Not the nuclear thing again...

[ChrisB]

Perhaps that should be "reactors shut down for checks because of possible cracks"

Plant operator Electrabel took the 1006 MWe pressurized water reactor offline on 2 June for a scheduled maintenance and a mandatory ten-year safety inspection. During these inspections, the reactor pressure vessel was examined using a new kind of ultrasonic sensor. The utility informed the Belgian nuclear regulator, the Federal Agency for Nuclear Control (FANC), that these results indicated the possible presence of cracks in the vessel.

Electrabel intends to conduct additional examinations using a different type of ultrasonic sensor, which has given reliable results in the past. However, analysis of the second set of results will take some time, the utility noted.

An Electrabel spokeswoman told World Nuclear News that the second ultrasonic examination of Doel 3's pressure vessel could indicate that the new examination technology has simply given false results.

They are talking about cracks within the thickness of the metal, not right through. Pressure vessels are designed and fabricated so that any small cracks would propagate slowly and predicatably; the philosophy of "leak before break" means that if a crack does grow, it will be detected as a small leak, allowing for safe shutdown.

 

[whitelackington]

The incredible damage done to nuclear plants in Japan by last years earthquake and Tsunami
are not being forgotten in the U.S.A. ( but they are in the U.K.)
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_21908690/sandy-and-nuclear-safety
Quote
"As Hurricane Sandy bore down on the East Coast, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission shut down three nuclear power plants and issued an alert for the Oyster Creek plant in New Jersey. This is an important reminder that the United States has several low-lying nuclear plants on the Eastern seaboard, with minimal protection against inundation. Particularly with climate change increasing the likelihood of extreme weather, this hidden threat to public safety should be remedied."
You do not need an earthquake or a tsunami to cause meltdown
a major storm could do it.
Nuclear Power Plants must be sited adjacent to massive bodies of water,
essentially the supply of water must be unlimited.
Many of the world's nuclear plants are sited close to sea level  :-\

 

[droid]

Has Sandy caused a meltdown then, whitelackington?

Because if it has, the media have been strangely quiet about it...

 

[ChrisB]

The incredible damage done to nuclear plants in Japan by last years earthquake and Tsunami

That would be the "incredible damage" that hasn't actually killed anyone (unlike the Tsunami) and where the panic evacuation probably harmed more people than the radiation would have done if they had stayed put?

are not being forgotten in the U.S.A. ( but they are in the U.K.)

The lessons from Fukushima Dai-ichi are most certainly not being forgotten in the UK, see:

http://www.hse.gov.uk/nuclear/fukushima/implementation-report-oct-2012.pdf

 

[graham]

... and where the panic evacuation probably harmed more people than the radiation would have done if they had stayed put?

So when will they be allowed back?

 

[exsumper]

The lessons from Fukushima Dai-ichi are most certainly not being forgotten in the UK, see:

I beg to differ.  EDF are planning to build Hinkley Point C on the banks of the Severn Estuary. The elevation of the majority of the site is  less than 10m O.D.  The local tidal height at Mean High Water Springs MHWS is +5.9m O.D.

To my mind the 4.1m difference appears to be a rather scant if not negligent safety margin, to allow for extreme weather events (tidal storm surges) and the predicted sea level rise due to climate change; man made or natural.

Written accounts also exist of  a tsunami; caused by the Lisbon Earthquake; that devastated the local area, causing severe loss of life and damage to property. 

 

[droid]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Lisbon earthquake a geological 'one-off'?

If we're going along the lines of a one-off event, maybe we should relocate most of Liverpool.

Possibly also make nuclear facilities 10m bolide resistant?

 

[graham]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Lisbon earthquake a geological 'one-off'?

If we're going along the lines of a one-off event, maybe we should relocate most of Liverpool.

Possibly also make nuclear facilities 10m bolide resistant?

Aren't all earthquakes geological 'one-offs'?

IIRC the event described by ex-sumper was certainly devastating but is not certainly known to have been caused by the Lisbon earthquake, anyway.

 

[droid]

Most earthquakes aren't, they are part of a reasonably well understood tectonic process, as well you know

Not well enough to predict temporally, but relatively easy to predict spatially. The epicentre of the Lisbon earthquake hasn't been recognised as a known earthquake region.

 

[graham]

The epicentre of the Lisbon earthquake hasn't been recognised as a known earthquake region.

From the wikipedia page:

The Azores-Gibraltar Transform Fault, which marks the boundary between the African (Nubian) and the Eurasian continental plates, runs westward from Gibraltar into the Atlantic. It shows a complex and active tectonic behavior, and is responsible for several important earthquakes that hit Lisbon before November 1755: eight in the 14th century, five in the 16th century (including the 1531 earthquake that destroyed 1,500 houses, and the 1597 earthquake when three streets vanished), and three in the 17th century. During the 18th century, earthquakes were reported in 1724 and 1750.

The page doesn't list anything after the big one

 

[droid]

I stand corrected.

Should have remembered that because I've read that wikipedia article before.... :-[

 

[whitelackington]

I stand corrected.

Should have remembered that because I've read that wikipedia article before.... :-[

This last offering adds nothing.

My offering about dangerous waste at Sellafield
does add something, yet my offering has been srcrubbed.
Bizarre.

 

[droid]

This last offering adds nothing.

Yes it does.

It forestalls another argument/discussion/tangent.

As I understand it, the original discussion was about possible tsunami damage to lowlying nuclear power stations in the UK.

 

[cavermark]

This last offering adds nothing.

Yes it does.

It forestalls another argument/discussion/tangent.

As I understand it, the original discussion was about possible tsunami damage to lowlying nuclear power stations in the UK.

"Standing corrected" is a perfectly valid thing to put in a discussion as an acknowledgement that you were mistaken, and that accept the statement of the next poster.