"Canuck57" wrote in message ...

On 15/03/2011 12:19 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:35:01 -0400, wrote:

I haven't been opposed to nuclear power. I live about 20 miles from one.
But this latest incident in Japan sure gives one pause.

I think the significant thing is that the problem wasn't the 9.0
earthquake, it was the tsunami. That makes most of the US reactors
somewhat immune to the biggest problem.

It does highlight how vulnerable the cooling systems are to unexpected
second order effects. The Japanese had diesel generators for backup
power and then the diesels got knocked out by the tsunami. There are
a lot of other things that can knock out diesel generators however.
The track record of standby diesels performing reliably in an
emergency is spotty at best. It takes an extremely rigorous
maintenance and testing regime starting with fuel storage, filtration
practices, etc.


All reactors should and can be designed in a way they can remove core
elements and stop the reaction. Why were these 4 reactors not designed
this way?

Cheap design? Poor engineering? How many more like it are out there?



Reply:
Old reactor. Lots of changes in the last 20-40 years. Quake and Tsunami
kill 10-10,000 and there is more hype about the radiation releases at the
plant and the danger that 10 people may get cancer. The media is a large
problem. What has been released is no high level stuff. Coal mining and
power plants release probably that much a week from the Radon gas. Is a
disaster, but the newer designs prevent a lot of these problems. We have
not build a new plant in the US is at least 20 years. France builds all
plants exactly the same regards layout and controls. Trained in one plant,
can work in any plant. Cost is cheaper as the design is reused. Any design
problems can be addressed equally across the system. How the hell you going
to run all those Tesla cars and other electric vehicles the government wants
us to drive?