Conversation

Notices

Embed this notice
:apa: スプリットショックウイルス † (splitshockvirus@mstdn.starnix.network)'s status on Friday, 19-Jul-2024 01:18:40 JST :apa: スプリットショックウイルス †
- かき@GNUsocialJP
💀 TOSHIBA MAKES NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS 💀

In conversation about 4 months ago from mstdn.starnix.network permalink
- Embed this notice
  翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Friday, 19-Jul-2024 01:18:39 JST 翠星石
  in reply to
  
  @splitshockvirus I'm sure they make pretty good ones as I haven't heard of them ever melting down, so I don't see why you would use a death symbol with that.
  
  In conversation about 4 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  :apa: スプリットショックウイルス † (splitshockvirus@mstdn.starnix.network)'s status on Friday, 19-Jul-2024 01:40:00 JST :apa: スプリットショックウイルス †
  in reply to
  @Suiseiseki
  Unit 3 of Fukashima Daiichi was manufactured by Toshiba 💀 cc @eric -kun
  https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/CNPP2010_CD/pages/AnnexII/tables/table2.htm
  In conversation about 4 months ago permalink
  Attachments
  1. No result found on File_thumbnail lookup.
    
    table2
- Embed this notice
  翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Friday, 19-Jul-2024 01:40:00 JST 翠星石
  in reply to
  
  @splitshockvirus Unit 3 went pretty well for a whole 60 hours without proper power for cooling, before it started to partially melt down - it was only a hydrogen explosion that caused the pipes connected to the reactor to rupture - although most of it is still intact; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_(Unit_3_Reactor)?useskin=monobook
  In conversation about 4 months ago permalink
  Attachments
  1. Domain not in remote thumbnail source whitelist: upload.wikimedia.org
    
    Fukushima nuclear accident (Unit 3 Reactor)
    
    The Fukushima Daiichi (Unit 3) reactor, was 1 out of 4 reactors seriously affected during the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster (福島第一原子力発電所事故, Fukushima Dai-ichi) on 11 March 2011. Overall, the plant had 6 separate boiling water reactors originally designed by General Electric (GE), and maintained by the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO). In the aftermath, Unit 3 experienced hydrogen gas explosions and suffered a partial meltdown, along with the other two reactors (1 & 2) in operation at the time the tsunami struck. Reactor 4 had been de-fueled while 5 and 6 were in cold shutdown for planned maintenance. Background The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant consists of six separate boiling water reactors originally designed by General Electric (GE), and maintained by the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO). Unlike the other five reactor units, reactor...
- Embed this notice
  翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Friday, 19-Jul-2024 02:26:23 JST 翠星石
  in reply to
  
  @splitshockvirus The diesel generators ran pretty well until the basement they were in were flooded by the tsunami and I don't think they ordered the flood-tolerant ones.
  
  Based off memory there was one generator on slightly higher ground, but generators aren't usually rated for 100% load, 24/7, so it soon failed.
  
  The generator room flooding was foreseen in the past as someone noticed that it flooded after heavy rains - but all that was done was the installation of doors to stop rainwater ingress.
  
  The whole incident would have been avoided if they built it on top of the cliff as the design called for, or if they looked at the tsunami record and constructed the sea wall high enough.
  
  A few kilometers up the coast there is another reactor, except someone looked up the tsunami record and insisted that the wall be built high enough despite the slightly higher price and nothing happened to that one.
  
  In conversation about 4 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  :apa: スプリットショックウイルス † (splitshockvirus@mstdn.starnix.network)'s status on Friday, 19-Jul-2024 02:26:24 JST :apa: スプリットショックウイルス †
  in reply to
  - 翠星石
  - かき@GNUsocialJP
  @Suiseiseki
  Five bucks say mitsubishi heavy industry.
  
  In conversation about 4 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  :apa: スプリットショックウイルス † (splitshockvirus@mstdn.starnix.network)'s status on Friday, 19-Jul-2024 02:26:25 JST :apa: スプリットショックウイルス †
  in reply to
  - 翠星石
  - かき@GNUsocialJP
  @Suiseiseki
  The real question is who manufactured the diesel generators :thinkin:
  
  In conversation about 4 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Friday, 19-Jul-2024 02:58:12 JST 翠星石
  in reply to
  
  @splitshockvirus >I feel like you could make your backup room design in such a way that it wouldn't matter if it was under water or not.
  Yes, but you actually have to design for that.
  
  >Put the generators into a sealed room and have intake and exhaust vented out with a snorkel.
  I believe intake and exhaust were already piped, as who wants the basement to fill with carbon monoxide?
  
  You could put each generator in a "bathtub" of sorts that prevents water ingress, with wiring and piping on the roof - although that would makes maintenance a real pain in the ass, as you'd need to undo all wiring and piping and use a crane to remove the generator before you can do maintenance.
  
  >other than for cost reasons
  Yes, just like bike shedding, there is sea-wall and generator shedding.
  
  >Or just put them on the roof.
  Generators don't last as long when exposed to the elements.
  
  You should really just ensure your reactor doesn't get flooded - designing a high enough sea wall is easier than trying to waterproof generators after all.
  
  In conversation about 4 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  :apa: スプリットショックウイルス † (splitshockvirus@mstdn.starnix.network)'s status on Friday, 19-Jul-2024 02:58:13 JST :apa: スプリットショックウイルス †
  in reply to
  - 翠星石
  - かき@GNUsocialJP
  @Suiseiseki
  I feel like you could make your backup room design in such a way that it wouldn't matter if it was under water or not. Put the generators into a sealed room and have intake and exhaust vented out with a snorkel. WW2 submarines were diesel I don't see why landbased can't be submerged other than for cost reasons. Or just put them on the roof.
  
  In conversation about 4 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Friday, 19-Jul-2024 03:00:25 JST 翠星石
  in reply to
  - 翠星石
  @splitshockvirus Also, with WW2 submarines, there was a whole pressure vessel full of pressurized air that ensured that the engine doesn't get flooded and thus soon cease functioning.
  
  In conversation about 4 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Friday, 19-Jul-2024 03:21:05 JST 翠星石
  in reply to
  - 🍔fat fuck🍔 (road to sick cunt)
  @not_benis That is very complicated, expensive and prone to failure without regular maintenance and testing.
  
  I'm not sure how well diesel engines will like running in a compressed atmosphere of high enough pressure to keep out floodwater.
  
  A wall high enough to stop a tsunami wave is a much better idea and won't fail provided you use decent quality rebar (maybe stainless?) and concrete.
  
  In conversation about 4 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  🍔fat fuck🍔 (road to sick cunt) (not_benis@cawfee.club)'s status on Friday, 19-Jul-2024 03:21:06 JST 🍔fat fuck🍔 (road to sick cunt)
  in reply to
  - 翠星石
  @splitshockvirus @Suiseiseki just have compressed air/oxygen and vent over a pressurized system
  
  In conversation about 4 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  LisPi (lispi314@udongein.xyz)'s status on Friday, 19-Jul-2024 21:21:55 JST LisPi
  in reply to
  - 翠星石
  @splitshockvirus @Suiseiseki The whole vessel also has a tendency to fail catastrophically if something goes wrong.
  
  In conversation about 4 months ago permalink
  
  翠星石 likes this.

Public

Conversation

Notices

Feeds