How many Prius owners believe in Global Warming theory?

Do you have citations for these numbers or are you some kind of nuclear scientist?

 

Are you questioning the difficulty of hitting the reactor with a 747, or the resistance of the reactor and containment to the impact?

Tom

 

99.9% is pulled out of the air. Point being it is completely improbable. 747 is a type of aircraft.

And I am an engineer, with physicist and nuclear engineer friends.

 

+1

Please tell me you are joking... As someone who is "technical", it should be obvious how it can happen and did.

 

Damn...

Content blocked by your organization
Reason:
This Websense category is filtered: Non-Traditional Religions and Occult and Folklore.

 

+1
And not throwing petro $$ at terrorist county supporters works for me too. Who cares about CO2 . . . because when you reduce fuel consumption, reduce smog, reduce petro $$ exporting, and increase efficiency, stupid CO2 follows suit anyway . . . so it doesn't even need to be focused on ... just the stuff that 100% of everybods KNOWS and AGREES on is all that counts. Why argue about the devisive one?

.

 

Yes! And it's all being controlled by The Illuminati and Secret Nazi UFOs from Mars!

Dude, you got to stop getting your news from supermarket tabloids.

 

Oh my, I don't even know where to begin. I expect it would be a pointless exercise, so I won't try to dissuade you from your conspiracy theories.

Tom

 

Fair enough... I just wanted to know if those were sound numbers based on scenarios of such situations.
Although it has been a while back and certainly systems have gotten better, Three Mile Island still stands out as an exception. There are always holes and vulnerabilities.
How about a 767? That is a bigger aircraft.

 

Ok, just for fun and to dispell the "all the nucelar power plants are going to explode and kill us all omfg run for your lives" mantra I hear so much, I have found a great study done in 2002 after the 9/11 attacks.

It is the EPRI Nuclear Plant Safety Study where they use worst case scenarios with a Boeing 767-400. Keep in mind an aircraft actually being able to hit the buildings as described in worst case is nearly impossible unless it can pass through the surrounding buildings unharmed and magically collide with the core at the right angle.

Here are some excerpts (well most of it, and bolded important parts, it is all too important to cut bits and pieces), feel free to read the whole study. It is facinating, and if anyone truly believes "nuke plants" are a danger, then this should put your mind at ease.

Detailed results of the independent analyses will not be released to the public because of security considerations. However, the following are the general findings of the analyses:

Containment Buildings
Computer analyses of models representative of all U.S. nuclear power plant containment types have been completed.
The wing span of the Boeing 767-400 (170 feet)—the aircraft used in the analyses—is slightly longer than the diameter of a typical containment building (140 feet). The aircraft engines are physically separated by approximately 50 feet. This makes it impossible for both an engine and the fuselage to strike the centerline of the containment building. As a result, two analyses were performed. One analysis evaluated the “local†impact of an engine on the structure. The second analysis evaluated the “global†impact from the entire mass of the aircraft on the structure. In both cases, the analysis conservatively assumed that the engine and the fuselage strike perpendicular to the centerline of the structure. This results in the maximum force upon impact to the structure for each case.
The analyses indicated that no parts of the engine, the fuselage or the wings—nor the jet fuel—entered the containment buildings. The robust containment structure was not breached, although there was some crushing and spalling (chipping of material at the impact point) of the concrete.


Used Fuel Storage Pools
The wing span of the Boeing 767-400 (170 feet) is substantially greater than the longest dimension of a typical used fuel pool wall (60 feet). The aircraft engines are physically separated by approximately 50 feet. This makes it impossible for both an engine and the fuselage to strike the mid-point of the pools. As a result, two analyses were performed for both a pressurized water reactor pool and a boiling water reactor pool. One analysis evaluated the “local†impact of an engine on the mid-point of the pool wall. The second analysis evaluated the “global†impact of the fuselage and the portion of the wings that could realistically hit the mid-point of the representative fuel pool wall. In both cases, the analysis conservatively assumed that the engine and the fuselage strike perpendicular to the mid-point of the pool wall. This results in the maximum impact force being applied directly to the structure for each case. The wall’s mid-point would deflect (bend inward) more from this force than for an impact closer to the end of the wall.

The stainless steel pool liner ensures that, although the evaluations of the representative used fuel pools determined that there was localized crushing and cracking of the concrete wall, there was no loss of pool cooling water. Because the used fuel pools were not breached, the used fuel is protected and there would be no release of radionuclides to the environment.
Used Fuel “Dry†Storage Facilities
Due to the extremely small relative size of a dry fuel storage container compared to the Boeing 767-400, it is not possible for the entire mass of the aircraft to strike the container. Therefore, the analysis evaluated the worst case of a direct impact of an engine on the dry storage containers.
For the vertical concrete-encased steel containers, two impact points were evaluated. One evaluated a mid-plane impact to create maximum deflection.

The other evaluated a strike near the top of the structure to create a maximum “tip-over†force on the structure. Based on results from the vertical steel, concrete encased container, the all-steel vertical container was only impacted at mid-plane. For the horizontal container, the evaluated impact point is the center of the concrete loading door.

For the concrete encased canisters, the steel canister containing the used fuel assemblies was not breached although there was crushing and cracking of the concrete enclosure at the area of impact. For the vertical steel container, the container was dented, but not breached. Because the dry storage structures were not breached, there would be no release of radionuclides to the environment.

Used Fuel Transportation Containers
Due to the extremely small relative size of a fuel transport container compared to the Boeing 767-400, it is impossible for the entire mass of the aircraft to strike the container. Therefore, the analysis evaluated the worst case of a direct impact of an engine on the representative fuel transport cask.

The analyses show the container body withstands the impact from the direct engine strike without breaching. The forces on the container are comparable to the forces used in tests containers must undergo before designs are approved by the NRC. Additionally, the container remains attached to the rail car and the rail car does not tip over. Because the fuel transport container is not breached, there would be no release of radionuclides to the environment.

Selection of Aircraft Analyzed
The reference aircraft chosen for this analysis is the Boeing 767-400. The maximum takeoff weight for this aircraft is 450,000 pounds, which includes 23,980 gallons of fuel. It has a wing span of 170 feet, an overall length of 201 feet, a fuselage diameter of 16.5 feet, and two engines weighing 9,500 pounds each.
This aircraft was selected for the following reasons:
The weight of the Boeing 767-400 envelopes 88 percent of all commercial flights in the United States employing Boeing aircraft.
It is the most widely used “wide body†aircraft in the U.S. commercial fleet.
The weight of the engines on the Boeing 767-400 envelopes almost 90 percent of commercial aircraft engines, including wide body jets such as the Boeing 747,Boeing 757, DC-10, MD-11, A-330, and the L-1011.
The weight of the Boeing 767-400 is at the 85th percentile of Boeing commercial aircraft.
Boeing aircraft account for almost two-thirds of the commercial aircraft registered in the United States.

The assumed speed of the aircraft is 350 miles per hour, which is approximately the speed at which a jetliner struck the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001, based on reported flight recorder data and analysis of security camera video that captured the impact. In addition, this speed is reasonable for this evaluation where it is assumed the pilot can maintain flight maneuverability and impact structures at the precise analyzed locations. Although there is sufficient available engine thrust on the 767-400 to increase the speed at the altitudes of the analyzed structures, precision flying close to the ground at speeds greater than 350 miles per hour is extremely difficult, according to experienced pilots. A less-experienced pilot would have great difficulty controlling the aircraft. Thus, the probability of the aircraft striking a specific point on a structure–particularly one of the small size of a nuclear plant–is significantly less as speed increases.

 

And as said before, 3mile was a idiot-caused disaster. Increased training and decreased human involvement has made it safer. The "disaster" wasnt all that disastrous anyways. The safeties in place shut down and very few radionuclides escaped. It was classified as being within or slightly above normal human tolerances. If the core had not half melted (because of human error), it would have been operational in no time with little to no escape of radionuclides.

 

Also from another (albeit older) study on similar scenarios:



Vertical units are the forces in meganewtons (big big number), horizontal units are time in milliseconds after an impact of various aircraft including a 747.

As you can see, a force of 200MN is what a 747 applies shortly after impact. This force applied directly to the outer casings at the worst possible scenario, is not even close to enough force to breach containment.

 

This very obviously was not the PBS episode (Nova or Frontline, I don't recall which) titled "Why The Towers Fell".

This episode answered why I see fire insulation on all the structural steel in underground parking garages beneath tall buildings. Fire doesn't need to melt that steel to bring the building down. Softening it is sufficient.

PS - Links: NOVA - Why The Towers Fell

 

^ Thanks for pulling the information Toast, I know that takes time to do. I am not all that concern about nuc power myself. In fact they were actually testing the feasability of portable units up here in the bush. I don't recall the outcome of the testing.

Anyway, I see your charts covered a Cessna... but not what would happen if that Cessna was carring Thermite.

 

No problem. I am getting a little tired of people that go against science and facts in favour of consiprancies, myths, and youtube. Thinking in general has seemed to devolve, and those that yell the loudest are presumed correct despite all imperical data that shows otherwise.

I have no doubt that even with all the evidence I have shown people will disregard it because the scientists in the studies were paid by the Martian overlords or something equally rediculous.

As I said, the only downside to nuclear power is what to do with spent fuel rods. Even though France has shown they are mostly safe, easy to guard, and can have their active half-lives reduced significantly, it is not a pure energy source like solar or wind. However it is easier, more cost effective, and doesnt require millions of acres of land to produce minimal output. It doesnt lower its output when it rains, when it is cloudy, or when it is a still day with no wind.

Ideally, I would love to see all building have PV arrays built in. Then a few nuclear plants accross each country could supply what is needed when it is needed. Power is a continous and large demand, whereas all renewable sources provide discontinuous and small power sources. Needs something to smooth out the ripple, and I see no better alternative than nuclear. Well Cold Fusion would be awesome, but still doubtful of its harnessing abilities on Earth on a human scale. Even if it is, we will never see it in any of our lifetimes on a commercial level.

 

Oh, and thermite has a minimal effect on concrete.

I have a few tens of kilograms worth of it in the garage. I use it for pyro-fun time, and can personally tell you that ceramics, sand, and concrete are well protected against thermite. Anything else is fair game though!

 

Since the issue of 1st Amendment rights for non citizens has not been taken up perhaps we have both been hasty in our opinions however . . .

Therefore, if the U.S. government can not impose criminal or civil liability upon someone for what they say then they are as good as protected. I WIN! :rockon:

As far as other Constitutional Rights for non-citizens and terrorists the Obama administration and the Supreme Court believes they extend to non-citizens . . . and if Freedom of Speech is ever taken up they should disagree with you as well, unless of course you think Freedom of Speech should only be granted to US citizens? :noidea:

 

Just making sure, but you do know that most western countries have freedom of speech right? It is not like the Queen hits you with her handbag if you say something profound.

 

I do but perhaps you should address this to fussy1 and through the thanks function dogfriend and qbee42 who seem to disagree. I have no idea why . . .