FERC says no more nuke or coal plants needed

Page 4 of 10  
JoeSpareBedroom wrote: ...

Tell ya' what...we've been playing along w/ your silly game; how 'bout _you_ provide a message in which you have advocated commercial nuclear power (other than the false positive of the protestations in threads such as this one that really don't ring true).
Otherwise, I have to tend to agree that your tactics are excessively like those of the doomsdayers -- there's never enough to satisfy the "concern", when one hydra is slain yet another head pops up w/ a "well, what about...?", etc., etc., etc., ...
To make another analogy, "if it walks like a..."
:)
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I hereby advocate commercial nuclear power, as long as facilities are not placed in stupid locations because the land was a great deal for the plant's owner(s) or they just liked the view of the water.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

Amplify that to include "...and the perceived need for near-instantaneous evacuation of Long Island was an illogical requirement for _adequately-safe_ operation of the Shoreham in particular." and I'll be mollified.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Now we have to find out what YOU think would be an appropriate length of time for evacuation, especially since I never suggested "instantaneous", and you have no clue as to what travel was like in L.I. at the time.
So, gimme a number of hours or days which you think are appropriate.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

I already told you I've been on LI (and was actually there a fair number of times on other business at that time so I have quite a "clue" as to travel).

Several (your choice of units). As noted, folks worked onsite at TMI throughout the incident.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I think you're kidding around now. Matter of fact, I'm sure of it. Go back to painting windows or whatever it is you're doing this afternoon.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote: ... ...

Dammnation!!! You cain't slip nuthin' by ol' Joe, now can ya'?
Find a place for that man on the ACRS--folks that sharp are hard to come by.
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I read the speech. >>>>>>>>> And????
I'm still waiting (albeit not w/ bated breath, granted) for your erudite evaluation of the Chairman's remarks???
--


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

How about they need the water for cooling purposes.. or is every plant on the water now suspect?
--
"Distracting a politician from governing
is like distracting a bear from eating your baby."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Of course not. Only you would say such a thing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It is a valid question for clarification purposes alone.
--
"Distracting a politician from governing
is like distracting a bear from eating your baby."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

Huh? They EXPECT broken coolant pipes and fires in the control room?
I think nuke plant safety, rather, is based on what COULD happen.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

That is a ridiculous standard to which no industrial process can be held and expected to pass. In other words, it is a strawman argument.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Further along in the discussion, a NY Times article pointed out a corroded underground pipe which nobody (apparently) expected. This was at an actual nuclear power plant. Strawman?
Is there a water authority worker anywhere on earth who's never heard of corroded underground pipes?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
trag wrote:

And, of course, that it's been pointed out to him that the analyses aren't predicated on _HOW_ an initiating event occurs but postulated that the core must be kept cool with the assumption of large and/or small LOCAs occurring.
But, since that doesn't fit in with his need to make up "what if" questions, he ignores the point that it doesn't specifically matter "how". Hence the reversion to other areas as scare tactics.
I don't know if he really believes all this or simply likes to pretend there are goblins in the dark under his bed or just likes trolling.
I sorta' think it's a little of "all of the above".
And, of course, to engage in a little (more) of my own, I'm still waiting for the name(s) of the utilities/operators that he claimed earlier haven't taken their station security plans seriously so _I_ can report their deficiencies if Joe won't. (Or, of course, an admission that he simply threw a grenade over the wall as I suspect with no regard for facts...)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Would you agree that the NYT article suggested that the deteriorated underground pipe was unexpected? Here's the article again.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/nyregion/02nuke.html?ref=science&pagewanted=all
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nuclear Regulatory Commission emphasized that the Indian Point reactor could still have been shut down safely with either of two other backup systems, although operators generally avoid using both." and "They also stressed that the supply pipe was quickly repaired after the leak was found and that the water itself, which is cleaner than tap water, posed no environmental threat." Thus an unforeseen problem was discovered, contained, fixed, and ways to address this concern is being looked at. In other words, there was no safety issue at all at any time and thus a non issue. >

--
"Distracting a politician from governing
is like distracting a bear from eating your baby."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I have no issues with the cleanliness of the water. Now, read the rest of the article.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I read the whole thing. You want to ignore the good parts (could have been shut down with alternate methods, found quickly, fixed, no escape) and turn corroding pipes into a movie starring Jane Fonda, Jack Lemmon and Michael Douglas.
--
"Distracting a politician from governing
is like distracting a bear from eating your baby."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote: ...

It doesn't really matter...there were (as the article correctly points out and you conveniently ignore) redundant safety systems in place.
To repeat and reiterate yet again the oft-repeated, that's the entire point of the design process--if one builds in redundancy against _CONSEQUENCES_ then one removes the need to project _HOW_ any particular threat is initiated as one has already incorporated the necessary systems to avoid the end result to be avoid (namely, core melt).
And, extensive FEMA have been done for these systems wherein essentially every component/subsystem in all safely-related systems have been analyzed for their impact on the plant operation and safety systems. That again is a procedure wherein it is not assumed what might cause a component/system to fail, it is simply assumed that it has failed and the consequences thereof analyzed and if initially unacceptable, design modifications and are/were made to handle it. So, we really don't care whether somebody thought of a particular manner in which a particular pipe fails, more likely than not the effects of that pipe having arbitrarily failed have been analyzed. About the only instance where that wouldn't be true would be for tertiary systems that are not safety related.
Beyond that, as simply one example, I myself was involved in several 18-24 month long efforts to evaluate the effects of loss of power DC power to the plant ICS (Integrated Control System; the non-safety-related system that is the routine control system during normal operation. "Safety-related" in reactor jargon has a specific meaning that it is one of the systems required to cause a plant trip or to bring the plant to safe shutdown conditions; not the systems in play in normal operation. IOW, they are the redundant systems spoken of in the Times article you're so fond of.) Anyway, there are several hundred modules in the ICS and we went through and evaluated what happened if each one of them were to fail. After we were done, as a QA, the plant operator made a random selection from the data base and actually simulated the failure of a number of components to see what actually did happen. That's laying one's reputation/qualifications on the line. When you can say you've had some even remotely approaching that kind of experience and were successful, _THEN_ I'll lend some credence to your arguments.
And again, who were/are the utilities/operators who aren't fulfilling their obligations wrt security that you claimed earlier? If there were/are any and actually are shortfalls, that would be a far more serious concern than anything else you've managed to dredge up so far.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote: ...

Sorry for typo, that was obviously intended as FMEA (Failure Modes and Effects Analyses)...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.