record

6 CommentsChronological Reverse Threaded delete replyengineerpoet wrote on Jun 13 Related: http://engineerpoet.multiply.com/journal/item/992/Summer-brings-nuclear-restarts-closer-to-Japan edit delete replymercedo wrote on Jun 14 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. delete replyengineerpoet wrote on Jun 14, edited on Jun 15 mercedo said 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. I have two questions. 1.Are you joking, or do you actually believe this stuff? 2.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. edit delete replymercedo wrote on Jun 15 I mean it. 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. delete replyengineerpoet wrote on Jun 15 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? edit delete replymercedo wrote today at 5:20 AM engineerpoet said what data could I give you that would convince you that things like 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.