Talk-Polywell.org

Fusion news 28 Jan

http://www.power-eng.com/news/2013/01/2 ... japan.html

Yawn, another tokamak. Wake me up in 30 years.

Skipjack wrote:Yawn, another tokamak. Wake me up in 30 years.

- yeah, but the Japanese will get it to work - mark my words...

rcain wrote:

Skipjack wrote:Yawn, another tokamak. Wake me up in 30 years.

- yeah, but the Japanese will get it to work - mark my words...

Like they got Fukushima to work?

KitemanSA wrote:

rcain wrote:

Skipjack wrote:Yawn, another tokamak. Wake me up in 30 years.

- yeah, but the Japanese will get it to work - mark my words...

Like they got Fukushima to work?

Fukushima worked just fine, it just failed horribly

Fukushima worked well enough until the tsunami took out the backup generators, and the cooling pumps lost power. The wave was a little higher than the designers foresaw as possible. Which is a case for both passive safe reactors after an emergency shutdown, and backup generators sited with some margin against the worst case foreseen natural disaster.

The wave was a little higher than the designers foresaw as possible

Bull. The seismic engineers told Tepco that the seawall was to low. Tepco ignored them. In addition, the backup generators were diesel powered and located in the basements; exactly the location that would flood during a tsunami.

Fukushima Daiichi was 100% a case of human error. It was 100% preventable. This was proved by the fact that Fukushima Daini, which was included updated designs to withstand a tsunami of the size that hit is up and running today. Corporate greed at its finest.

Citations?

If you start at the Wikipedia article it will quickly lead you to a large number of reports that say basically what necoras said.

paperburn1 wrote:

KitemanSA wrote:

rcain wrote: - yeah, but the Japanese will get it to work - mark my words...

Like they got Fukushima to work?

Fukushima worked just fine, it just failed horribly

Fukushima worked magnificently - it absorbed many times its design max before failure. The engineers should be proud - they won't be permitted to be, but they should be.

necoras wrote:Bull. The seismic engineers told Tepco that the seawall was to low. Tepco ignored them. In addition, the backup generators were diesel powered and located in the basements; exactly the location that would flood during a tsunami.

I hadn't heard that before. Cite?

necoras wrote:Bull. The seismic engineers told Tepco that the seawall was to low. Tepco ignored them. In addition, the backup generators were diesel powered and located in the basements; exactly the location that would flood during a tsunami.

I hadn't heard that before. Cite?[/quote]
Events like that Tsunami occur in that area every two thousand years on average. As the last event was 700 years old the TEPCO corporation decided to build on the 500 year average because the odds predicted that they would not see such an event in the lifetime of the reactor. OOPS,

http://pr.bbt757.com/eng/pdf/finalrepo_111225.pdf
this is the link to the after action report. the flaws are obvious in hind site. protection to 10 meters and a 15 meter surge

But not so crazy when considered in terms of civil engineering standards and 100 year norms.

Should we start engineering things to 10,000 year norms?

If so, a lot of folks are going to have to move.

djolds1 wrote:Fukushima worked magnificently - it absorbed many times its design max before failure. The engineers should be proud - they won't be permitted to be, but they should be.

necoras wrote:Bull. The seismic engineers told Tepco that the seawall was to low. Tepco ignored them. In addition, the backup generators were diesel powered and located in the basements; exactly the location that would flood during a tsunami.

I hadn't heard that before. Cite?

Actually, it didn't. It survived its design earthquake severity and that was basically it. Please note that the Richter scale (peak severity) really tops out at about 8 and the unit was designed to survive that with some safety margin. The moment magnitude scale continues on but what it reflects is a continuation of the same peak severity earthquake.

Re the cite, see my response to Ladajo. Regarding the 40m tsunami, they were told, but they decided it was a "low probability" event and did not account for it. Oops! Especially since it would have been very inexpensive to account for it. "Penny wise, pound foolish"?

ladajo wrote:Should we start engineering things to 10,000 year norms?

If so, a lot of folks are going to have to move.

In certain circumstances, perhaps so. Especially when the cost is low by comparison to the loss.

Who would have to move and why?