

Reactor Design in Japan Has Long Been Questioned - scott_s
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/world/asia/16contain.html

======
bradleyland
Queue the onslaught of articles expounding upon the problem with 20/20
hindsight. Couple of points that the article fails to mention:

* BWR reactors use less substantial construction because pressures are much lower than PWR. Intense pressure is used to prevent the water inside a PWR from boiling. Pressure in a PWR can reach 22.064 MPa (3200 PSIA). Contrast this with the 7.6 MPa (1000–1100 psi) present in a BWR. PWR has its own set of risks, and the discussion of PWR vs BWR in the nuclear community would seem familiar to many in the tech community. _cough_ Emacs vs Vim _cough_.

* Mark I reactors are Mark I for a reason. They were initial designs succeeded by Mark II, III. No one questions that we can do better because we have. We can all sit around and pontificate on the shortcomings of Mark I BWR units, but what is the solution? The solution is to pursue decommissioning and replacement with newer, safer technology.

~~~
uikjhgyujmn
I think you have BWR/PWR he wrong way round in the first point

~~~
bradleyland
Thanks for the catch. I had BWR/PWR reversed in the first sentence, which
ended up contradicting the rest :)

------
ChuckMcM
Random HN comment, when there are a bunch of cases that are on on the same
topic, courts will often consolidate them to save resources. Is there an
equivalent in HN? Sort of a meta-topic aggregation so that folks could see all
the links that have been posted (and all the reference links) Etc?

I'm looking for the ability to tweet a wiki page into existence :-)

------
astrodust
In the Gulf of Mexico alone, two oil drilling operations have resulted in
nearly apocalyptic disasters in the last thirty years and it's nuclear power
that's the problem?

Nuclear power is far from flawless, but it does have a better track record.

Japan's reactors have, so far, survived the worst earthquake in recorded
history and a tsunami that's wiped out a good chunk of the coast. That's a
spectacular success.

~~~
lispm
Survived? The reactors are all wrecks.

Huge multi-billion dollar wrecks. None of them will ever go online again. All
will cost Bazillions to clean up and while humans are doing that they will be
in danger.

Your reality distortion field is even larger than that from Steve Jobs.

~~~
uikjhgyujmn
Two trains carrying 1800 people were lost because the trains weren't Tsunami
proof. I assume Germany is also shutting down the ICE as a precaution?

~~~
lispm
If it would have been a failure of the train, all were brought into
inspection. As it has been done before when the train accident of the ICE 1
happened (Eschede).

If the track had been the cause, it would have been investigated and no train
would use that track until it would have been brought up to standards.

If there were a chance to stop the train in case of an environmental
catastrophe it would have been done. If there would be a technical system, it
would brought into service.

Here we have a full wreckage of at least 10 nuclear plants which to rebuild
and clean-up would cost upwards of 50 billion dollar. The damage that can be
caused by leaking radiation to around 20 or million people can't even be
estimated.

Claiming that the multiple engineering failures exposed and the multiple
mismanagement is a triumph of Japanese engineering is not even laughable - it
is cynical.

For example that the diesel power generators would fail has been known before
and improvements had been suggested already. That there was a pool full of
spent fuel is also total engineering and management failure. That the cooling
failed and they caught fire is another failure. Why were they there? Because
Japan does not have an idea what to do with them. They were running nuclear
reactors (something like 50 at last count) without an idea where to finally
store the nuclear waste. For decades! Please! The least they could have done
to bring them away, provide better cooling and more space. But that would have
been to expensive.

TEPCO is a company of FAIL. Multiple severe FAIL in combination with corrupt
politicians.

~~~
uikjhgyujmn
Yes there is weapons grade screw up - but closing unrelated reactors on the
other side of the world just because they are 'nuclear' is as silly as
stopping trains until the tracks in Bavaria can be protected against a
Tsunami.

~~~
lispm
They are not unrelated. There are very old reactors, some of which were to be
closed already, hadn't the current government changed the policy.

NONE of these reactors would get a permission to get online based on current
regulations. Some are very simple BWR designs, some are near an earth quake
zone, some don't have sufficient protection against relatively simple aircraft
accidents, ...

The government also says that the reactors are shut down for safety
inspections and then it has to be decided which of those can get back online.
Which is controversal, since there was already a negotiated plan which of
those had to shut down and the oldest ones had to go.

It is not silly, it is just about using the current political pressure to
force the government to follow the originally negotiated phase out plan (which
was also negotiated with the industry).

It has nothing to do with 'silly', it is a political struggle to force the
current government to reverse its pro-nuklear policy.

------
feb
"Mr. Tetuan said there are currently 32 Mark 1 boiling water reactors
operating safely around the globe. “There has never been a breach of a Mark 1
containment system,” he said."

As the containment system is stressed only in case of failure of all other
systems, it didn't happen before. His 0 defect statistic is not really
accurate.

------
foobarbazetc
Once Fukushima 1 is under control, it'll be interesting to see if the
technology at Fukushima 2 (BWR/5 with Mk2 containment, 1980+) helped it
withstand damage better.

------
Confusion
Everything is being questioned all the time. Every time something
extraordinary happens, someone yells 'I told you so'.

