PhineasC Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 It's like Phin likes to say -- the engineers know all about this kind of stuff, but then the bean counters and management come in and put a kibosh on it. This stuff keeps engineers up at night but then we are told not to worry about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mempho Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 This.........and when something bad does happen the engineer gets pointed at.......this second guessing is pretty futile really.....the more degree of safety you design for the higher the cost to design and build it and thus the return on investment goes down until the project is no longer justified......pick your poison I guess.... It's not futile. This should not have happened. I learned that Japan was vulnerable to earthquakes and tsunamis in elementary school. Thusfar, there have been 442 nuclear power plant reactors built worldwide. I don't think 98-99% is a good track record for these things. I wouldn't fly on a plane if 1-2% of all airplanes ended their lives in a crash. Yes, nuclear power can be clean and safe but humans are too greedy, too arrogant, and too infected with the "it can't happen to me" psychology to be able to operate one. I'm not trying to downplay the magnitude of the quake and tsunami, but I don't find it all that surprising that, from time to time, there are big quakes and big tsunamis in an area of the world that is historically known for such events. The seismologists are always warning us that these events have occurred numerous times in the past. People rarely like to hear this stuff when times are good and they label these people "doomers" and such but there is a place in society for such people and these are the type of people you need when doing something like building a nuclear plant on the coast in the most seismically active zone in the world. The fact that a first-world nation...the nation best-prepared for an earthquake in the world, at that...that they would have a plant with six reactors on the coast inccapable of suriving a large, but easily forseeable, quake and tsunami combo is really unfathomable. Three people on the team that designed these plants quit their jobs over this. I'm not against the use of nuclear power. I think it's great. I just happen to be against the types of humans that seem to be in charge of building them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Witness Protection Program Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Tokyo Passengers Trigger U.S. Airport Detectors, N.Y. Post Says Radiation detectors at Dallas-Fort Worth and Chicago O’Hare airports were triggered when passengers from flights that started in Tokyo passed through customs Banana smugglers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnc Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 This stuff keeps engineers up at night but then we are told not to worry about it. That's why I quit. And now I get a good night's sleep. I guess we still don't understand the exact specifics of why we're in this situation (other than the obvious "there was an earthquake / tsunami")... because there was a 3rd backup system that also failed and I don't think it's clear yet why it failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott747 Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Close up shot of #4 - http://bit.ly/eRfquc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plokoon111 Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 ^ That outer structure should of used all concrete, instead of concrete ribs with steel walls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Lizard Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 As an FYI, Westinghouse's newest reactor designs, none built, would have natural thermally driven circulation even if all power was lost, making them immune from this particular type of loss of flow accident. If they ever get built... The Navy has had this technology for 30 years and used it in submarine reactors to reduce the noise that reactor coolan pumps would make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 This.........and when something bad does happen the engineer gets pointed at.......this second guessing is pretty futile really.....the more degree of safety you design for the higher the cost to design and build it and thus the return on investment goes down until the project is no longer justified......pick your poison I guess.... This argument of "cutting corners" wrt engineering is a bit unfounded, IMO. The associated costs relative to the design flaws (discussed here, relative to raising the Emergency Generators) are freakin' moecules of a peanut, compared to the insane revenue generated by the plants (sometimes over a million $ /hour.) An analogy would be like building your own home and the "plan" calls for the use of 200,000 nails, but you really want to only use 199,999 nails......it's so trivial, it's not even worth thinking about, relative to cost..... Would Dale Earnhardt Jr. ask to get second tier tires to save a few bucks for the Daytona 500?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott747 Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 If he hasn't already Jaczko should come out and update his position based on the info from today.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikolai Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 ^ That outer structure should of used all concrete, instead of concrete ribs with steel walls. Yes, because structures made completely of concrete fare super well in earthquakes. You're an expert, congrats! Where did you get your engineering degree, exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mempho Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 That's why I quit. And now I get a good night's sleep. I guess we still don't understand the exact specifics of why we're in this situation (other than the obvious "there was an earthquake / tsunami")... because there was a 3rd backup system that also failed and I don't think it's clear yet why it failed. Here's a list of backup systems that I got from elsewhere: -Multiple redundant diesel generators (swept away in tsunami) -Large batteries (tsunami) -Steam turbine backup systems that were supposed to use the residual heat to pump water into the reactors (IDK what happened to this one) -Replacement generators delivered after the event (could not be hooked up because the electrical switching area was in the basement and somehow got flooded) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 This stuff keeps engineers up at night but then we are told not to worry about it. Phin, I think the errors leading to these situations are more related to underestimating risk assessment, rather than saving a buck....I know many want someone to burn at the stake, and there are certainly people (bean counters) out there that turn blind eyes toward safety/ risk assessment....but IMO, the nuclear industry (because of many aspects: regulatory scrutiny, HUGE losses without incredible attention to details, etc.) is one of the least likely to be concerned about skimping here or there.....at least in this country...but I'd presume in many others as well....but the latter comment is pure speculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plokoon111 Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 ^^ Lmao, I love how you people get so annoyed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sojitodd Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Yeah, it's called an airplane. lol. so mean, but funny. exactly, if there really is a problem of radiation in Tokyo in the near future, I bet the Japanese government is weighing the amount of destruction mass panic would bring and the logistics of evacuating over 10,000,000 people versus the slight risk (at this point) of major health problems effecting Tokyo residents. Actually the Tokyo urban area is around 35 million people-the largest urban area on Earth. I can understand why they do not want to cause undue alarm - and do everything they can to keep people calm if or until they absolutely have to give out info or instructions that could cause panic. I just wish they could just keep the doublespeak/bureaucratese to a minimum and still be open and honest to the public, giving information out and explanations of what the information means to the average person in the different areas. If there is a lack of info, or confusion resulting from mixed messages or conflicting info, then something(usually rumors, speculation, fearmongering, etc) will fill the void. *just now on the news, they just talked about 'trying to avert a nuclear catastrophe'..etc.etc. Well when people hear that, what are they supposed to think-what does that mean? To the general public that could mean anything from a severe radioactive release in the local reactor area, up to a massive nuclear explosion(not feasible but reasonable for an average person to let their mind wander there) that would send huge amounts of radiation not only over Japan, but across the Pacific to the US as well. * if I am rambling oh well I am on Percocet* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhineasC Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 This argument of "cutting corners" wrt engineering is a bit unfounded, IMO. The associated costs relative to the design flaws (discussed here, relative to raising the Emergency Generators) are freakin' moecules of a peanut, compared to the insane revenue generated by the plants (sometimes over a million $ /hour.) An analogy would be like building your own home and the "plan" calls for the use of 200,000 nails, but you really want to only use 199,999 nails......it's so trivial, it's not even worth thinking about, relative to cost..... Would Dale Earnhardt Jr. ask to get second tier tires to save a few bucks for the Daytona 500?? This isn't really true. One pipe might be cheap. A tertiary backup system that will likely never be used isn't. There is an old saying that the last 20% requires 80% of the costs. Applies to safety and reliability too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacindc Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Latest readings, though about 6 hours old: http://www3.nhk.or.j...lish/18_05.html Radiation levels dropped a little on Thursday at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant after a water injection by pump trucks. In a news conference early Friday, Tokyo Electric Power Company says the radiation levels at the west gate of the power plant was down by nearly 20 points to 292 microsieverts per hour at 8.40 PM on Thursday. The figures follow an hour-long operation by police and Self-Defense Forces to inject water from pump trucks into the No. 3 reactor building. It's possible the level of pool water used for cooling nuclear fuel was reduced. At 11 PM the radiation level dropped again to 289 microsieverts per hour. The company says it saw steam billowing from the building after the water injection, which suggests the operation had some success. Friday, March 18, 2011 02:54 +0900 (JST) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhineasC Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Phin, I think the errors leading to these situations are more related to underestimating risk assessment, rather than saving a buck....I know many want someone to burn at the stake, and there are certainly people (bean counters) out there that turn blind eyes toward safety/ risk assessment....but IMO, the nuclear industry (because of many aspects: regulatory scrutiny, HUGE losses without incredible attention to details, etc.) is one of the least likely to be concerned about skimping here or there.....at least in this country...but I'd presume in many others as well....but the latter comment is pure speculation. Risk assessment is often cost driven. When it fully decouples from the engineering reality we see disasters like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisM Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 my professor, with a ph.d in geoscience and a focus in seismology (not sure how much that matters in this situation) just said it'd almost be "silly to think there isn't going to be a meltdown of at least one reactor" so many different camps on this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnc Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 This argument of "cutting corners" wrt engineering is a bit unfounded, IMO. The associated costs relative to the design flaws (discussed here, relative to raising the Emergency Generators) are freakin' moecules of a peanut, compared to the insane revenue generated by the plants (sometimes over a million $ /hour.) An analogy would be like building your own home and the "plan" calls for the use of 200,000 nails, but you really want to only use 199,999 nails......it's so trivial, it's not even worth thinking about, relative to cost..... Would Dale Earnhardt Jr. ask to get second tier tires to save a few bucks for the Daytona 500?? But you are assuming that non-morons are making the final decisions. In my previous job I was an engineer for a program that has non-trivial consequences, and we were told (literally, I'm not using any other language) that "The priorities are 1) schedule, 2) cost, 3) technical", in that order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
okie333 Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 It's not futile. This should not have happened. I learned that Japan was vulnerable to earthquakes and tsunamis in elementary school. Thusfar, there have been 442 nuclear power plant reactors built worldwide. I don't think 98-99% is a good track record for these things. I wouldn't fly on a plane if 1-2% of all airplanes ended their lives in a crash. Yes, nuclear power can be clean and safe but humans are too greedy, too arrogant, and too infected with the "it can't happen to me" psychology to be able to operate one. I'm not trying to downplay the magnitude of the quake and tsunami, but I don't find it all that surprising that, from time to time, there are big quakes and big tsunamis in an area of the world that is historically known for such events. The seismologists are always warning us that these events have occurred numerous times in the past. People rarely like to hear this stuff when times are good and they label these people "doomers" and such but there is a place in society for such people and these are the type of people you need when doing something like building a nuclear plant on the coast in the most seismically active zone in the world. The fact that a first-world nation...the nation best-prepared for an earthquake in the world, at that...that they would have a plant with six reactors on the coast inccapable of suriving a large, but easily forseeable, quake and tsunami combo is really unfathomable. Three people on the team that designed these plants quit their jobs over this. I'm not against the use of nuclear power. I think it's great. I just happen to be against the types of humans that seem to be in charge of building them. A better analogy would be comparing one nuclear reactor to the entire lifespan of a single plane, not to a single flight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Risk assessment is often cost driven. When it fully decouples from the engineering reality we see disasters like this. Sure, but when you compare the costs of what we are talking about here vs. the amounts of revenue generated, potential regulatory fines if caught "cutting corners" etc. it's really, really lopsided. I understand the cynical nature that many people possess when something extreme occurs....and go straightforward to the "greed" issue, but, IMO, (based on my experiences in a few US nuke plants...so again, my view may or may not apply to Japan's current situation) this may just be an engineering/risk assessment oversite, and would be REALLY surprised if someone mentioned they wanted these generators up off the ground....but someone higher up said "no" because it'd save an "xx,xxx" amount of money.....when that money is made in a few minutes during normal operation... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 But you are assuming that non-morons are making the final decisions. In my previous job I was an engineer for a program that has non-trivial consequences, and we were told (literally, I'm not using any other language) that "The priorities are 1) schedule, 2) cost, 3) technical", in that order. Again from my own experiences....the order presented to me was 1.) safety 2.) safety 3.) safety .....it was almost enough drive one insane! The plants I worked in are well over 30 years old....and when you saw the critical components, as well as the secondary/backup components, you'd be hard pressed to believe that you were in a plant that was over 2 years old....let alone 30. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isopycnic Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 An explaination of what is happening... in Japanese. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SP Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 <br />This isn't really true. One pipe might be cheap. A tertiary backup system that will likely never be used isn't. There is an old saying that the last 20% requires 80% of the costs. Applies to safety and reliability too.<br /><br /><br /><br />And health care Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnc Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Again from my own experiences....the order presented to me was 1.) safety 2.) safety 3.) safety .....it was almost enough drive one insane! The plants I worked in are well over 30 years old....and when you saw the critical components, as well as the secondary/backup components, you'd be hard pressed to believe that you were in a plant that was over 2 years old....let alone 30. From an initial glance it kind of looks like they had taken safety seriously (sans the reports of past cover-ups), and had a variety of planned backup features. It could be that the sheer magnitude of the disaster was just too much for the features they built in (kind of like how the levees in New Orleans were only built for a cat 3 hurricane). It will be interesting to see what the post mortem on all of this is (assuming we can get an honest investigation), and, in particular, what differences allowed for the Daini plant to be successfully shut down compared to this plant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 An explaination of what is happening... in Japanese. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plokoon111 Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 ^^ Wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 From an initial glance it kind of looks like they had taken safety seriously (sans the reports of past cover-ups), and had a variety of planned backup features. It could be that the sheer magnitude of the disaster was just too much for the features they built in (kind of like how the levees in New Orleans were only built for a cat 3 hurricane). It will be interesting to see what the post mortem on all of this is (assuming we can get an honest investigation), and, in particular, what differences allowed for the Daini plant to be successfully shut down compared to this plant. Could be just about anything in a long chain of mishaps/mistakes that needed to happen for this ongoing situation. Could be the local height of the tsunami was lower...maybe the plant had minor design differences....maybe a taller seawall, etc. etc.....or a combination of any or all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnc Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Could be just about anything in a long chain of mishaps/mistakes that needed to happen for this ongoing situation. Could be the local height of the tsunami was lower...maybe the plant had minor design differences....maybe a taller seawall, etc. etc.....or a combination of any or all... I think from what I understand is that they never lost off-site AC power... I'm not sure if their generators got flooded. But somehow things were kept cool long enough to replace the pumps that were damaged by either the earthquake or tsunami, and once that was done, they were able to cool from the AC power. Maybe the control systems, coolant pumps, generators and whatever else were so totally wrecked at Daiichi that they basically had nothing to work with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ice1972 Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 This argument of "cutting corners" wrt engineering is a bit unfounded, IMO. The associated costs relative to the design flaws (discussed here, relative to raising the Emergency Generators) are freakin' moecules of a peanut, compared to the insane revenue generated by the plants (sometimes over a million $ /hour.) An analogy would be like building your own home and the "plan" calls for the use of 200,000 nails, but you really want to only use 199,999 nails......it's so trivial, it's not even worth thinking about, relative to cost..... Would Dale Earnhardt Jr. ask to get second tier tires to save a few bucks for the Daytona 500?? I did not advocate "cutting corners"........I simply pointed out that those who do advocate for a level of design that makes a project financially unsound are missing the point really of how planning and the cost of development work.......you just can't blow a bunch of money to design for something that will basically never happen....and your analogy doesn't seem to add up.....are you saying that the relative cost to just put the plant up on stilts to survive a 20 foot tsunami is the same as the relative cost to save a nail? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.