Posted on 03/16/2011 3:36:49 AM PDT by tobyhill
That is for new reactors, not old ones if I understand the article completely.
Which would be the push of the 0bama administration. Recall 0bama is in bed with GE.
Part of the problem in these (and other) designs is the classification of “100 year events” and “500 year events” and so on relies on VERY poor modeling and knowledge of just how frequently these events happen.
Add to that the less than perfect modeling with math and we get poor requirements.
I still like how the financial boys on Wall Street had models that showed that the rate of market decline in October, 2008 couldn’t happen more than once in 4 billion years’ worth of market time (ie, it was *highly* improbable), yet we had two such declines in one week. That’s an example of poor modeling.
Consider that it was only recently that scientists admitted that mariners have been right all along and not merely telling tall sea tales: there are such things as rogue waves, waves 60’ high that come out of nowhere and can break a ship in half or roll it. Mariners have been saying this for years, and only with some very new approaches has science confirmed that “Yes, this can happen” and apparently off the coast of S. Africa, it happens often enough to make you sit up and take notice.
In Japan, the issue is one of modeling quake frequency and duration. Some stuff I’ve now been reading is about quake severity and frequency in Japan. New research indicates that severe quakes tend to ‘cluster’ in time in Japan, with long periods of ‘relative’ calm (when your big quakes are 8’s, 6’s look relatively calm) in between.
The central problem for civil engineers in Japan is that they have only 100 years (plus or minus) of really quantified data on which to base models. Coming up with a “1,000 year” design based on this paucity of data isn’t going to be easy.
And that modeling was even worse 40 years ago...
but it was all they had to go on. Assumed risk.
I hate to say it this way, but there are times when one looks at the specs, plans, and ER and say if that 100 year event happens...this is going to be a dot on the graph.
Things improved in 40 years. The only thing left behind in the time warp are these old reactors. And if one probes really deeply into why that is...one finds the environmental movement at the heart of stagnating innovation.
First, there are multiple entities involved, including TEPCO, GE (US), and a GE subsidiary (perhaps GEI, the Japanese cooperative GE subsidiary). Second, evidently TEPCO was in a mode of hiding information, not telling GE to shut up. TEPCO is small and GE is large, so the scenario of TEPCO telling GE to do anything does not really have much validity to me.
If you look around on the net, you may find articles that describe that the GE subsidiary whistleblower was the person who brought the problem to the regulators (yet another entity) anonymously, so that his or her career would not be threatened. Somehow, the whistleblower's name was subsequently revealed to TEPCO in the ensuing investigation, against whistleblower regulations. So it is really GE and the subsidiary who might deserve some gratitude for trying to be straightforward, and TEPCO and the local regulatory agency that deserves more scrutiny.
TEPCO has a rotten reputation in the industry and amongst the Japanese population. If you have been watching the broadcasts, you hear over and over how the local population expresses skepticism over the press announcements that TEPCO made in the first few days of the crisis. This is because of all the previous TEPCO scandals, going back to the late 1960s, and not necessarily even nuclear related.
International sales and service is a very (very) rough and tumble environment.
GE may have been one of the better companies in this regard.
Competitors sometimes slash prices by slashing safety features and hiding deferred costs. Often under-the-table bribes are made to win contracts. Etc.
In the nuclear industry, some of the shenanigans could have disastrous downstream ramifications if indulged. In the large, GE was attempting to be straight in its dealings.
When dealing with nuclear plants, it is unwise to take technical shortcuts. This was relatively obvious to everyone on the GE and GE subsidiary side in the timeframe these reactors were built.
In the mid 1970's there were arguments about the "design flaws" and safety of nuclear plants.
Even Readers Digest got into the fray. In one article they published diagram of the location of wiring for the back up systems. It was an over simplification of the actual design, but was shown as example of one design error. They pointed out that if there was a fire that destroyed the system for control of day to day operation, it would also destroy the controls of the safety back up systems. I have no idea as to the amount of bias Readers Digest had in the nuclear power plant discussion.
In 1973 Dixy Lee Ray was appointed chairperson of the US Atomic Energy Commission. She was a big advocate of nuclear power. I remember she received a huge amount of media time and attention to push for nuclear power.
After the Arab embargo with its long lines of vehicles waiting for gasoline and diesel fuel there was frantic talk in Washington DC about the US being self sufficient for its energy needs. Nuclear was highly touted as one of the cures. Was safety compromised for speed, who knows?
I only recall what the media was saying. I was not privy to any inside information.
A side note, some 35 + years later Washington is still talking about a self sufficient "energy policy" of nuclear, drilling for oil and gas, mining coal etc. It hasn't happened.
I worked building the cardiac facility at Salem hospital(Massachusetts). The building sits on 24 foot concrete pilings. We spent a year there doing some pretty outrageous things to meet specifications.
I also worked on a containment building in Peabody for a small radiation based medical device. The floor and walls were six feet thick reinforced concrete, with no straight through penetrations. Entire pour of concrete was monolithic (all at one time). The roof slab was likewise done in one pour, four feet thick single steel reinforced slab. Spent four months there tying re bar after the forms were in place. Bout a thousand yards of concrete and more re bar than I care to think about... Only the scars remain to remember that job by.
That place is near my house, and I know right where to go if there is a nuke headed this way.
We'll see :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.