It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

GE Defends Design of Stricken Japanese Reactor

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Skewed
Ok, then tell us what your plan would have been from blueprint to reality.


Sure. Send me to school for nuclear engineering first. It's only fair. And I'm confident my education isn't going to lower my standards and make me suddenly consider this nuclear disaster safe or appropriate in any way, or that no one should be held accountable.

In fact I've already majored in engineering and there is such a thing as an engineering code of ethics, and it's often legally mandatory for an engineer to take legal responsibility for his projects, whether civil or etc.
edit on 15-3-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)


No, we do not have time to send you to school this is a situation that has to be handled now, not 6 years from now. Why do you feel you have to blame someone, I mean, if the earthquake did not happen I feel fairly safe in saying that there would not be any reactor problems. Blame the planet if you must, it set the whole thing off. There are ethics in everything, sorry to burst your engineer ego bubble, and the only ethics problem at this point I have seen is the Japanese government unwillingness to disclose the truth about what is really going on and what the rest of the world needs to know for the safety of their people.

As I said previously, I do not like nuclear power either, but at this point it is what it is and we do need to find something with less risks involved.

So, until then we will just consider you an armchair nuclear engineer.


edit on 15-3-2011 by Skewed because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skewed
No, we do not have time to send you to school this is a situation


And you don't have time to build a better plant either huh? And I don't have to make you a better plan for one because I'm not a damned nuclear engineer, though I would be more than happy if you paid for my education. But that doesn't mean nuclear engineers can slack off and suck just because I'm not one of them. Are you trying to say this disaster demonstrates acceptable engineering practices? A failed generator, cracked containment and all that? Is that what they teach nuclear engineers to do?


Why do you feel you have to blame someone


Because mother nature didn't build that nuclear plant, and mother nature didn't tell us we would be safe despite the nuclear plants, because mother nature would be careful and make sure no meltdowns occurred. It was companies like GE making those promises. Otherwise these plants would never have been built at all. You don't think that's the least bit relevant here?

I also agree we need better power sources and should have never went nuclear. We also don't need to be exposed to massive amounts of radiation after a disaster just because GE's engineers didn't have the foresight for all of this.
edit on 15-3-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


And you don't have time to build a better plan either huh? And I don't have to make you a better plan because I'm not a damned nuclear engineer. But that doesn't mean nuclear engineers can slack off and suck just because I'm not one of them. Are you trying to say this disaster demonstrates acceptable engineering practices? A failed generator, cracked containment and all that?


No, I do not have a better plan because it is not in any ones best interest to build faulty reactors and I am not trying to place blame on something that cant have blame put upon it, you are. If it were not GE, it would have been some other company. You of all people, being an engineer, should know things do not always work as planned no matter how hard you try to create contingency plans. No wonder my dad would never build a house for an engineer.


Because mother nature didn't build that nuclear plant, and mother nature didn't tell us we would be safe despite the nuclear plants, because mother nature would be careful and make sure no meltdowns occurred. It was companies like GE making those promises. Otherwise these plants would never have been built at all. You don't think that's the least bit relevant here?


If you take promises like that at face value as the end all be all, then you are sorely mistaken. Any one that makes me promises on things that they cannot control I am wary. I am willing to bet though that GE did make promises that the reactor and its safety systems would work, up until certain points. It is not GEs fault that the reactors were built, the Japanese government hired GE to build them, and they worked fine for 40 years until something unimaginable happened.




edit on 15-3-2011 by Skewed because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   
It seems the reactors are performing much better than expected - despite being hit with more than they were designed to resist.

Sorry dudes - no armageddon from this tsunami.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Lets see GE provided the design of the reactors that is all they did.

Japan Built the reactors, the containment, coolant and all other systems.

The reactor survived the quake just like it was suppose to.
The back up cooling system failed because the Japanese placed to much confidence in a sea wall that wasn't strong enough for the massive wave it was hit with.

The Japanese also put the backup diesel Generators in the lowest spot in the complex. not a wise decision but then again it was a decision reached because of to much confidence in the sea wall.

IF your going to point fingers the least you can do is do your own damn research so you know what in the hell your talking about and point those fingers in the right direction. GE isn't one bit responsible for the nuclear emergency in Japan, the Japanese Gov't is responsible for it. they let the reactor be built the way it was built!



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


hind sight is 20/20 man no matter what humans build mother nature will alwase be able to destroy it.Alot of other countries had this happened in them the damn reactors would have problay fallen over from the earthquake alone there didnt fall down and yes there having problems but when mother nature gives you the finger theres not much you can do about it,would u rather they use coal? when that coal plant got whiped out by the tusnami do u have any idea how much coal pollution got spread around? There is no good option for japan they NEED nuclear its not finacialy feesable for them to use anything else curently availible and tested there allready talking about building 8 more allready dispite this happening.and before anyone chimes in with what about tide plants or windmills what do u think would have happend to them in this tsunami they woulda all been whiped out(pretty sure atleast no expert).heres to hoping when GE builds there next plants they make them safer and stronger then the last batch



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   
The reactor did its job until the plant operators were unable to pump in cooling water.
There was nothing wrong with the design of the reactor its still holding the core.

It automatically shut down and the cooling water pumps started like designed that lasted till the tsunami hit.

It was the emergency cooling water system that failed.

The electrical switching system for the cooling water pumps was wiped out by the tsunami.
The Fukushima Daini reactors a few miles down the coast shut down the same way and the operators were able to cool them down without major problems.

General Electric reactors have been known to be hard to operate.

Westinghouse has made the largest percentage of the US Navy Reactors.
Westinghouse Reactors have never had a major accident or melt down.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ANNED
 


so when i bought my tv from westing house they also made the nuke plants in our navy? no wonder when i dropped it it didnt break!



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leo Strauss


"The BWR Mark 1 reactor is the industry's workhorse with a proven track record of safety and reliability for more than 40 years," said Michael Tetuan, spokesman for GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy. "There has never been a breach of a Mark 1 containment system."


Well Michael there has been one now and by the way it was a doozy. Wonder if Michael is thinking about all the children "sheltering in place" right this very minute. Maybe he should let them know there has never been a breach on the "Mark 1 containment system".
edit on 15-3-2011 by Leo Strauss because: (no reason given)


Leo, it sounds strangely familiar...



Frank: Listen HAL. There has never been any instance at all of a computer error occurring in the 9000 series, has there? HAL: None whatsoever, Frank. The 9000 series has a perfect operational record. Frank: Well of course I know all the wonderful achievements of the 9000 series, but, uh, are you certain there has never been any case of even the most insignificant computer error? HAL: None whatsoever, Frank. Quite honestly, I wouldn't worry myself about that. Dave: Well, I'm sure you're right, HAL. Uhm, fine, thanks very much...


From 2001: A Space Odyssea



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   
Oh swell. Well their opinions don't count anymore. Time to pull out the free energy, but in the meantime, TIDE/WAVE/GEOTHERMAL, and retraining for the employees.

I suppose they think stuffing so many reactors in one plant is a great idea too.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 11:33 PM
link   
Let's say it was a dirty coal plant or a natural gas plant. What would have happened during the quake and tsunami? I'll tell you...nothing that's what, nothing at all. We would not be having this conversation we would be focused on how to help Japan recover from a natural disaster.

This nuke plant is threatening to destroy Japan. General Electric built the damn thing and they should be responsible for their horribly dangerous product that FAILED and is killing people, terrorizing people and poisoning the environment.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 12:50 AM
link   
I will have to defend GE in this situation because no one can predict accidents and natural disasters. Its like blaming a car for an accident or something. GE is one of the best companies out there, they know what they are doing. A 8.9 is a once a 50 year earthquake for Japan and nothing to be afraid of. Should we blame the beaches for not being able to stop the tsunami? Should we blame the car manufacturers for their cars not being able to drive in water?



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


Funny I could. I knew you couldnt' use anything that could create a Chenobyl or Three Mile, and in an earthquake zone, surrounded by Volcanoes. And they're all on the coast, something to do with pumping in the coolant. A two year old knows this if told the details. They would look at us like we were insane.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Leo Strauss
 


GE didn't build the reactors in Japan. they sold the designs to Japan and Japan built them.

Once again the reactors survived the earthquake just like it was designed to. the problems with the reactors was caused by the massive tsunami flooding the deisel generators that were used as a backup power source for the cooling pumps.

the generators failed because the japanese company that built the reactor complex put the generators in the lowest spot in the complex and they built a sea wall to protect the complex that wasn't strong enough and/ or high enough for the tsunami that came after the quake.

So again GE is not to blame. the Japanese gov't is. they allowed the reactor complex to be built where and how it was built!



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


Funny I could. I knew you couldnt' use anything that could create a Chenobyl or Three Mile, and in an earthquake zone, surrounded by Volcanoes. And they're all on the coast, something to do with pumping in the coolant. A two year old knows this if told the details. They would look at us like we were insane.


Fine then go tell a two year old to stop this nuclear meltdown. That is why no two year olds are in charge of nuclear power plants. It takes engineers, technicians, regulators and many more people. There is nothing wrong with the design, it is just that natural disasters happen and you have to live with it. You are so angry you feel the need to blame someone. There is no need for that. Nature happens.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Mercenary2007
 

So what you are telling me is that the reactor is safe. Oh OK thanks for that. GE built it and has no responsibility to ensure this extremely dangerous product is installed correctly? Everything worked just as it should have and all is well because you and GE say so.

.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Leo Strauss
 


You are trying to migrate separate chain of events into one in order to justify your claim. 40 years ago and up until the other day everything was working fine. Then all hell broke loose and one thing led to another, have you not in your life not had a bad day when one thing after another went wrong, regardless of what you did? Or are you one that is blessed with a perfect life? I ask you and since you feel that GE did a piss poor job on the reactor and by your reasoning they should be blamed for the failure, then shouldn't we also track down the builders of all those houses that were swept away for not being designed good enough to withstand a direct hit from a tsunami? I mean, would we surmise using your argument that we can blame the builders of the houses as to why so many people are homeless now?



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Leo Strauss
 


No i'm telling you if your going to blame someone then blame the right group. GE DID NOT BUILD THE REACTOR! they only designed it BIG DIFFERENCE!

A Japanese company built the reactors complex. the Japanese gov't OK'd the plans for the site.

The Reactor and the safety protocols to shut the reactor down worked after the earthquake. what failed was the diesel generators and they only failed because they became flooded after the tsunami. The sea wall that was built to protect the complex was only high enough and strong enough for a 25 foot wave. the wave from the tsunami was atleast 30 feet tall.

So tell me exactly HOW IS GE RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT HAS HAPPENED? They didn't build the sea wall, They didn't construct the reactor, and they didn't place the generators in the lowest spot in the complex!

So again if your going to blame anyone blame the company in Japan that actually built the complex and the Japanese Gov't for approving the building plans the company used to seek approval from the gov't!

and the reason that the reactor started to melt is because the workers couldn't pump water into the reactor to cool the reactor off. they couldn't pump the water because the pumps use electricity to operate. when the reactors shut down they had to go on back up power which was the diesel generators, when they failed they went to a battery back up. but with no way to recharge the batteries eventually that backup will fail as well.

then the workers weren't venting the steam from the reactor after they started pumping sea water into the reactor. so once the steam pressure in the reactor reached a certain pressure no more water could be pumped in until they relieved the pressure. once they started venting the steam they could pump more water back in to the reactors to try and cool them off.

So again how is any of this GE's fault?
edit on 3/16/2011 by Mercenary2007 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/16/2011 by Mercenary2007 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical
GE was instructed to build to handle a 8.0 earthquake safely. This earthquake was a 8.9, mnay times more powerful. The problem was in the planning. I am sure future nuke plants will have to be built to sustain a 10.0.

So basically it is not GE's fault. If you build an 80 foot wall and a 100 ft wave crashes over it, did you build a bad wall?
Are you sure about that? I read the plants were built to withstand a 7.0, though I'm not 100% sure if that source was right, but I'm 100% sure that's what it said. In either case, the plant was underdesigned for the earthquake, and was also underdesigned for the height of the tsunami.

I have another question. The article says the plants are 40 years old. Weren't they expected to have something like a 30 year life span when they were built? I think I remember reading something to that effect about nuclear plants in general though I'm not sure of the exact lifetime specs for the plants in Japan.

However, in spite of all this, I still think there's a design problem with these plants, but I'm not sure and I'll be looking forward to reading the official investigation report that comes out in a year or two from now to see what it says about the design.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 08:15 AM
link   
Active cooling systems for nuclear reactors are a poor design by their nature. We have better passive cooling designs that are available. I say we should not allow for any future active cooling nuclear reactors to be built period. All of the old ones should be decommissioned and replaced by passive cooling designs.

See this page at Argoone National Labs: www.anl.gov...

Active cooling can fail. That is reason enough to abandon the designs that depend on active mechanical systems not failing.




top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join