|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
How good were climate models 30 years ago?
On Aug 8, 10:44*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 03:41:37 -0700 (PDT), wrote: The real design flaw is that the reactors didn't really have a fail- safe mode, WRT cooling water supply. *The contingency plans at FD were essentially non-existent. That is a fundamental design flaw that cannot be fixed. Ever. The problem with nuclear power in its current form is that it depends on engineering and human procedure for safety. Essentially, the fuel must always be immersed in water, which is not an unsurmountable problem, nor one that would require high-tech to solve. (Hint: water flows downhill.) That combination guarantees failure, and failure is not an option with nuclear power, because there are so many failure scenarios that have massive economic and social costs. The fact that the failure rate for any given reactor is very small is substantially offset by the degree of damage a single failed reactor can produce. The failure rates are not "very small." There are only a few hundred commercial reactors, but already there have been at least three major accidents. |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
How good were climate models 30 years ago?
|
#133
|
|||
|
|||
How good were climate models 30 years ago?
On Aug 18, 5:16*pm, Steve wrote:
On 8/18/2012 4:21 PM, wrote: On Aug 8, 10:44 am, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 03:41:37 -0700 (PDT), wrote: The real design flaw is that the reactors didn't really have a fail- safe mode, WRT cooling water supply. *The contingency plans at FD were essentially non-existent. That is a fundamental design flaw that cannot be fixed. Ever. The problem with nuclear power in its current form is that it depends on engineering and human procedure for safety. Essentially, the fuel must always be immersed in water, which is not an unsurmountable problem, nor one that would require high-tech to solve. *(Hint: water flows downhill.) That combination guarantees failure, and failure is not an option with nuclear power, because there are so many failure scenarios that have massive economic and social costs. The fact that the failure rate for any given reactor is very small is substantially offset by the degree of damage a single failed reactor can produce. The failure rates are not "very small." *There are only a few hundred commercial reactors, but already there have been at least three major accidents. He did say for any given reactor. Irrelevant. Only by looking at how often there is a serious accident among the entire population of reactors/plants can we talk about failure rates. One can now hazard a guess that there could be another major accident somewhere within ten years or sooner. Twenty to thirty years might be more likely. Or maybe up to now we have just been very lucky. The original estimate of a serious Space Shuttle accident was about 1 in 78 per flight IIRC. The actual rate was chillingly similar. I would just point out that they were preventable accidents. Most "accidents" are "preventable." Like I offered originally, TMI was scary, but a success story. Reactor destroyed, some radiation releases, public relations fiasco. Albeit also a cautionary tale about why we need to have the strictest of regulations in place with regulators who are scared enough about the technology to be extremely well educated in every field of expertise involved to assure that the failure modes are covered well. But, the idea of a a physical model that would not enter runaway in the first place is obviously the right direction for the tech. The spent fuel at Fukushima is a problem all on its own. It will catch fire without water. Techs still can't get close enough to deal with it. |
#134
|
|||
|
|||
How good were climate models 30 years ago?
|
#135
|
|||
|
|||
How good were climate models 30 years ago?
On Aug 19, 12:36*am, Steve wrote:
On 8/18/2012 5:47 PM, wrote: On Aug 18, 5:16 pm, Steve wrote: cautionary tale about why we need to have the strictest of regulations in place with regulators who are scared enough about the technology to be extremely well educated in every field of expertise involved to assure that the failure modes are covered well. But, the idea of a a physical model that would not enter runaway in the first place is obviously the right direction for the tech. The spent fuel at Fukushima is a problem all on its own. *It will catch fire without water. *Techs still can't get close enough to deal with it. Which sort of brings us back to my original point, and lament, that the science involved has been neglected rather than advanced over the past 40 years (plus or minus a few) because dirty energy was cheap and readily available. Leading some to use hundreds of gallons of dirty heating oil to keep a large house warm, while the Chukchi have been using much greener ways to keep warm all along.. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Scientists' Good News: Earth May Survive Sun's Demise in 5 Billion Years? | Jan Panteltje | Astronomy Misc | 0 | September 13th 07 11:18 AM |
Telescope Models? | Mean Mr Mustard | Amateur Astronomy | 15 | May 26th 05 06:49 AM |
Good morning or good evening depending upon your location. I want to ask you the most important question of your life. Your joy or sorrow for all eternity depends upon your answer. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good | OM | History | 0 | April 22nd 05 08:37 AM |
NASA's great earth observatory marks five years of climate discoveries | Jacques van Oene | News | 0 | February 28th 05 08:25 PM |