsunami that was twice the height as their worst case scenario. Plus
(of course) design flaws and operator error.

What operator error?

What I gathered from at least one report is that they forgot to fill up the
diesel tanks of the backup generators, but that could of course have been a
false report. I am sure that mistakes occurred, though I have no quotes.
Too confusing a situation to not make mistakes sour grin.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Vic Smith wrote:

Every account I've read says the generators were wiped out by the
tsunami.

All the over-head satellite and helicopter pictures I've seen of the
reactor site have really not shown evidence that the site was swamped
with sea water.