Earthquake in Japan....9.0...ouch!
- Thread starter bloodline76
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2002
- Posts
- 2,951
Think he is making the point that if in theory the reactors stayed on they would have carried on powering the normal cooling systems.
No idea whether that would have really worked though
The station dosent generate its own power, it has a power supply to it otherwise they would have got in a right pickle when it was first built eh
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 3,072
Why not?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Think he is making the point that if in theory the reactors stayed on they would have carried on powering the normal cooling systems.
No idea whether that would have really worked though
It probably would have, but then you have the situation the "it can't be Chernobyl" people were talking about, reactors going full steam ahead, then cooling failing anyway, and you have a much quicker warm up while at peak capacity and meltdown/partial meltdown has a much higher chance to occur.
If all 3 reactors that were on had not been 1 hour into a shutdown process when the cooling went down, as happened in this situation the damage would have been FAR more severe at this point.
With Tsunami that big, theres nothing to say there wouldn't have been a primary cooling failure anyway.
Anyway thats just about cooling, I'm not entirely sure what happens but, the external power lines went down, meaning afaik there was no way for power to be transported away from the plant, I don't know if theres some massive resistor capable of burning off the energy, somehow I doubt even, even less so without cooling. Do power plants auto shut down in the case of power lines going out aswell?
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2002
- Posts
- 2,951
Not realy, what would happen say to a plant with only one reactor if it needed to shut down?
Where did the supply to all the seriously demanding equipment come from before the reactors were brought online?
What would happed if the reactors needed shutting down, like in this case minus the tsunami?
All stations are fed from an external source.
Oh yeah don't get me wrong I definitely think turning them off was the right call. Just agreeing norm's point of it being sadly ironic.
MeEsH - They'll be on the grid with other stations to take power, but a fully operating power station isn't going to need power coming in to it under normal use. It's a moot point anyway.
MeEsH - They'll be on the grid with other stations to take power, but a fully operating power station isn't going to need power coming in to it under normal use. It's a moot point anyway.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2002
- Posts
- 2,951
Moot point I agree, but I was just tying to point out that a powerstation can run perfectly without generating any of its own power
They have (had) an 8 hour battery supply, in the case of power outages, or supply issues, or the diesel gennies kicking in.
In this case, the batteries worked perfectly, but the diesel gennies did not kick in, and when the batteries ran out, this was the outcome.
Many patented drugs are naturally occurring compounds that were discovered a long time ago.
Take for example sodium oxybate sold as Xyrem.
Discovered in 1874 and being part of the mammalian nervous system it was widely used since the 1960's for many medical conditions with no patent, then in the early 2000's Jazz pharmaceuticals decides to exploit hundreds of thousands of people by conducting an essentially no-risk clinical trial of the drug and patents it even though they did not discover it and everyone involved with it's discovery died decades ago so they get no benefit from it. So now people who were previously buying it for a few £ at the health store now pay hundreds for exactly the same drug, disgraceful.
Last edited:
The problem is with the cooling system not working, not the actual reactor(s). Imagine someone draining the cooling system on your car and then disconnecting the fan on a hot summers day....... stand back !
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2002
- Posts
- 2,951
I understand the backup systems. My point was the station would have had an external power source, but unfortunatly due to the tsunami had been cut.
Why not? Surely they can tap into the main AC generator with a transformer to power their own systems.
It's the same principle as a nuclear reactor in a submarine operating independently.
Yeah the cooling system failed because when the reactors shutdown there was no eletricity supply, so they had to revert to the diesel generators.
If they hadn't shutdown, or at the very least kept one reactor running, the cooling pumps would have had ample power.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
The problem is, even when they get the power back on, which they think is soon, unless I missed they've done it now, the main cooling could be screwed. AFAIK its fed by long ass tubes into the ocean, Tsunami debrie is everywhere, the massive force could have damaged the pipes, stuffed crap up them, broken them somewhere or the flooding that damaged the backup generators could have done other damage aswell.
UNfortunately they are seemingly quite a bit beyond just getting the cooling back on, they should be able to re-establish core cooling, but the open pools are the bigger danger now. Long term I really don't know how they plan to deal with them, get some specialised crane in to lift them out into a heavily shielded container with cooling they can close and then either keep them on site of transport them to alternate cooling ponds, they are open to air so I assume they can't just leave them there.
See this is what I was on about. Why the hell can they not put the cooling system deep underground in a sort of bunker (since it's so important) and power it from the main reactor?
These things need to be kept cold and it was the absence of cooling that caused a partial meltdown and the problem we have now. Apologies if Im talking sh** here but is this not the problem??? Surely they should have made sure the cooling system would work no matter what??
It's interesting. I was reading today an article from Time magazine (Monday, Mar. 04, 1996), that raised the same concerns about the cooling pools placed next to the reactor core.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,984206,00.html
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 13,497
Same could be said for everything. Should I design a aircraft engine that will never blow up AKA Trent 972 on the A380 last year?
It's about balance, for whatever reason at the time of the construction the two backup power systems (in addition to the first, primary external power grid source - so three independent sources of power) where deemed to be sufficient given the knowledge at the time. Clearly over the last 40 years things have happened and designs have evolved.
I don't hesitate to think that if a brand new 2010 reactor had been hit, we would be in the same situation.
People must remember that these reactors are 40 years old, thats an immense timescale for technology.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 May 2004
- Posts
- 7,018
- Location
- England
that quote don't bode well does it?
It does seem quite mad that a nuclear reactor that requires constant cooling relies on two short-term solutions to act as emergency cooling when theirs a power source that can provide power essentially for the entire time it's needed.
It's like making a car without an alternator.
Then again perhaps there's some kind of reason why it can't be done.
It's like making a car without an alternator.
Then again perhaps there's some kind of reason why it can't be done.
