Oh, you were writing about it, which always occupies a lot in our national news every day. Now 54 all nuclear reactors are stopped, and because so many people were afraid of operating any of them again all have been stopped so far.
Nuclear industry wants to operate it again soon because I have heard it's hard to do it once reactors cooled down. Some reactors keep on being used more than 25 years, although their life is said to be merely 10 years.
Many politicians as well as ordinary people are opposing the idea of restarting.
I have two questions.Are you joking, or do you actually believe this stuff?If you do believe it, what would convince you that it really is nonsense? I can give you heaps of evidence, but I want to know what you'll accept first. If the answer is "nothing, don't bother me with the facts" then I won't.
There must be a great deal of perception gap between people who promote nuclear energy and those who don't. What I know is when nuclear power plant was built they were thought to be 10 year life. But because they realised it needs huge cost to give it up, they keep on using it without making other choice.
Nuclear industry is impatient for restarting any of them because of the reason I mentioned above, which is once it were cooled down it's hard to use it again. According to my sources.
Nuclear industry started building reactors one after another without earnestly thinking about how to abolish them when they were out of use. I think they had been waiting for tempest to come in ten years, but because they hadn't had it they are still waiting for a fatal blow from the earth to come.
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear power plant had long been showing mechanical failures before 311, and 311 was a big chance for them to attribute all their failures to the tempest, and they did so successfully. It was their only success.
Many civil engineers pointed out the structural fault Mark II reactors have, whatever data you could give me, those wouldn't convince me that reactors can be used much longer than 10 years. Because big facilities cannot catch up with the pace of innovation.
You evaded the question again. I asked what evidence would convince you? Instead, you spouted a non-sequitur about decommissioning.
There's nothing mysterious about decommissioning. It's been done a number of times in the USA, including the only nuclear plant I've ever toured (a very early BWR, a small cousin of the BWRs at Fukushima Dai'ichi).
Also, there is no such thing as the GE Mark I or Mark II reactor. There's the Mark I and Mark II containment design.
What would it take to convince you that all these power reactors, including the GE BWRs at the Fukushima site, were designed for lifespans much longer than 10 years? This is the third time I've asked you. If the answer is "nothing can convince me, don't bother me with the facts", please have the honesty to say so.
Eiko is suggesting that because safety regulations are constantly updated, by the time the technology is 10 years old, it is no longer compliant -- or we know better. The fact that Fukishima was built in a way that would no longer have been considered safe for a new reactor, only 10 years after it started is his basis for the statement.
That is, you are asking a question that is not directly related to the reason for the concern.
When someone at Ford in 1960 says that the Edsel is a perfectly safe car, doesn't make it so once the evidence to the contrary becomes clear.
I'm not arguing about how many years is the lifespan of reactors, but insisting at the time of constructing reactors in late 1960s people were told the life span of reactors is 10 years because it can't endure strong radiation for more than ten years even if it were made in think steel. So they had understood they need to decommission it after ten years.
In 1981, ten years after constructing No1 reactors in Fukushima Dai'ichi, people argued whether to decommission it in National Diet and decided not to. Instead they called for help from GE, and GE dispatched tens of workers to keep on maintaining it.
Probably you would like to point out that the lifespan of nuclear reactors is at least 30 - 40 years. Our recognition to lifespan of reactors changed from 10 years to more than ten years around 1981.
Related: http://engineerpoet.multiply.com/journal/item/992/Summer-brings-nuclear-restarts-closer-to-Japan
ReplyDeleteOh, you were writing about it, which always occupies a lot in our national news every day.
ReplyDeleteNow 54 all nuclear reactors are stopped, and because so many people were afraid of operating any of them again all have been stopped so far.
Nuclear industry wants to operate it again soon because I have heard it's hard to do it once reactors cooled down. Some reactors keep on being used more than 25 years, although their life is said to be merely 10 years.
Many politicians as well as ordinary people are opposing the idea of restarting.
I have two questions.Are you joking, or do you actually believe this stuff?If you do believe it, what would convince you that it really is nonsense? I can give you heaps of evidence, but I want to know what you'll accept first. If the answer is "nothing, don't bother me with the facts" then I won't.
ReplyDeleteI mean it.
ReplyDeleteThere must be a great deal of perception gap between people who promote nuclear energy and those who don't. What I know is when nuclear power plant was built they were thought to be 10 year life. But because they realised it needs huge cost to give it up, they keep on using it without making other choice.
Nuclear industry is impatient for restarting any of them because of the reason I mentioned above, which is once it were cooled down it's hard to use it again. According to my sources.
You didn't answer my second question: what data could I give you that would convince you that things like "10-year life" are wrong?
ReplyDeleteNuclear industry started building reactors one after another without earnestly thinking about how to abolish them when they were out of use. I think they had been waiting for tempest to come in ten years, but because they hadn't had it they are still waiting for a fatal blow from the earth to come.
ReplyDeleteFukushima Daiichi Nuclear power plant had long been showing mechanical failures before 311, and 311 was a big chance for them to attribute all their failures to the tempest, and they did so successfully. It was their only success.
Many civil engineers pointed out the structural fault Mark II reactors have, whatever data you could give me, those wouldn't convince me that reactors can be used much longer than 10 years. Because big facilities cannot catch up with the pace of innovation.
You evaded the question again. I asked what evidence would convince you? Instead, you spouted a non-sequitur about decommissioning.
ReplyDeleteThere's nothing mysterious about decommissioning. It's been done a number of times in the USA, including the only nuclear plant I've ever toured (a very early BWR, a small cousin of the BWRs at Fukushima Dai'ichi).
Also, there is no such thing as the GE Mark I or Mark II reactor. There's the Mark I and Mark II containment design.
What would it take to convince you that all these power reactors, including the GE BWRs at the Fukushima site, were designed for lifespans much longer than 10 years? This is the third time I've asked you. If the answer is "nothing can convince me, don't bother me with the facts", please have the honesty to say so.
Eiko is suggesting that because safety regulations are constantly updated, by the time the technology is 10 years old, it is no longer compliant -- or we know better. The fact that Fukishima was built in a way that would no longer have been considered safe for a new reactor, only 10 years after it started is his basis for the statement.
ReplyDeleteThat is, you are asking a question that is not directly related to the reason for the concern.
When someone at Ford in 1960 says that the Edsel is a perfectly safe car, doesn't make it so once the evidence to the contrary becomes clear.
I'm not arguing about how many years is the lifespan of reactors, but insisting at the time of constructing reactors in late 1960s people were told the life span of reactors is 10 years because it can't endure strong radiation for more than ten years even if it were made in think steel. So they had understood they need to decommission it after ten years.
ReplyDeleteIn 1981, ten years after constructing No1 reactors in Fukushima Dai'ichi, people argued whether to decommission it in National Diet and decided not to. Instead they called for help from GE, and GE dispatched tens of workers to keep on maintaining it.
Probably you would like to point out that the lifespan of nuclear reactors is at least 30 - 40 years. Our recognition to lifespan of reactors changed from 10 years to more than ten years around 1981.