EDF wants to postpone the dismantling of its nuclear reactors ... to 2100!

Oil, gas, coal, nuclear (PWR, EPR, hot fusion, ITER), gas and coal thermal power plants, cogeneration, tri-generation. Peakoil, depletion, economics, technologies and geopolitical strategies. Prices, pollution, economic and social costs ...
User avatar
GuyGadeboisTheBack
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 14825
Registration: 10/12/20, 20:52
Location: 04
x 4302

Re: EDF wants to postpone the dismantling of its nuclear reactors ... to 2100!




by GuyGadeboisTheBack » 04/01/22, 20:20

"We" regret you on "Humor", did you see? : Mrgreen:
But we bet that if by any chance such an accident were to occur in France, which according to "we" is impossible, "we" would be ready to go and sacrifice themselves like the "old" Japanese, to clean up the shit that "we" will have. promotes all his life to spare young people because "we" are altruistic. This is a self-respecting "engineer".
https://www.france24.com/fr/20110607-re ... -nucleaire
1 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: EDF wants to postpone the dismantling of its nuclear reactors ... to 2100!




by Janic » 06/01/22, 11:27

the "we" would quickly move away from contaminated places, leaving the "we" steps to scramble with the consequences of their pseudo-scientific madness. as for Chernobyl and Fukushima where we did not see the GG pronuk rushing to offer their lives for a good cause. :?
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5365
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 660

Re: EDF wants to postpone the dismantling of its nuclear reactors ... to 2100!




by Exnihiloest » 06/01/22, 22:12

Flytox wrote:
Exnihiloest wrote:But with nuclear power, the result is there: we have juice. Not like with wind power during high pressure, or solar power at night or in cloudy weather. And without CO2. Not like with coal or gas. You have to be a little simplet to hope to have the butter and the money of the butter.


It's true! in Fukushima after the various explosions, the whole country did not know what to do with its kW so much it had too much ...., and this for months ..... : roll: and this without CO2 : Mrgreen:

No risk does not exist. Considering the number of power plants around the world, there have been very few accidents since the 50s. We don't even need as much time as we already had with conventional nuclear power, to keep up with them. until the merger.
Not even one death among the population due to radioactivity in Fukushima. I will not say the same for the number of deaths by the tsunami, but there is nothing to say, Nature has the right to kill and in addition we will thank her, nature is so beautiful. .
0 x
User avatar
GuyGadeboisTheBack
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 14825
Registration: 10/12/20, 20:52
Location: 04
x 4302

Re: EDF wants to postpone the dismantling of its nuclear reactors ... to 2100!




by GuyGadeboisTheBack » 06/01/22, 22:16

Exnihiloest wrote:No risk does not exist.

Especially when we are building by the sea on islands with strong seismic activity and we are multiplying negligence. But as you say so well "you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs".
0 x
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5365
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 660

Re: EDF wants to postpone the dismantling of its nuclear reactors ... to 2100!




by Exnihiloest » 07/01/22, 21:18

GuyGadeboisLeRetour wrote:...
Especially when we are building by the sea on islands with strong seismic activity and we are multiplying negligence. But as you say so well "you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs".

Stupid talk and gratuitous assertion.
The Japanese have never had a tsunamis of this magnitude, and their installations were made to withstand the more powerful ones they had had in the past, and with a fair margin. They were not "negligent", on the contrary.
It is only in imbeciles that the impossible is demanded. Obviously, imbeciles have never done anything themselves, never built anything, have no idea of ​​the difficulties to be solved, they live on the hooks of others, but call for hatred against them at the slightest problem.
0 x
User avatar
GuyGadeboisTheBack
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 14825
Registration: 10/12/20, 20:52
Location: 04
x 4302

Re: EDF wants to postpone the dismantling of its nuclear reactors ... to 2100!




by GuyGadeboisTheBack » 07/01/22, 22:25

Fifth SHIT of the day. From 100%.
0 x
User avatar
GuyGadeboisTheBack
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 14825
Registration: 10/12/20, 20:52
Location: 04
x 4302

Re: EDF wants to postpone the dismantling of its nuclear reactors ... to 2100!




by GuyGadeboisTheBack » 07/01/22, 23:04

Exnihiloest wrote:Stupid talk and gratuitous assertion.
The Japanese have never had a tsunamis of this magnitude, and their installations were made to withstand the more powerful ones they had had in the past, and with a fair margin. They were not "negligent", on the contrary.
It is only in imbeciles that the impossible is demanded. Obviously, imbeciles have never done anything themselves, never built anything, have no idea of ​​the difficulties to be solved, they live on the hooks of others, but call for hatred against them at the slightest problem.
Take it in your asshole, enc ... corporate:
THE FINDINGS OF THE JAPANESE COMMISSION

The commission's report shows that the facilities at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant were not able to withstand an earthquake, tsunami and disaster of the type that occurred on March 11, 2011 for a number of reasons.


1) A very vulnerable external power supply
“There were two causes for the loss of external power, both linked to the earthquake: there was no diversified redundancy or earthquake resilience for the external power supplies, and moreover, the Shin- transformer substation. Fukushima was not earthquake resistant, p 18. ”

“The power supply system was particularly fragile and suffered from a lack of redundancy, diversification and autonomy. Although there are a number of power lines outside the plant, there were only two source stations, which were taken out of service by the earthquake, causing a loss of power. external for all reactors p 30. […] The 66kV back-up line from the Tohoku Electric Power Company's network could not supply reactor 1 due to incompatible model connections ”p 14.

2) Completely inadequate earthquake resistance
- “At the end of the 1960s, at the time of the building permit, the recommendations for the construction of the plant were insufficient for reactors 1 to 3; the area around the plant was considered never to have experienced an earthquake. Based on this assessment, the maximum ground acceleration level was set at 265 gal, a remarkably low level, p 27. "

- In 1981, the NSC issues an anti-seismic recommendation;

- In 2006, twenty-five years later (!), the NISA takes over the update and asks operators to apply it.

- In 2008, TEPCO issues an interim report on the only reactor No. 5, speculating that its earthquake resistance has been increased to 600 gals.

- In 2009NISA accepts this report knowing that only the reactor building and seven of its many safety equipment have been "hardened". Then TEPCO submits reports similar to that of reactor No.5, but unilaterally decides to postpone the implementation of anti-seismic measures until January 2016.

“TEPCO knew from this interim report that many reinforcements were needed to meet the standards of the last recommendation, but our investigation verified that TEPCO had not added any reinforcements to reactors 1 to 3 at the time of the earthquake of March 11. Although the NISA recognized the need for reinforcements and the "anti-seismic check-up", the regulator failed in its role of monitoring TEPCO's work., p 27. "

- "In their analyzes and evaluations after the accident, TEPCO and NISA confirmed that some of the important safety parts of the No. 5 reactor piping were not up to seismic safety standards at the time of the earthquake. […] The Commission considers that this same conclusion is valid for reactors No 1 to 3, which are much older than reactor No 5. Section 2 of this report includes details showing that the recorded earthquake in Fukushima Daiichi exceeded the assumptions of the last recommendation. It is clear that additional anti-seismic measures were not in place at the time of the earthquake of March 11, p 27. "

Japan: the July 2007 earthquake stronger than expected for the power plant!

The violent earthquake that damaged the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear complex in central Japan on July 16, 2007, was 2,7 times stronger than the maximum limit predicted by the plant's builders, the Mainichi Shimbun daily said Sunday. According to the newspaper, the operating company, TEPCO, measured a ground acceleration of 993 Gals of the rock beneath the plant at the time of the earthquake, while Kashiwazaki-Kariwa was predicted to withstand a maximum acceleration of 370 Gals. Also according to the Mainichi Shimbun, 8 of the 17 nuclear power plants in Japan were built according to the same estimate of maximum ground acceleration, and construction standards will undoubtedly have to be tightened.

Philippe Jamet, member of ASN, was present in the IAEA delegation which submitted its report in August 2007. Report in PDF: http://bit.ly/f5cIkb page iii.

3) The absence of tsunami countermeasures

a) “Synergies” of all kinds and at all levels to reduce risks
- “The NISA has not released any information on its assessments or instructions to re-examine the assumptions used in the design of tsunami defenses. The NISA also did not keep these files (!). […]

- The method used by the Japanese Society of Civil Engineers was obscure and tainted [with bias in favor of operators…]. The NISA accepted it as a standard without examining its validity. [...]

- TEPCO attempted to justify a low probability of a tsunami occurrence and used the results of a biased calculation process to ignore the need for countermeasures […]. Rather than studying the known facts and the swift implementation of measures, TEPCO resorted to delaying tactics, such as presenting other scientific studies and lobbying p 27 and 28. "

b) Loss of all AC / DC power supplies and cooling as a foreseeable horizon

- “The construction of the Fukushima Daiichi power station, which began in 1967 [45 years ago], was based on the seismological knowledge of that time. As research has continued over the years, researchers have repeatedly stressed the high likelihood of tsunamis having levels exceeding the assumptions made at the time of construction, as well as the possibility of core damage in the event of such. tsunamis. TEPCO ignored these warnings, and the low safety margins that existed were far from sufficient to cope with such an emergency. Since 2006, regulatory authorities and TEPCO have exchanged information on the possibility of a blackout resulting from such tsunamis. They were also aware of the risk of reactor core damage from seawater pump failure if the magnitude of a tsunami was found to be greater than the assessment made by the Japanese Society of Engineers. civilians p 27. "

- “The hypotheses concerning a total blackout (Station Black-Out) did not include the loss of direct current power, but this is exactly what happened p 30. […] The tsunami flooded and totally destroyed standby diesel generators, primary cooling circuit pumps, electrical wiring system and direct current power supply for reactors 1, 2 and 4, resulting in the loss of all power sources - except at reactor 6, supplied by a back-up diesel generator initially dedicated to cold production ”p 14.

c) The tsunami did not only damage the power supplies

- “The tsunami also destroyed or swept away vehicles, heavy machinery, fuel and gravel tanks. He destroyed buildings, installations and other machinery. Seawater from the tsunami flooded the entire building area and even reached the high pressure equipment in Units 3 and 4, as well as the communal cooling pool [worn assemblies]. After the water receded, debris from the flooding was strewn over the entire plant site, hampering movement. The manhole covers and gutters were gone, leaving gaping holes in the ground ”p 14.
4) Serious accident countermeasures (GA) that do not comply with international standards
a) Operators who free themselves from any regulatory constraints

- “From the start, operators were authorized to set countermeasures to GAs autonomously […]. "This was validated by the NSC in 1991." Allowing autonomous implementation also left operators the possibility of negotiating the conditions of application via the Federation of Electricity Companies (FEPC). This was particularly true after 2010, […] with two perspectives:

i) avoid or minimize the risk of potential prosecution;

ii) avoid compliance requirements that could interfere with reactor production. Once again, this means that no measures have been prepared against serious accidents like the one that took place from March 11 […] ”p 28.
b) Safety: serious organizational shortcomings

- “The detailed severe accident management manuals were not up to date, the diagrams and documents describing the evacuation procedures were incomplete or missing. The priority had not been sufficiently focused on simulations and emergency training. The loss of control room functions, lighting and communications, the struggle to deliver equipment and materials to a plant littered with debris, all of this was made even more difficult by the continuous aftershocks [lasting three month]. It hadn't been anticipated either. This is symptomatic of TEPCO's institutional problems ”p 30.
http://www.fukushima-blog.com/article-r ... 17997.html

A minimum of respect for the victims ... : Evil:
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Go back to "Fossil energies: oil, gas, coal and nuclear electricity (fission and fusion)"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 224 guests