Dutch Cabinet says it will allow the construction of a new nuclear plant in 2015

[FBaggins]

AMSTERDAM — The Dutch government says it will allow construction of a new nuclear reactor to begin in the south in 2015. In a letter to parliament, Economics Minister Maxim Verhagen said Friday one of the two companies vying to build the plant will be granted a final license, if it can meet safety conditions and is capable of operating without government financial support.

If a permit to build the reactor is granted, it would be the first new reactor in the Netherlands since the early 1970s. The Cabinet has endorsed nuclear energy as being relatively cheap and environmentally friendly.

The prospective site is Borssele, where one of the country's two current reactors is located. Delta NV and Energy Resources Holding BV are seeking the license.


http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5gk0mcKj4zT9z_5lo2T1HARuC94eA?docId=5920410

From other reporting - the plant owner must deal with their own waste and storage, as well as fund research into dealing with the waste long-term. The design must be tough enough to survive an aircraft strikem abd it's supposed to be safe enough to have a "once in a million years" meltdown rate.

[Dogmudgeon]

1. Home of Greenpeace, Inc.

The Sea Org of environmentalism.

--d!

[madokie]

2. That sounds like a pretty steep mountain for them to climb

just getting past the 'without government financial support' will more than likely stop them dead in their tracks. I guess time will tell.

"the plant owner must deal with their own waste and storage, as well as fund research into dealing with the waste long-term. The design must be tough enough to survive an aircraft strikem abd it's supposed to be safe enough to have a "once in a million years" meltdown rate." This part really sounds good though. I hope to see that they can do this but holding my breath I won't.

[FBaggins]

3. Not really.

I think that all of the major designs already claim to be better than "one in a million". of course... whose to know until it happens, right?

And government funding has really always been a false argument. European reactors have been built without such support (when they aren't government-owned in the first place).

Tough enough to survive an aircraft hit is a bit like #1. They're designed that way already... but until it happens, it's all simulation.

The fact that there are two companies bidding on the project knowing these requirements is evidence that the mountain isn't too steep.

[madokie]

4. You may be right, time will tell

you are aware that the simulation they used to prove that our containment domes were 747 proof was flawed don't you. I don't have the link but I've read it here on these pages before. Working from memory here but best I remember they used a fighter jet with the fuel tanks filled with water and not jet fuel and used a concrete wall that wasn't anchored down so it was able to move and from that experiment they determined that all was good to go. Trouble is it was not a true test at all. Since you are so into more nukes why don't you do a search and prove me wrong. personally I'm off to get my wife from work so I'll be gone a while.
During this snow I've been a real go getter, take her to work then go get her.

I'm aware water is heavier than jet fuel but it also is not explosive which could make a big difference.

[FBaggins]

6. I meant computer simulations

you are aware that the simulation they used to prove that our containment domes were 747 proof was flawed don't you.

I'm aware that naysayers claimed that it was... but that doesn't make it so. There was a special on a few days ago where some group took on a few of the biggest names in the "9/11 truther" movement. Some of the tests were pretty silly, but in one case they took on the notion that jet-fuel fires can't damage steel girders. They took a (scaled down) I-beam and loaded it up with weight... and placed it over a pit filled with jet fuel. In a short period of time (just as engineers and scientists had said) the beam softened and warped... ceasing to support the load. The truthers immediately dismissed it as flawed. Even though it addressed the crux of the argument (that you can see here on DU in hundreds upon hundreds of posts) that fire at that temperature doesn't weaken steel enough. It was flawed because the beam wasn't big enough and wasn't tied in to other beams (and on and on).

In short... the only valid test would be one that agreed with them OR was essentially a full-scale recreation.

It's really the same thing here. That's a smaller plane. Maybe it isn't going fast enough. The wall isn't the same. etc. But that isn't the measure of a "true test". Nobody is going to build an actual containment building and run an actual 747 into it just for testing. Nor do you need to. You can scale things down and still get a valid test.

best I remember they used a fighter jet with the fuel tanks filled with water and not jet fuel

Sounds like the right way to go. Fire wouldn't add much to the mix in this case...except to obscure the view of the impact. Fuel doesn't turn a plane into a shaped charge... so it wouldn't add appreciably to the damage to a reinforced concrete wall. It's also relevant to point out that the fuel on a jetliner is almost entirely in the wings.

I'm aware water is heavier than jet fuel but it also is not explosive which could make a big difference.

Water isn't enough heavier to make much of a difference. The fighter is still substantially less massive... but the engine was really the focus of the test (see below).

used a concrete wall that wasn't anchored down so it was able to move

The theory there being that some of the energy would be absorbed in moving the block of concrete? I suppose that some of it was... but the flip side of that argument is that the comparatively small block did not have the benefit of being tied into the rest of a massive structure. There are also usually other buildings surrounding the reactor, which would absorb part of the impact.

Recent computer analysis of current designs indicates the the "shock loading" of an aircraft impact was not substantially greater than the significant earthquake that these containment buildings were already designed to handle.

Yes, it was a fighter (a big one... but certainly not a jumbo jet). But most people don't realize that there are really only three parts of a passenger just (five on a 747) that have much substance to them. The spine/keel/whatever that runs down the center of the aircraft and the two (four) engines. The rest of it is a pretty thin "tin can" filled with fuel. Well... ok... the wing supports are pretty substantial as well, but they are perpendicular to the line of flight and won't do much damage).

Take a look at the damage done to the Pentagon on 9/11 (ignoring truther BS). There's a reason that there were only three holes of any real size in the facade. Even though it's a great big plane, the concrete easily wins the battle against all but the two engines and center-line... and it was really the engines that made the real penetration.

So this test is pretty valid. You get to see what an engine does against a concrete block. It's not to scale (but then, neither is the concrete), but they can account for that.

So the terrorist has to take over a plane (not nearly as easy as a decade ago)... then not only fly the plane into the target, he needs to hit it dead-on with one of the engines. That's no small task if you compare the size of a reactor to that of the 9/11 targets. Even if that could penetrate the containment building (and it probably could on some reactors), it has to be lined up to hit the inner reactor vessel which is both smaller and carries it's own substantial steel/concrete shell.

Take a look at one of "new" (really decades old... but not in use yet) designs (below). Consider the line that the hypothetical plane would have to take in order to line an engine up to hit that reactor vessel. There's no way to practice for that run. The chances of success are miniscule. Which is probably why they rejected the attempt on 9/11 and went after big tall buildings.

[madokie]

7. It was flawed

you can sit there and make all the excuses about how this or that had to happen and its still a flawed test that they used to prove that the containment buildings are large planes going 500 plus mph proof. In this whole scenario the speed is the most important aspect, not the size of the projectile, 747 or larger in this case. Thats what I'm saying.
Discounting the fact the wall used wasn't anchored, in the real world, in a real test that alone would make one hell of a difference.
You want to prove the containment buildings can withstand the thrust of a 747 or larger plane without building a full scale containment structure then scale it down including the plane, the speed must stay the same as it is the most important component of an experiment such as this would be.

Take a hammer and a grinding wheel of much larger mass for instance. You can take the hammer and break the grinding wheel down to its individual components but add speed to the grinding wheel and you can grind away many and I mean many hammers. Its the speed that matters more so than the mass. This was explained in my first year physics textbook. Demonstrated to me many times though out live in my real world use of hammers and grinding wheels.

I don't buy what your selling, sorry :hi:

[PamW]

8. You have a physics book?

I'm surprised that you have a first year physics textbook. Since you do, try opening the
book to the chapter about conservation of momentum. Conservation of momentum is a very
important concept in physics that helps analyze collisions, because even though a lot of
complicated interactions take place in a collision, they all have to conserve momentum,
and momentum is conserved throughout the collision. See:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/conser.html

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/elacol.html

We need a bit of information about the mass of concrete slab
and the jet. From page 167 of the book "Nuclear Power in Canada and Beyond":

http://books.google.com/books?id=Eq_3A95k1u8C&pg=PA167&lpg=PA167&dq=sandia+phantom+jet+containment+mass&source=bl&ots=CXKYE8-r2T&sig=qL4L4D8ZMh8GilzTwo0q9J0KsS8&hl=en&ei=QfdWTbe_FpG6sQOqz7GcDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=sandia%20phantom%20jet%20containment%20mass&f=false

we see that the concrete block had a mass 25 times that of the jet
"From the mass ratio of the jet to concrete slab (1:25)..."

Momentum is conserved in the collision. Before the collision, all the momentum is in the jet.
After the collision, that momentum is shared between the pieces of jet and the block. However,
we can make an assumption that simplifies the arithmetic. Let the block get all the momentum.
This will be an upper limit for the amount of momentum the block can get, and thus provide an upper
limit for its velocity. The true velocity will be somewhat less since momentum had to be shared with
the remnants of the jet.

Let mj = mass of the jet
mb = mass of the concrete block
vj = velocity of jet before collision
vb = velocity of block after collision

So assuming all the momentum was in the jet before the collision,
and all the momentum was in the block after the collision, we
can write the following equation.

(mj)*(vj) = (mb)*(vb)

or vb = (vj)*(mj)/(mb) = vj/25

The last result comes from using the ratio of the masses of jet and block.
>From the above book link, the mass of the block was 25X the mass of the jet.
Because of our assumption, vb is an upper limit on the velocity of the block.

We can now calculate the energy for the block. The kinetic energy of an object
is one-half the product of the mass and the square of the velocity. So the
energy of the block Eb is given by:

Eb = (1/2)(mb)(vb)2

We know that (mb)=25(mj) and (vb)=(vj)/25 so

Eb = (1/2)(25 mj)(vj/25)2 = (1/2)(mj)(vj)2 / 25

however (1/2)(mj)(vj)2 is the energy of the crashing jet, Ej

So Eb = Ej/25 = 4% of Ej

Recall this is a maximum, the block actually got less than
4% of the jet's energy.

So only 4% of the jet's energy went into moving the block. The
remainder 96% of the energy was dissipated in doing damage.

This is exactly what is stated in the above book:

"...we know that 96% of the jet's kinetic energy went into the jet's destruction
and the penetration of the concrete, which the remaining 4% was dissipated in
accelerating the slab."

So the fact that the slab was not anchored makes only a trivial 4% change
in the energy available to do damage.

The jet only penetrated 2.5 inches into the containment wall. The addition of
another 4% of the energy is not going to make the penetration increase several feet.

The book also explains that the fuselage of even a large wide-body jet is no match
for the containment wall. The only parts of the aircraft that might have a chance
to breach the wall are the engines.

That was also the conclusion reached by the scientists and engineers at Sandia
National Labs who conducted the test. Therefore, they continued their test series
by slamming whole engines into containment walls.

Shortly after 9/11, the ASME, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers held a
briefing to instruct members of Congress and their staffs on the supposed threat
of terrorist-hijacked airliners to nuclear power plants:

http://www.asmenews.org/archives/backissues/jan02/features/nucbrief.html

The ASME briefing referred to these tests at Sandia:

"During the Sandia tests in 1997, a 4,000-pound jet engine slammed into a 24-inch-thick
concrete wall at 240 mph, resulting in extensive cracking and spallation — concrete pieces
on the inside of the wall become dislodged and airborne — but no penetration.

The same engine impacting a 63-inch-thick, reinforced concrete wall, similar to the exterior
of a nuclear containment structure, at 480 mph resulted in less damage and no penetration."

So the only part of an airliner that could be of concern, which were the engines, were shown
in a series of tests by Sandia National Laboratory that the jet engines can not penetrate the
containment either, even at full airliner speeds.

Hence, the conclusion by the ASME as delivered to members of Congress:

Tests conducted by Sandia National Laboratories indicate that America's 103 nuclear power
plants provide a significant level of protection against terrorist attacks, experts said
last month during an ASME-sponsored briefing on Capitol Hill."

The anti-nukes have been lying that these test are flawed. By claiming that the
block not being anchored invalidates the test, when a simple calculation doable by any
junior high school student that has had a physics class shows the effect of moving the
block to be a mere 4% in the available energy. When the anti-nukes insist otherwise, they
are just proving that they are ignorant of junior high school physics.

Sandia National Laboratory stands behind its tests. The ASME, the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, the professional society for mechanical engineers endorses the tests.

It would appear that the containment wall alone would suffice for protection of the reactor
from airliners. However, the containment wall is just the first stage of the protection.
There are more barriers inside the containment. I refer to the following diagram:



In addition to the 5 foot thick containment wall, there's another 5 foot thick wall of
steel reinforced concrete called the "dry well wall" in the figure. Inside of this
is the biological shield meant to shield the reactor's radiation. However, this wall
is a 4 foot thickness of leaded concrete with one-inch thick steel liners inside and
outside. Then there's the 4 to 8 inch thick reactor vessel.

So between the crashing airliner and the reactor core are 14 feet of concrete and
6 to 10 inches of steel. In the Sandia tests, a full-sized jet engine traveling at
jet cruising speed can only penetrate two-and-a-half inches of concrete. I'd say
there is a very healthy safety margin.

The safety of nuclear power plants is assured by the laws of physics. The appalling ignorance
of the laws of physics by the anti-nukes is the reason they don't understand why nuclear power
plants are safe.

The anti-nukes postulate all sorts of accidents that could result in harm to the public. However,
when the anti-nukes don't know their physics, and allow water to run uphill, heat to flow from
cold temperatures to hot temperatures, gases to flow from low pressure regions to high pressure
regions, and for momentum to be gained in collisions instead of being conserved, then their
hypothesis are not worth the bandwidth used to promulgate them. Their conjectures are just
baseless fantasies

Did you pass your first year physics class?

PamW

[GliderGuider]

10. Thank you for that!

It's great to have someone here who can lead us through the physics and make it comprehensible to all.

I'm going to refer "terrorism skeptics" back to this post in the future.

[PamW]

9. Bad Physics and Math

Since momentum is the product of mass and velocity, P=mv, mass and velocity are equal
in their importance.

Since energy is proportional to the square of the velocity, E=1/2mv^2, velocity is more important
for energy. However, evidently you don't realize that works against your case.

Let's make the velocity even more important for energy than it is in reality.
Suppose energy were proportional to the cube of the velocity instead of the square.

Then from my previous post, there would be an extra factor of 25 in the denominator and

Eb = Ej/625. The block would get even less energy, less than 1/6 of 1%

PamW

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[miyazaki]

11. kick,(in the pants). n/t