Waiting to happen?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol...ure_recurrence

For the more ignorant of you out there.

harry wrote:
Waiting to happen?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol...ure_recurrence

For the more ignorant of you out there.

Oh dear, harry. 2 metres. Well well well.

Managed to kill lots of people and destroy the economy and there wasn't
even a reactor at all involved!

got as high as 2 meter up a church.

Golly. Sizewell B doesn't even *start* foundations wise to at least 4
meters above high tide.

http://www.geograph.org.uk/showmap.php?gridref=TM474632

shows that the site is entirely enclosed by the 5m contour..


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

Waiting to happen?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol...ure_recurrence

For the more ignorant of you out there.

Interesting, not. It cites one report by Risk Management Solutions Inc.
which states the bleeding obvious:

"On the Bristol Channel, the reactors at Hinkley Point and at Oldbury
are also vulnerable to being flooded by extreme water levels higher than
anticipated in the design of the facilities. Where accompanied by an
intense windstorm, the operations and even safety of these facilities
could potentially be significantly challenged by the repeat of a surge
with tide event comparable to 1607."

That is not much use without an assessment of the design criteria or -
better - of their current vulnerability since the flood defences may
vary from design. (Fukushima had a sea wall. It was designed to
withstand a 19ft tsunami*. So no surprise it failed when met by a 46ft
wave.) One might equally truthfully say that future energy supplies from
wind power are vulnerable to destruction by hurricanes, tornadoes etc
which impose loads higher than those anticipated in their designs.

There are patently flooding (and coastal erosion) risks to nuclear
sites. But sensible people expect them to be assessed quantitatively in
order to make decisions about value for money. Eg I wonder how much
it would have cost to build a wall around Fukushima which would have
withstood the wave.

* Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant & Tohoku Earthquake, Institution
of Mechanical Engineers,
http://www.imeche.org/Libraries/Know...line.sflb.ashx


--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

Robin wrote:
Waiting to happen?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol...ure_recurrence

For the more ignorant of you out there.

Interesting, not. It cites one report by Risk Management Solutions Inc.
which states the bleeding obvious:

"On the Bristol Channel, the reactors at Hinkley Point and at Oldbury
are also vulnerable to being flooded by extreme water levels higher than
anticipated in the design of the facilities. Where accompanied by an
intense windstorm, the operations and even safety of these facilities
could potentially be significantly challenged by the repeat of a surge
with tide event comparable to 1607."


Note that both are due to close and you can bet your sweet bippy that
the replacements will take that into account. They are already stressed
to take aircraft flying into them.


Hinckley point is several meters above the sea..its not exactly washed
up on a beach.

It's really trivial to bund or build a reactor a couple of meters higher.

If it makes people happy.


That is not much use without an assessment of the design criteria or -
better - of their current vulnerability since the flood defences may
vary from design. (Fukushima had a sea wall. It was designed to
withstand a 19ft tsunami*. So no surprise it failed when met by a 46ft
wave.) One might equally truthfully say that future energy supplies from
wind power are vulnerable to destruction by hurricanes, tornadoes etc
which impose loads higher than those anticipated in their designs.

And the rest. Nothing is perfect. But more people will die if we have
solar panels and windmills that can't actually function and certainly
not at the level that poor people can afford t keep their homes heated.

And the *permanent* *Guaranteed* loss of land area to renewable energy
is between 100 and 1000 times greater than that lost *temporarily* to
any conceivable nuclear accident..


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

"Robin" wrote in message
...

That is not much use without an assessment of the design criteria or -
better - of their current vulnerability since the flood defences may
vary from design. (Fukushima had a sea wall. It was designed to
withstand a 19ft tsunami*.

They didn't need to build higher walls.
When they built it they lowered the site by about 20 m, They should have put
the emergency generators on the high land and not wasted money digging so
much away.

On Mar 27, 8:10*am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Robin wrote:
Waiting to happen?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol...07#Future_recu....

For the more ignorant of you out there.

Interesting, not. *It cites one report by Risk Management Solutions Inc.
which states the bleeding obvious:

"On the Bristol Channel, the reactors at Hinkley Point and at Oldbury
are also vulnerable to being flooded by extreme water levels higher than
anticipated in the design of the facilities. Where accompanied by an
intense windstorm, the operations and even safety of these facilities
could potentially be significantly challenged by the repeat of a surge
with tide event comparable to 1607."

Note that both are due to close and you can bet your sweet bippy that
the replacements will take that into account. They are already stressed
to take aircraft flying into them.

Hinckley point is several meters above the sea..its not exactly washed
up on a beach.

It's really trivial to bund or build a reactor a couple of meters higher.

If it makes people happy.

That is not much use without an assessment of the design criteria or -
better - of their current vulnerability since the flood defences may
vary from design. *(Fukushima had a sea wall. *It was designed to
withstand a 19ft tsunami*. *So no surprise it failed when met by a 46ft
wave.) One might equally truthfully say that future energy supplies from
wind power are vulnerable to destruction by hurricanes, tornadoes etc
which impose loads higher than those anticipated in their designs.

And the rest. Nothing is perfect. But more people will die if we have
solar panels and windmills that can't actually function and certainly
not at the level that poor people can afford t keep their homes heated.

And the *permanent* *Guaranteed* loss of land area to renewable energy
is between 100 and 1000 times greater than that lost *temporarily* to
any conceivable nuclear accident..


Around half of the Chernobyl exclusion zone has people living in it
now - but not children or pregnant women. Some types of food grown
there are, according to the authorities there, safe to eat, and are
being eaten. In Britain though we cant afford to lose that much land,


NT

On 27/03/2012 09:26, NT wrote:
....
Around half of the Chernobyl exclusion zone has people living in it
now - but not children or pregnant women. Some types of food grown
there are, according to the authorities there, safe to eat, and are
being eaten. In Britain though we cant afford to lose that much land,

Nor is it likely that we would. Three Mile Island was very similar to
Chernobyl, with one major difference - Three Mile Island had a
containment vessel.

Colin Bignell

NT wrote:

Around half of the Chernobyl exclusion zone has people living in it
now - but not children or pregnant women. Some types of food grown
there are, according to the authorities there, safe to eat, and are
being eaten. In Britain though we cant afford to lose that much land,

We can. Only 7.7% of the UK is settled. The UK is empty. Much of the land
is paid by CAP to do NOTHING -except make idle landowners rich of course..

NT wrote:
On Mar 27, 8:10 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Robin wrote:
Waiting to happen?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol...07#Future_recu...
For the more ignorant of you out there.
Interesting, not. It cites one report by Risk Management Solutions Inc.
which states the bleeding obvious:
"On the Bristol Channel, the reactors at Hinkley Point and at Oldbury
are also vulnerable to being flooded by extreme water levels higher than
anticipated in the design of the facilities. Where accompanied by an
intense windstorm, the operations and even safety of these facilities
could potentially be significantly challenged by the repeat of a surge
with tide event comparable to 1607."
Note that both are due to close and you can bet your sweet bippy that
the replacements will take that into account. They are already stressed
to take aircraft flying into them.

Hinckley point is several meters above the sea..its not exactly washed
up on a beach.

It's really trivial to bund or build a reactor a couple of meters higher.

If it makes people happy.

That is not much use without an assessment of the design criteria or -
better - of their current vulnerability since the flood defences may
vary from design. (Fukushima had a sea wall. It was designed to
withstand a 19ft tsunami*. So no surprise it failed when met by a 46ft
wave.) One might equally truthfully say that future energy supplies from
wind power are vulnerable to destruction by hurricanes, tornadoes etc
which impose loads higher than those anticipated in their designs.
And the rest. Nothing is perfect. But more people will die if we have
solar panels and windmills that can't actually function and certainly
not at the level that poor people can afford t keep their homes heated.

And the *permanent* *Guaranteed* loss of land area to renewable energy
is between 100 and 1000 times greater than that lost *temporarily* to
any conceivable nuclear accident..


Around half of the Chernobyl exclusion zone has people living in it
now - but not children or pregnant women. Some types of food grown
there are, according to the authorities there, safe to eat, and are
being eaten. In Britain though we cant afford to lose that much land,


well possibly, but we will lose more than that if we have the onshore
turbines that the limp dims want.

In fact the exclusion zone is less than the area of land needed to
generate that amount from turbines. And that's not 'within 2km of the
turbines' that's land directly covered by the wind farms. That is too
dangerous to live on from Elfin Safety points if view.

In reality we would probably not be as prissy as the Japs are - they
have a really low background level there. One tenth or less of some
parts of GB

If we went to that the coal ash tips would have to be cleared and stored
for 50,000 years etc etc.



NT


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

Nightjar wrote:
On 27/03/2012 09:26, NT wrote:
...
Around half of the Chernobyl exclusion zone has people living in it
now - but not children or pregnant women. Some types of food grown
there are, according to the authorities there, safe to eat, and are
being eaten. In Britain though we cant afford to lose that much land,

Nor is it likely that we would. Three Mile Island was very similar to
Chernobyl, with one major difference - Three Mile Island had a
containment vessel.

To be fair so did Fuku, but not a secondary containment that wasnt
essentially open, and no safe way to vent gas.

IF they had vented that gas under the sea, no bang and all the
radioactivity in the sea and well diluted within days.

We are lucky in that we will be able to take onboard ALL the issues
arising and provide safer ways to deal with decay heat.

Since there wont be any gen II reactors left in this country inside 10
years.


Colin Bignell


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

NT wrote:
On Mar 27, 8:10 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Robin wrote:
Waiting to happen?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol...07#Future_recu...
For the more ignorant of you out there.
Interesting, not. It cites one report by Risk Management
Solutions Inc.
which states the bleeding obvious:
"On the Bristol Channel, the reactors at Hinkley Point and at Oldbury
are also vulnerable to being flooded by extreme water levels
higher than
anticipated in the design of the facilities. Where accompanied by an
intense windstorm, the operations and even safety of these facilities
could potentially be significantly challenged by the repeat of a
surge
with tide event comparable to 1607."
Note that both are due to close and you can bet your sweet bippy that
the replacements will take that into account. They are already
stressed
to take aircraft flying into them.

Hinckley point is several meters above the sea..its not exactly washed
up on a beach.

It's really trivial to bund or build a reactor a couple of meters
higher.

If it makes people happy.

That is not much use without an assessment of the design criteria
or -
better - of their current vulnerability since the flood defences may
vary from design. (Fukushima had a sea wall. It was designed to
withstand a 19ft tsunami*. So no surprise it failed when met by a
46ft
wave.) One might equally truthfully say that future energy
supplies from
wind power are vulnerable to destruction by hurricanes, tornadoes etc
which impose loads higher than those anticipated in their designs.
And the rest. Nothing is perfect. But more people will die if we have
solar panels and windmills that can't actually function and certainly
not at the level that poor people can afford t keep their homes
heated.

And the *permanent* *Guaranteed* loss of land area to renewable energy
is between 100 and 1000 times greater than that lost *temporarily* to
any conceivable nuclear accident..
Around half of the Chernobyl exclusion zone has people living in it
now - but not children or pregnant women. Some types of food grown
there are, according to the authorities there, safe to eat, and are
being eaten. In Britain though we cant afford to lose that much land,
well possibly, but we will lose more than that if we have the
onshore turbines that the limp dims want.

In fact the exclusion zone is less than the area of land needed to
generate that amount from turbines. And that's not 'within 2km of the
turbines' that's land directly covered by the wind farms. That is too
dangerous to live on from Elfin Safety points if view.

In reality we would probably not be as prissy as the Japs are - they
have a really low background level there. One tenth or less of some
parts of GB

If we went to that the coal ash tips would have to be cleared and
stored for 50,000 years etc etc.

Where would we store Dartmoor though?


well we would cover it with a huge concrete dome and vent the gas into
special storage units 'safe for 50,000 years', obviously.




--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:25:16 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


In reality we would probably not be as prissy as the Japs are - they
have a really low background level there. One tenth or less of some
parts of GB

If we went to that the coal ash tips would have to be cleared and stored
for 50,000 years etc etc.

And large areas of Devon and Cornwall would be out of bounds, let
alone the area covered by the fallout from the Windscale fire....


Actually that's relatively clean, these days.

No Cherenkov baa-lambs anywhere.


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:25:16 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


In reality we would probably not be as prissy as the Japs are - they
have a really low background level there. One tenth or less of some
parts of GB

If we went to that the coal ash tips would have to be cleared and
stored for 50,000 years etc etc.

And large areas of Devon and Cornwall would be out of bounds, let
alone the area covered by the fallout from the Windscale fire....


Actually that's relatively clean, these days.

No Cherenkov baa-lambs anywhere.


All British sheep had the requirement for them to be checked for
radioactivity before sale removed within the last week.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

John Williamson wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:25:16 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


In reality we would probably not be as prissy as the Japs are - they
have a really low background level there. One tenth or less of some
parts of GB

If we went to that the coal ash tips would have to be cleared and
stored for 50,000 years etc etc.

And large areas of Devon and Cornwall would be out of bounds, let
alone the area covered by the fallout from the Windscale fire....


Actually that's relatively clean, these days.

No Cherenkov baa-lambs anywhere.


All British sheep had the requirement for them to be checked for
radioactivity before sale removed within the last week.

About bloody time too.

Caesium is hardly the worst thing radiologically, anyway.

I wonder how much extra radiation we got from that solar flare?


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

"harry" wrote in message
...
Waiting to happen?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol...ure_recurrence

For the more ignorant of you out there.

Can we call this one the Fukuharry then?

harry wrote:
On Mar 27, 10:44 am, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:25:16 +0100, The Natural Philosopher

wrote:
In reality we would probably not be as prissy as the Japs are - they
have a really low background level there. One tenth or less of some
parts of GB
If we went to that the coal ash tips would have to be cleared and stored
for 50,000 years etc etc.
And large areas of Devon and Cornwall would be out of bounds, let
alone the area covered by the fallout from the Windscale fire....

--

Chris


If there was an incident on the Bristold Channel, the prevailing wind
is West. Right over Londin and home counties.
So some good would come out of it.

wrong as usual. South west.

So make that Birmingham.


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.