Seawater went into unit 1 a full 36 hours after tsunami and only after orders from the japanese govt. (and after the hydrogen explosions caused by melting cores). Unit 2 was injected late on sunday.
...are you saying they shouldn't have used seawater?
You take my reasonable statements and equate that with saying "the entire decision making structure at TEPCO is evil". This means you consider valid questions as evil, simply bc they criticize Tepco.
And I'm the one who provided YOU with the alternative scenario that maybe they did use seawater as soon as physically possible, you've latched onto that despite nothing but contrary evidence in the record, and just to cover your ass you've also asserted why they DID delay, but for reasons other than protecting valuable assets. I'm not sure why you think it is unthinkable someone might resist destroying a multi-billion dollar investment, but this is real world with complexity, it never comes down to tidy good vs evil. People make bad calls that need to be exposed and made part of the record. The facts point to unnecessary delay. Sorry, but those are the available facts. We'll know more as the months proceed.
ps, s l o w l y, the "DAYS LATE" statement was retracted like 4 posts up, you're either continuing with the dishonesty or really cannot keep up. And recall that it is still immaterial, days or hours or minutes, the whole point of this clusterfuck is TOO LATE-->WHY.
Your absolute butthurt luv for TEPCO is touching. But smarter people than you or I are seriously asking what the delay was, if not the money. Your elaborate explanation of why to NOT use seawater is weak; every minute those rods are under water, they continue to cool, which means normalized pressure (ideally never getting high enough to require venting), cooled and normalized pressure for all those months until they can decommission. Versus your excellent plan of not cooling them until the roof blows off. Note that they decided to abandon your excellent plan and went for the seawater, long term concerns apparently were overruled by the imminent destruction of other valuable assets (like Tokyo) and as a result, the reactors have not melted down (completely). Thanks goes to the Japanese govt. who ordered them to inject the seawater. CEO then checks into hospital.
response to my alleged assumptions: 1. no. I am the one who offered the potential explanation of physically inability, remember? my speculation is based on the reports i've read suggesting delay rather than inability. and i just found this one: The plant's operatorâ"Tokyo Electric Power Co., or Tepcoâ"considered using seawater from the nearby coast to cool one of its six reactors at least as early as last Saturday morning, the day after the quake struck. But it didn't do so until that evening, after the prime minister ordered it following an explosion at the facility. Tepco didn't begin using seawater at other reactors until Sunday." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704608504576207912642629904.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories
2. Yes, it's a pretty safe assumption since water is how it is kept cool. the water level dropped too far, then they replaced the replaced water...and the meltdown has so far been averted thanks to the addition of water, no? don't hold back, tell me why it really overheated, this could be useful.
3. what kind of damage? yes, the seawater damages the reactors long term viability, but the main damage from the melted cores cum explosions came before the water was replaced and the crisis has since been held at bay by the water. the notion that the quake or tsunami damaged the containment is virtually nil--every problem currently is consistent with the heat produced by overheated core(s)...(from the loss of water)
i've not said anything remotely suggesting "that the entire decision making structure at TEPCO is evil" far from it. I've characterized it as a tough decision that most humans would fail. it's the question of do i destroy a billion dollar reactor now, or do I hold off a little longer? i've said i don't know if i would have done better myself, more than once, which is making you look like a dishonest piece of crap, so get off it!
your claiming that i think TEPCO is "irredeemably evil" is completely out of your overstretched arse my friend, nothing remotely close to that is a fair assessment.
from your BBC article: Sunday:2209: "It is reported that Tepco is planning to pump seawater into reactor number 2...It is worth noting that using seawater like this is terminal for a nuclear reactor. It is a last-ditch move and renders the reactor permanently unusable."
This is the phrasing repeated everywhere at the time. I was spending way too much time following every breaking newsfeed I could find, I never saw a statement along the lines of "officials are focused on creating the ability to inject seawater into the overheating reactors", always, "they are contemplating seawater as a last ditch effort to avoid destroying the reactors". Which is what has led me to believe that the delay was cost-driven.
betcha we'll soon be seeing reports 'clarifying' the record to suggest that physical factors prevented the use of seawater sooner!
oh for crying out loud. once again, s l o w l y, just for you; 1. it is immaterial exactly how many hours or days of delay. the point is the delay allowed overheating. 2. Yes, it is possible mechanical factors prevented the use of seawater any sooner. i am the one who raised that possibility, despite no news reports suggesting that was a factor.(exactly the opposite, as i'm sure you've found by now)
you have a strangely desperate desire to prove that TEPCO is incapable of making a bad call in the face of a massive prior investment trap, when most humans would fail that test. Not that you take time to read anything that might sway your preconceived notions, but also note that I acknowledged the unfairness of characterizing the delay as 'days', when it was maybe a day and a half if your report is accurate, see point 1 above.
and please, read thrice before replying with more irrelevant histrionics.
And you're quite sure that they had the capability to begin injecting seawater the very moment that they decided it was necessary? umm no? my last two replies to you raised that as potential explanation, do try and keep up. and reading comprehension would also clue you to the fact that mechanics have never been mentioned as a reason for the delay, they were pumping what fresh water they had available but it just wasn't enough, so they had to switch to seawater. and again, reading comprehension, so useful, your industry article says "The injection of seawater into parts of the building near the reactor", see the difference?
and your suggestion that they used the seawater as soon as necessary is also incorrect. obviously. whether days or hours late, they turned to that last resort after the fuel rods were well exposed and beginning to melt. and the fact that it took days to fill them back up indicates how low on water they had gotten. the question we are debating, as you know, is; did anything other than a command decision prevent keeping the vessels topped off? did the fact that resorting to sea water would cost them billions of dollars delay the decision? from what i can see it did, perhaps there were other technical reasons why they couldnt do it sooner but it has never been presented that way. btw, it looks like the first salt water injection was on sunday, two days, so my use of 'days' was indeed unfair..."hours" would be more accurate though immaterial. http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/sea-water-injected-into-fukushima-nuclear-plant-edano-warns-of-another-explosion.
yes no doubt about it, sea water is a last ditch. very bad news. i get that. and i can't say I would have made a better call in their shoes either. But let's agree with the fact that the water level fell too low for too long, causing the level 6 issues. maybe it wasnt physically possible to pump it sooner, but seawater was the salvation these past two weeks, condensate and all. so, to say that the debate is over long term corrosion vs. core melting is in fact, daft.
And so, instead of spending time trying to restore the *actual cooling system* that was designed to handle the stresses of cooling the reactor without injecting corrosive metals into the reactor core - the same systems which you just opined were completely functional, and simply lacked power - they should have just immediately gone to the lengths of injecting saltwater with numerous unknown contaminants into the reactor core?
Are you daft? Yes, obviously, ASAP. Hindsight is 20/20 i know, but someone(s) badly miscalculated and the most likely reason for that I can see is to avoid throwing billions of dollars down the drain. the funny thing is that if they had done that and cooled everything down by now, that person(s) would be on the blocks for destroying a billion dollar investment needlessly!
There was never any "marginally functioning cooling systems", there were functional cooling systems that lacked power. It's likely that the decision makers put their bets on restoring the normal cooling system before red-lining. beyond protecting the investment, there's also the sheer momentum of belief in your tech..it's pretty awesome indeed, and we're needing every last bit of it. down to the concrete floor!
your narrative is flawed; Seawater is 1000% better than nothing, as evidenced by the fact that once they were at the melting stage, they indeed pumped seawater like no tomorrow.
Yes, a nuclear plant delivers a big bang in a small space 24/7, but is not "the cheapest" energy source by a long shot. If it were, it would be widespread, regardless of the _ignorant_peanut_gallery_. It is not widely deployed because it just isn't all that, comparatively, plain and simple, the market is wiser than you are. The prior and current investment in nuclear is the driving force of nuclear. In reality it delivers maybe 5:1 energy return on energy investment, and carries the little problem of the incredibly toxic waste and god-forbid something goes wrong and hundreds of thousands die, etc..
Bush coalition-builidng / invading a nation on false pretenses = very very bad
Obama coalition - joining / answering a desperate plea for help _from the people_ and promising not to invade = much much better
the fact that the French took the lead on this says volumes about the care taken NOT to be a naked aggressor like _Bush_. (try again)
they dithered bc; 1. the action is war and nobody wants that, 2. there's a lot of multi-billion dollar contracts at stake, and 3. nobody expected crazy-town to, well, be so f-ing crazy. but they got their asses in gear as soon as it looked like the people were going to lose...NOT stopping this doesnt look too good on your resume as a leader committed to freedom and democracy (perceptions matter!)
I'd mod you insightful, but i want to comment... I have been strongly anti-intervention since the beginning, i'm about as suspicious of Western intentions as Kadaffi is or more, (as any sane person should be). But after days of watching some of the most bat-shit crazy I've seen in 50 years, the old dictator, his scummy offspring, and the tents full of 10's of cheering supporters looking at each other trying their best not to laugh because they know they will be shot or at least can kiss the villa in Malta goodbye, i am so glad to hear it is fucking war (rather than a massacre). Hell yes it is a clear cut case of war, Kadaffi went straight to that mode from day one. I support your call to respect other's sovereignty, but since Kadaffi has virtually zero support of the people, he has no 'sovereignty'. The Libyans have the sovereignty, and they were begging for help and are now cheering in the streets bc it means that now they have a shot at having a really awesome future.
Slashdot Mirror
Seawater went into unit 1 a full 36 hours after tsunami and only after orders from the japanese govt. (and after the hydrogen explosions caused by melting cores). Unit 2 was injected late on sunday.
...are you saying they shouldn't have used seawater?
You take my reasonable statements and equate that with saying "the entire decision making structure at TEPCO is evil". This means you consider valid questions as evil, simply bc they criticize Tepco.
And I'm the one who provided YOU with the alternative scenario that maybe they did use seawater as soon as physically possible, you've latched onto that despite nothing but contrary evidence in the record, and just to cover your ass you've also asserted why they DID delay, but for reasons other than protecting valuable assets. I'm not sure why you think it is unthinkable someone might resist destroying a multi-billion dollar investment, but this is real world with complexity, it never comes down to tidy good vs evil. People make bad calls that need to be exposed and made part of the record.
The facts point to unnecessary delay. Sorry, but those are the available facts. We'll know more as the months proceed.
ps, s l o w l y, the "DAYS LATE" statement was retracted like 4 posts up, you're either continuing with the dishonesty or really cannot keep up. And recall that it is still immaterial, days or hours or minutes, the whole point of this clusterfuck is TOO LATE-->WHY.
Your absolute butthurt luv for TEPCO is touching. But smarter people than you or I are seriously asking what the delay was, if not the money.
Your elaborate explanation of why to NOT use seawater is weak; every minute those rods are under water, they continue to cool, which means normalized pressure (ideally never getting high enough to require venting), cooled and normalized pressure for all those months until they can decommission. Versus your excellent plan of not cooling them until the roof blows off.
Note that they decided to abandon your excellent plan and went for the seawater, long term concerns apparently were overruled by the imminent destruction of other valuable assets (like Tokyo) and as a result, the reactors have not melted down (completely). Thanks goes to the Japanese govt. who ordered them to inject the seawater.
CEO then checks into hospital.
response to my alleged assumptions:
1. no. I am the one who offered the potential explanation of physically inability, remember? my speculation is based on the reports i've read suggesting delay rather than inability. and i just found this one:
The plant's operatorâ"Tokyo Electric Power Co., or Tepcoâ"considered using seawater from the nearby coast to cool one of its six reactors at least as early as last Saturday morning, the day after the quake struck. But it didn't do so until that evening, after the prime minister ordered it following an explosion at the facility. Tepco didn't begin using seawater at other reactors until Sunday."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704608504576207912642629904.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories
2. Yes, it's a pretty safe assumption since water is how it is kept cool. the water level dropped too far, then they replaced the replaced water...and the meltdown has so far been averted thanks to the addition of water, no? don't hold back, tell me why it really overheated, this could be useful.
3. what kind of damage? yes, the seawater damages the reactors long term viability, but the main damage from the melted cores cum explosions came before the water was replaced and the crisis has since been held at bay by the water. the notion that the quake or tsunami damaged the containment is virtually nil--every problem currently is consistent with the heat produced by overheated core(s)...(from the loss of water)
i've not said anything remotely suggesting "that the entire decision making structure at TEPCO is evil" far from it. I've characterized it as a tough decision that most humans would fail. it's the question of do i destroy a billion dollar reactor now, or do I hold off a little longer? i've said i don't know if i would have done better myself, more than once, which is making you look like a dishonest piece of crap, so get off it!
your claiming that i think TEPCO is "irredeemably evil" is completely out of your overstretched arse my friend, nothing remotely close to that is a fair assessment.
from your BBC article: Sunday:2209: "It is reported that Tepco is planning to pump seawater into reactor number 2...It is worth noting that using seawater like this is terminal for a nuclear reactor. It is a last-ditch move and renders the reactor permanently unusable."
This is the phrasing repeated everywhere at the time. I was spending way too much time following every breaking newsfeed I could find, I never saw a statement along the lines of "officials are focused on creating the ability to inject seawater into the overheating reactors", always, "they are contemplating seawater as a last ditch effort to avoid destroying the reactors". Which is what has led me to believe that the delay was cost-driven.
betcha we'll soon be seeing reports 'clarifying' the record to suggest that physical factors prevented the use of seawater sooner!
oh for crying out loud. once again, s l o w l y, just for you; 1. it is immaterial exactly how many hours or days of delay. the point is the delay allowed overheating.
2. Yes, it is possible mechanical factors prevented the use of seawater any sooner. i am the one who raised that possibility, despite no news reports suggesting that was a factor.(exactly the opposite, as i'm sure you've found by now)
you have a strangely desperate desire to prove that TEPCO is incapable of making a bad call in the face of a massive prior investment trap, when most humans would fail that test. Not that you take time to read anything that might sway your preconceived notions, but also note that I acknowledged the unfairness of characterizing the delay as 'days', when it was maybe a day and a half if your report is accurate, see point 1 above.
and please, read thrice before replying with more irrelevant histrionics.
And you're quite sure that they had the capability to begin injecting seawater the very moment that they decided it was necessary?
umm no? my last two replies to you raised that as potential explanation, do try and keep up.
and reading comprehension would also clue you to the fact that mechanics have never been mentioned as a reason for the delay, they were pumping what fresh water they had available but it just wasn't enough, so they had to switch to seawater. and again, reading comprehension, so useful, your industry article says "The injection of seawater into parts of the building near the reactor", see the difference?
If only Canada didn't have greed, then you'd be right. But they have thinking beings up there.
ooh nice one Zarathustra... you've shown us the critical difference between 'thinking' and 'wisdom'.
False dichotomy; either be a slave to corporate greed or move to a new universe.
clearly we could just move to Canada and save on airfare.
and your suggestion that they used the seawater as soon as necessary is also incorrect. obviously. whether days or hours late, they turned to that last resort after the fuel rods were well exposed and beginning to melt. and the fact that it took days to fill them back up indicates how low on water they had gotten. the question we are debating, as you know, is; did anything other than a command decision prevent keeping the vessels topped off? did the fact that resorting to sea water would cost them billions of dollars delay the decision? from what i can see it did, perhaps there were other technical reasons why they couldnt do it sooner but it has never been presented that way.
btw, it looks like the first salt water injection was on sunday, two days, so my use of 'days' was indeed unfair..."hours" would be more accurate though immaterial. http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/sea-water-injected-into-fukushima-nuclear-plant-edano-warns-of-another-explosion.
wut, cracks don't count? theyz shit all over the place. it done breached i say.
yes no doubt about it, sea water is a last ditch. very bad news. i get that. and i can't say I would have made a better call in their shoes either. But let's agree with the fact that the water level fell too low for too long, causing the level 6 issues. maybe it wasnt physically possible to pump it sooner, but seawater was the salvation these past two weeks, condensate and all. so, to say that the debate is over long term corrosion vs. core melting is in fact, daft.
And so, instead of spending time trying to restore the *actual cooling system* that was designed to handle the stresses of cooling the reactor without injecting corrosive metals into the reactor core - the same systems which you just opined were completely functional, and simply lacked power - they should have just immediately gone to the lengths of injecting saltwater with numerous unknown contaminants into the reactor core?
Are you daft? Yes, obviously, ASAP.
Hindsight is 20/20 i know, but someone(s) badly miscalculated and the most likely reason for that I can see is to avoid throwing billions of dollars down the drain. the funny thing is that if they had done that and cooled everything down by now, that person(s) would be on the blocks for destroying a billion dollar investment needlessly!
There was never any "marginally functioning cooling systems", there were functional cooling systems that lacked power. It's likely that the decision makers put their bets on restoring the normal cooling system before red-lining. beyond protecting the investment, there's also the sheer momentum of belief in your tech..it's pretty awesome indeed, and we're needing every last bit of it. down to the concrete floor!
your narrative is flawed; Seawater is 1000% better than nothing, as evidenced by the fact that once they were at the melting stage, they indeed pumped seawater like no tomorrow.
except they WEREN'T quick to pump the seawater. It was many days LATE, obviously to protect that significant investment.
Calling all blowtards from the past 3 weeks confidently predicting that containment breach was inconceivable.
Yes, a nuclear plant delivers a big bang in a small space 24/7, but is not "the cheapest" energy source by a long shot. If it were, it would be widespread, regardless of the _ignorant_peanut_gallery_. It is not widely deployed because it just isn't all that, comparatively, plain and simple, the market is wiser than you are. The prior and current investment in nuclear is the driving force of nuclear. In reality it delivers maybe 5:1 energy return on energy investment, and carries the little problem of the incredibly toxic waste and god-forbid something goes wrong and hundreds of thousands die, etc..
you are several kinds of retarded.
Bush coalition-builidng / invading a nation on false pretenses = very very bad
Obama coalition - joining / answering a desperate plea for help _from the people_ and promising not to invade = much much better
the fact that the French took the lead on this says volumes about the care taken NOT to be a naked aggressor like _Bush_. (try again)
the obvious difference being the no-fly against iraq was pure imperial aggression.
they dithered bc; 1. the action is war and nobody wants that, 2. there's a lot of multi-billion dollar contracts at stake, and 3. nobody expected crazy-town to, well, be so f-ing crazy.
but they got their asses in gear as soon as it looked like the people were going to lose...NOT stopping this doesnt look too good on your resume as a leader committed to freedom and democracy (perceptions matter!)
I'd mod you insightful, but i want to comment... I have been strongly anti-intervention since the beginning, i'm about as suspicious of Western intentions as Kadaffi is or more, (as any sane person should be). But after days of watching some of the most bat-shit crazy I've seen in 50 years, the old dictator, his scummy offspring, and the tents full of 10's of cheering supporters looking at each other trying their best not to laugh because they know they will be shot or at least can kiss the villa in Malta goodbye, i am so glad to hear it is fucking war (rather than a massacre). Hell yes it is a clear cut case of war, Kadaffi went straight to that mode from day one. I support your call to respect other's sovereignty, but since Kadaffi has virtually zero support of the people, he has no 'sovereignty'. The Libyans have the sovereignty, and they were begging for help and are now cheering in the streets bc it means that now they have a shot at having a really awesome future.
Tell me again which energy source is a better choice?
Have you stopped beating your wife?
Nuclear Power is SAFE!
protip: using all CAPS doesnt make bullshit TRUE.
translates to: "nuclear power is safe enough for my purposes"
tragedy of the commons writ large.