The Implications of the Fukushima Accident on the World's Operating Reactors.
The Implications of the Fukushima Accident on the World's Operating Reactors
by Fairewinds Associates
Arnie Gundersen explains how containment vents were added to the GE Mark 1 BWR as a "band aid" 20 years after the plants built in order to prevent an explosion of the notoriously weak Mark 1 containment system. Obviously the containment vent band aid fix did not work since all three units have lost containment integrity and are leaking radioactivity.
Citations + AP1000 fixation
I like tuning into Arnie Gundersen's vimeo broadcasts if only to hear what my bias calls the "informed other side" thinks. What bothers me though is: where are the citations supporting some of his claims? I'd like to read his sources for myself. E.g. Siemen's report on SFP #4, cracked reactor due to earthquake, not tsunami, etc. He's posted the NRC reports about Beaver Valley #1 and additional resources thankfully. When searching for these things on Google all I see are links back to his fairewinds.com website. Welcome to Web 2.0? Anyone have citations for these?
What seems strange to me is that he seems to push against AP1000 at every instance, which seems odd. The containment of BWR and PWR designs are obviously completely different and if we're going to talk turkey about improving existing BWR Mk 1 plants then let's discuss options, not what I perceive as a personal beef against the AP1000. Citations to the AP1000 linked to in the recent vlog post:
http://www.fairewinds.com/AP1000-Containment-Leakage-Report-Fairewinds-A...
http://www.fairewinds.com/content/ap1000-nuclear-design-flaw-addressed-t...
Elsewhere on his site:
http://fairewinds.com/content/friends-earth-challenges-new-ap1000-reacto...
http://fairewinds.com/content/comment-proposed-rule-ap1000-design-certif...
To make it easier:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=site%3Afairewind...
What I also find annoying about his vlog is the multiunit site opposition. Do power companies just decide to put the units together so Nuc engineers can hang out with more of their pals? No, everything about the decision makes economic and political sense - less transmission lines to build, fewer facilities to maintain, fewer permits to obtain, sharing of resources, etc. If there's a problem with multiunit sites, let's talk about that - was there a problem with venting of Fukushima Daiichi #3 through the shared vent of #3 and #4 causing inadvertant hydrogen buildup in #4? Should the units be more independent in their plant systems?
To me this particular vlog entry was lots of talk about what I perceive as his personal agenda without knowing the full scale of what really happened.
I honestly believe that the
I honestly believe that the G8 are allowing this to continue unabated on purpose. There is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for this total lack of international activity.
I for one find that
I for one find that possibility too scary to fathom.