The perceived danger of different alternatives is vastly influenced by the media reporting. It is not necessarily the same as the actual danger. I must admit that I am currently really worried about what happens if global warming really kicks in. Most equilibrium systems have mechanisms that strive to restore the equilibrium, but once you get outside the stable region things go bad in a very non-linear way (and also very quickly). Just hoping there is some more restoring mechanisms (not yet identified) that will kick in......would say that this is a true design challenge which seems to be too difficult for us - the local benefits (driving cars etc etc) go in the opposite of what is good for the global system....
Best wishes!
/Charlotte
Ps. Cynical observation: there was yet another coal mine disaster just now. No discussion on the dangers of coal has followed....
Charlotte Magnusson
Associate Professor
Certec, Division of Rehabilitation Engineering Research
Department of Design Sciences Lund University
Lund
Sweden
tel +46 46 222 4097
fax +46 46 222 4431
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Filippo A. Salustri
Sent: den 21 mars 2011 05:21
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Status of "design" re Japanese nuclear crisis? Reply to Norman
Karen et al,
Please see comments embedded below.
On 17 March 2011 13:28, Karen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> [...]
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 8:23 PM, Clive Dilnot <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> Totally agree on this aspect. But unortunately many scientists, engineers
> etc
> do not think this way. Despite the prowess of what advance science and
> technology can do,
> the ultimatum is still human factors. I see this tragic event the result of
> systemic loopholes.
>
Could you identify the specific systemic loopholes to which you refer?
> The other thought that came to my mind is that we over emphasis about
> nuclear energy and being
> awfully over confident about our abilities to contain such technology.
> [...]
>
Again, look at the track record of nuclear power. It's excellent. I don't
understand the source of your concern.
> Nuclear energy is by far, I think, the most dangerous form of energy to
> use.
>
What? More dangerous than petroleum?!?! Please indicate how you arrive at
this conclusion.
> It may be economical from a commercial standpoint, but the opportunity cost
> is often devastating. Apparently Fukushimaya had mechanical problems way
> back in the 70s. But strangely, they have not been totally cleared off. It
> makes me wonder how could engineering problems such as pressure and cooling
> systems were solved. I would have thought policies or products to encourage
> alternative fuel sources with possible policies to cut down unneccessary
> consumption would greatly reduce the need for electrical energy. On many
> levels, psychology may well be the most fundamental aspect in solving
> energy
> problems.
>
I would remind the audience again that the Fukushima reactors are, like, 50
years old. Too many people seem to think that all reactors are the same.
They're not. The new ones are FAR superior. And considering how well the
Fukushima reactors did given the severity of the events, that's saying a
lot.
> The immediate thought was to design a kind of 'lead net' that covers the
> entire nuclear plant in several layers before it actually explodes. Damn
> thick wall, but I suppose it is better than nothing or leaving 50 brave
> Japanese rescuers choosing to risk their lives to look for survivors. I
> think its utterly unfair to these people. The persons who design
> the reactors and those who allowed the faulty systems to be in place for so
> long should be the ones
> to take on most of the responsibilities.
>
That won't work. Lead is *incredibly* toxic. Concrete would be better.
Cheaper and easier to work with.
And if you're referring to the Fukushima 50, I think they were workers
trying to control the reactors, not look for survivors.
It is completely unclear that there were any "faulty" systems at all. Those
reactors were designed in the 1960's. One must place their design in
context, and one cannot expect a 50 year old design to be as good as what
could be done today.
There may have been management and political errors - experience suggests
that is far more often the problem.
Let's at least wait for some solid information on what really happened
before we start hunting witches.
>
>
> > My original post asked two questions. The first was open-what does the
> > word "design" mean when it is used in connection with the design of (or
> > what I would call the configuration) of the Japanese nuclear plants?
> > What is "design" here? What is that in the nuclear plant or as a quality
> > of the plant, that causes commentators to talk of its 'design"?
> >
>
>
> Design here would simply mean to be responsible; be wise & honest to know
> the risks; be
> intelligent to fit all the demands with a solution that has a backup for
> possible accidents despite the
> magnitude.
>
*A* backup? Most reactor systems have 2 or 3 backups. Your definition
isn't as stringent as that used in the nuclear industry.
>
> No design is considered even passable, when any kind of problem is
> overlooked.
> The age of the reactors may be a problem. But I think the system in place
> is
> a greater problem.
> The thinking of those people who design the policies and the physical
> product are the most
> important factor. Everything grows old with age. But why is it that some
> products/buildings could last
> while some don't? Simply because the strict attention to every design
> detail
> in compliance to
> different kinds of human environments & our common natural environment
> keeps
> it good.
>
While this is a partial explanation, let's consider again the "perfect
storm" in Japan. The earthquake was far stronger than anything else ever
felt in Japan. A magnitude 9 earthquake releases the equivalent of over 450
megatons of energy. Converted to kilowatts, that would be enough to power
the ENTIRE UNITED STATES for a MONTH. That's a lot of energy.
Then a 10m wall of water came in.
And you think the reactors would /not/ have suffered?
>
> Only have this bit of bedtime for the long torso and tail bit of Clive's
> detailed thought on the mega accident.
> It's actually a wake up call not only for Japan but to everyone of us on
> this globe. We have not yet figure out
> the pending danger it poses to the environment. Looking at the line of
> eathquakes that have happend,will there be a string of other similar
> earthquakes waiting to errupt ?
>
Don't you think the earthquake scientists are well aware of this? If they
saw a trend, you think they'd withhold that info? I don't. If they've not
reported anything, that's because they've not found a pattern (yet).
Again, when one looks at the facts, I cannot see how one can claim that
there is pending danger. I think there's far more pressing problems than
nuclear accidents. I think those other problems are FAR more likely to ruin
the planet.
>
> Pretty frighteining stuff if you pile all these up with what Dr Stephen
> Hawkings had mentioned that
> our future is in space. But instead of lining up to fly to Mars or wherever
> into the unknown, we need to solve the problem that is inherent within us.
> I
> see it as a root problem. For if it is not solved by the root, your
> evergreen tree cannot grow, and nevermind if it would last.
>
Sorry; what problem is that? That we're not perfect?
>
> That's how I see it.
>
> Night night all,
> Karen Fu
>
Sweet dreams. Sincerely.
Cheers.
Fil
--
Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University
350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON
M5B 2K3, Canada
Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
Fax: 416/979-5265
Email: [log in to unmask]
http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
|
