A 100-metre-tall wind turbine has dramatically burst into flames,
sending black smoke billowing into the sky. An investigation into the
fire is now underway.

An exclusion zone had to be set up while firefighters tackled the blaze.
Residents living near the scene were also warned to keep their windows
closed.

Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue first shared news about the incident at
around 5.45pm on Sunday, April 24. The incident took place at French
Farm Wind Farm in the village of Thorney near Spalding,

There are a total of 13 turbines at the site. The wind farm has a total
capacity of 26MW, having become fully operational in 2016.

Pictures show long trails of black smoke coming from the burning
turbine. Lincolnshire firefighters handed the operation over to
Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service, which said the cause of the fire
was believed to be accidental and related to an equipment failure.

Cambridgeshire firefighters left the scene at 10.40pm. A crew returned
to reinspect the site on Monday morning before it was handed over to the
company behind French Farm Wind Farm.

A spokesperson for the wind farm said: "On Sunday evening we received a
report of a turbine fire at French Farm Wind Farm. Lincolnshire Fire and
Rescue attended the wind farm and ensured the site was safe.

"The power to and from the turbines was switched off and a precautionary
exclusion zone has been set up. There are no injuries and we would like
to thank the fire service for their assistance.

"An investigation is now underway. The affected turbine will be analysed
by the manufacturer's experts to determine the cause of the fire."

<https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/exclusion-zone-set-up-wind-6997497>

--
Spike

On 26/04/2022 12:11, Spike wrote:
>
> A 100-metre-tall wind turbine has dramatically burst into flames,
> sending black smoke billowing into the sky. An investigation into the
> fire is now underway.
>
> An exclusion zone had to be set up while firefighters tackled the blaze.
> Residents living near the scene were also warned to keep their windows
> closed.
>
> Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue first shared news about the incident at
> around 5.45pm on Sunday, April 24. The incident took place at French
> Farm Wind Farm in the village of Thorney near Spalding,
>
> There are a total of 13 turbines at the site. The wind farm has a total
> capacity of 26MW, having become fully operational in 2016.
>
> Pictures show long trails of black smoke coming from the burning
> turbine. Lincolnshire firefighters handed the operation over to
> Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service, which said the cause of the fire
> was believed to be accidental and related to an equipment failure.
>
> Cambridgeshire firefighters left the scene at 10.40pm. A crew returned
> to reinspect the site on Monday morning before it was handed over to the
> company behind French Farm Wind Farm.
>
> A spokesperson for the wind farm said: "On Sunday evening we received a
> report of a turbine fire at French Farm Wind Farm. Lincolnshire Fire and
> Rescue attended the wind farm and ensured the site was safe.
>
> "The power to and from the turbines was switched off and a precautionary
> exclusion zone has been set up. There are no injuries and we would like
> to thank the fire service for their assistance.
>
> "An investigation is now underway. The affected turbine will be analysed
> by the manufacturer's experts to determine the cause of the fire."
>
> <https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/exclusion-zone-set-up-wind-6997497>
>
Imagine if that had been a fire at a nuclear plant. front page news on
the beeb not a by-line in the Derby telegraph

--
“But what a weak barrier is truth when it stands in the way of an
hypothesis!”

Mary Wollstonecraft

On 26/04/2022 12:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 26/04/2022 12:11, Spike wrote:
>>
>> A 100-metre-tall wind turbine has dramatically burst into flames,
>> sending black smoke billowing into the sky. An investigation into the
>> fire is now underway.
>>
>> An exclusion zone had to be set up while firefighters tackled the blaze.
>> Residents living near the scene were also warned to keep their windows
>> closed.
>>
>> Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue first shared news about the incident at
>> around 5.45pm on Sunday, April 24. The incident took place at French
>> Farm Wind Farm in the village of Thorney near Spalding,
>>
>> There are a total of 13 turbines at the site. The wind farm has a total
>> capacity of 26MW, having become fully operational in 2016.
>>
>> Pictures show long trails of black smoke coming from the burning
>> turbine. Lincolnshire firefighters handed the operation over to
>> Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service, which said the cause of the fire
>> was believed to be accidental and related to an equipment failure.
>>
>> Cambridgeshire firefighters left the scene at 10.40pm. A crew returned
>> to reinspect the site on Monday morning before it was handed over to the
>> company behind French Farm Wind Farm.
>>
>> A spokesperson for the wind farm said: "On Sunday evening we received a
>> report of a turbine fire at French Farm Wind Farm. Lincolnshire Fire and
>> Rescue attended the wind farm and ensured the site was safe.
>>
>> "The power to and from the turbines was switched off and a precautionary
>> exclusion zone has been set up. There are no injuries and we would like
>> to thank the fire service for their assistance.
>>
>> "An investigation is now underway. The affected turbine will be analysed
>> by the manufacturer's experts to determine the cause of the fire."
>>
>> <https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/exclusion-zone-set-up-wind-6997497>
>>
>>
> Imagine if that had been a fire at a nuclear plant. front page news on
> the beeb not a by-line in the Derby telegraph

Quite, that could be because the exclusion zone could be slightly more
than a few "residents living near the scheme".

On 26/04/2022 12:46, Fredxx wrote:
> On 26/04/2022 12:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 26/04/2022 12:11, Spike wrote:
>>>
>>> A 100-metre-tall wind turbine has dramatically burst into flames,
>>> sending black smoke billowing into the sky. An investigation into the
>>> fire is now underway.
>>>
>>> An exclusion zone had to be set up while firefighters tackled the blaze.
>>> Residents living near the scene were also warned to keep their windows
>>> closed.
>>>
>>> Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue first shared news about the incident at
>>> around 5.45pm on Sunday, April 24. The incident took place at French
>>> Farm Wind Farm in the village of Thorney near Spalding,
>>>
>>> There are a total of 13 turbines at the site. The wind farm has a total
>>> capacity of 26MW, having become fully operational in 2016.
>>>
>>> Pictures show long trails of black smoke coming from the burning
>>> turbine. Lincolnshire firefighters handed the operation over to
>>> Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service, which said the cause of the fire
>>> was believed to be accidental and related to an equipment failure.
>>>
>>> Cambridgeshire firefighters left the scene at 10.40pm. A crew returned
>>> to reinspect the site on Monday morning before it was handed over to the
>>> company behind French Farm Wind Farm.
>>>
>>> A spokesperson for the wind farm said: "On Sunday evening we received a
>>> report of a turbine fire at French Farm Wind Farm. Lincolnshire Fire and
>>> Rescue attended the wind farm and ensured the site was safe.
>>>
>>> "The power to and from the turbines was switched off and a precautionary
>>> exclusion zone has been set up. There are no injuries and we would like
>>> to thank the fire service for their assistance.
>>>
>>> "An investigation is now underway. The affected turbine will be analysed
>>> by the manufacturer's experts to determine the cause of the fire."
>>>
>>> <https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/exclusion-zone-set-up-wind-6997497>
>>>
>>>
>> Imagine if that had been a fire at a nuclear plant. front page news on
>> the beeb not a by-line in the Derby telegraph
>
> Quite, that could be because the exclusion zone could be slightly more
> than a few "residents living near the scheme".
>
>
No, it couldn't.
No UK nuke under any circumstances less than nuclear attack would
require more than site evacuation.
As did neither 3MI or Fukushima.
The Fukushima evacuation was political.

--
“The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to
fill the world with fools.”

Herbert Spencer

On 26/04/2022 12:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 26/04/2022 12:46, Fredxx wrote:
>> On 26/04/2022 12:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 26/04/2022 12:11, Spike wrote:
>>>>
>>>> A 100-metre-tall wind turbine has dramatically burst into flames,
>>>> sending black smoke billowing into the sky. An investigation into the
>>>> fire is now underway.
>>>>
>>>> An exclusion zone had to be set up while firefighters tackled the
>>>> blaze.
>>>> Residents living near the scene were also warned to keep their windows
>>>> closed.
>>>>
>>>> Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue first shared news about the incident at
>>>> around 5.45pm on Sunday, April 24. The incident took place at French
>>>> Farm Wind Farm in the village of Thorney near Spalding,
>>>>
>>>> There are a total of 13 turbines at the site. The wind farm has a total
>>>> capacity of 26MW, having become fully operational in 2016.
>>>>
>>>> Pictures show long trails of black smoke coming from the burning
>>>> turbine. Lincolnshire firefighters handed the operation over to
>>>> Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service, which said the cause of the
>>>> fire
>>>> was believed to be accidental and related to an equipment failure.
>>>>
>>>> Cambridgeshire firefighters left the scene at 10.40pm. A crew returned
>>>> to reinspect the site on Monday morning before it was handed over to
>>>> the
>>>> company behind French Farm Wind Farm.
>>>>
>>>> A spokesperson for the wind farm said: "On Sunday evening we received a
>>>> report of a turbine fire at French Farm Wind Farm. Lincolnshire Fire
>>>> and
>>>> Rescue attended the wind farm and ensured the site was safe.
>>>>
>>>> "The power to and from the turbines was switched off and a
>>>> precautionary
>>>> exclusion zone has been set up. There are no injuries and we would like
>>>> to thank the fire service for their assistance.
>>>>
>>>> "An investigation is now underway. The affected turbine will be
>>>> analysed
>>>> by the manufacturer's experts to determine the cause of the fire."
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/exclusion-zone-set-up-wind-6997497>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Imagine if that had been a fire at a nuclear plant. front page news
>>> on the beeb not a by-line in the Derby telegraph
>>
>> Quite, that could be because the exclusion zone could be slightly more
>> than a few "residents living near the scheme".
>>
>>
> No, it couldn't.
> No UK nuke under any circumstances less than nuclear attack  would
> require more than site evacuation.
> As did neither 3MI or Fukushima.
> The Fukushima evacuation was political.

Remind us about the exclusion zone associated with Chernobyl. Was that
more than site evacuation?

That you conveniently missed from your list of nuclear disasters.

On 26/04/2022 14:25, Fredxx wrote:
> On 26/04/2022 12:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 26/04/2022 12:46, Fredxx wrote:
>>> On 26/04/2022 12:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 26/04/2022 12:11, Spike wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> A 100-metre-tall wind turbine has dramatically burst into flames,
>>>>> sending black smoke billowing into the sky. An investigation into the
>>>>> fire is now underway.
>>>>>
>>>>> An exclusion zone had to be set up while firefighters tackled the
>>>>> blaze.
>>>>> Residents living near the scene were also warned to keep their windows
>>>>> closed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue first shared news about the incident at
>>>>> around 5.45pm on Sunday, April 24. The incident took place at French
>>>>> Farm Wind Farm in the village of Thorney near Spalding,
>>>>>
>>>>> There are a total of 13 turbines at the site. The wind farm has a
>>>>> total
>>>>> capacity of 26MW, having become fully operational in 2016.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pictures show long trails of black smoke coming from the burning
>>>>> turbine. Lincolnshire firefighters handed the operation over to
>>>>> Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service, which said the cause of the
>>>>> fire
>>>>> was believed to be accidental and related to an equipment failure.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cambridgeshire firefighters left the scene at 10.40pm. A crew returned
>>>>> to reinspect the site on Monday morning before it was handed over
>>>>> to the
>>>>> company behind French Farm Wind Farm.
>>>>>
>>>>> A spokesperson for the wind farm said: "On Sunday evening we
>>>>> received a
>>>>> report of a turbine fire at French Farm Wind Farm. Lincolnshire
>>>>> Fire and
>>>>> Rescue attended the wind farm and ensured the site was safe.
>>>>>
>>>>> "The power to and from the turbines was switched off and a
>>>>> precautionary
>>>>> exclusion zone has been set up. There are no injuries and we would
>>>>> like
>>>>> to thank the fire service for their assistance.
>>>>>
>>>>> "An investigation is now underway. The affected turbine will be
>>>>> analysed
>>>>> by the manufacturer's experts to determine the cause of the fire."
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/exclusion-zone-set-up-wind-6997497>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Imagine if that had been a fire at a nuclear plant. front page news
>>>> on the beeb not a by-line in the Derby telegraph
>>>
>>> Quite, that could be because the exclusion zone could be slightly
>>> more than a few "residents living near the scheme".
>>>
>>>
>> No, it couldn't.
>> No UK nuke under any circumstances less than nuclear attack  would
>> require more than site evacuation.
>> As did neither 3MI or Fukushima.
>> The Fukushima evacuation was political.
>
> Remind us about the exclusion zone associated with Chernobyl. Was that
> more than site evacuation?
>
> That you conveniently missed from your list of nuclear disasters.

The others were not 'disasters'. Just industrial accidents.

And an out of date reactor built without any secondary containment
operated by idiots who seem to have deliberately sabotaged it is simply
not relevant to any reactor in the West.

--
"And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch".

Gospel of St. Mathew 15:14

On 26/04/2022 17:03, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 26/04/2022 14:25, Fredxx wrote:
>> On 26/04/2022 12:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 26/04/2022 12:46, Fredxx wrote:
>>>> On 26/04/2022 12:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> On 26/04/2022 12:11, Spike wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A 100-metre-tall wind turbine has dramatically burst into flames,
>>>>>> sending black smoke billowing into the sky. An investigation into the
>>>>>> fire is now underway.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An exclusion zone had to be set up while firefighters tackled the
>>>>>> blaze.
>>>>>> Residents living near the scene were also warned to keep their
>>>>>> windows
>>>>>> closed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue first shared news about the incident at
>>>>>> around 5.45pm on Sunday, April 24. The incident took place at French
>>>>>> Farm Wind Farm in the village of Thorney near Spalding,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are a total of 13 turbines at the site. The wind farm has a
>>>>>> total
>>>>>> capacity of 26MW, having become fully operational in 2016.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pictures show long trails of black smoke coming from the burning
>>>>>> turbine. Lincolnshire firefighters handed the operation over to
>>>>>> Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service, which said the cause of
>>>>>> the fire
>>>>>> was believed to be accidental and related to an equipment failure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cambridgeshire firefighters left the scene at 10.40pm. A crew
>>>>>> returned
>>>>>> to reinspect the site on Monday morning before it was handed over
>>>>>> to the
>>>>>> company behind French Farm Wind Farm.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A spokesperson for the wind farm said: "On Sunday evening we
>>>>>> received a
>>>>>> report of a turbine fire at French Farm Wind Farm. Lincolnshire
>>>>>> Fire and
>>>>>> Rescue attended the wind farm and ensured the site was safe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The power to and from the turbines was switched off and a
>>>>>> precautionary
>>>>>> exclusion zone has been set up. There are no injuries and we would
>>>>>> like
>>>>>> to thank the fire service for their assistance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "An investigation is now underway. The affected turbine will be
>>>>>> analysed
>>>>>> by the manufacturer's experts to determine the cause of the fire."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/exclusion-zone-set-up-wind-6997497>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Imagine if that had been a fire at a nuclear plant. front page news
>>>>> on the beeb not a by-line in the Derby telegraph
>>>>
>>>> Quite, that could be because the exclusion zone could be slightly
>>>> more than a few "residents living near the scheme".
>>>>
>>>>
>>> No, it couldn't.
>>> No UK nuke under any circumstances less than nuclear attack  would
>>> require more than site evacuation.
>>> As did neither 3MI or Fukushima.
>>> The Fukushima evacuation was political.
>>
>> Remind us about the exclusion zone associated with Chernobyl. Was that
>> more than site evacuation?
>>
>> That you conveniently missed from your list of nuclear disasters.
>
> The others were not 'disasters'. Just industrial accidents.

You might call them accidents. When a child grazes their knee, that's an
accident. Most would call a meltdown a disaster. I accept that you are
so blind to the risks with nuclear that you wouldn't.

> And  an  out of date reactor built without any secondary containment
> operated by idiots who seem to have deliberately sabotaged it is simply
> not relevant to any reactor in the West.

Quite, most of our reactors are out of date.

On 26 Apr 2022 at 17:20:36 BST, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:

> Most would call a meltdown a disaster. I accept that you are
> so blind to the risks with nuclear that you wouldn't.

Why, if there are no injuries or deaths? Was Buncefield a disaster? It could
have been, but wasn't. I'd say that when more than 200 are killed and 200 more
severly burnt when a liquified gas tanker overturned near a Spanish night
club, *that* is a disaster. (See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Alfaques_disaster). And there are plenty
more industrial accidents even in this day and age, if you bother to look into
it.

You need to get a sense of proportion.

--
Lady Astor: "Winston, you are drunk!"
Churchill: "And you, madam, are ugly. But I shall be sober in the morning."

On 26/04/2022 17:47, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 26 Apr 2022 at 17:20:36 BST, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>
>> Most would call a meltdown a disaster. I accept that you are
>> so blind to the risks with nuclear that you wouldn't.
>
> Why, if there are no injuries or deaths? Was Buncefield a disaster? It could
> have been, but wasn't. I'd say that when more than 200 are killed and 200 more
> severly burnt when a liquified gas tanker overturned near a Spanish night
> club, *that* is a disaster. (See
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Alfaques_disaster). And there are plenty
> more industrial accidents even in this day and age, if you bother to look into
> it.
>
> You need to get a sense of proportion.

I have and I agree. Except a meltdown isn't just an accident. The
reactor and the surrounding area are a disaster.

Chernobyl was a disaster. It wasn't just an accident.

Anyone who thinks these incidents are mere accidents, like a child
grazing their knee, needs to reassess their senses of proportion.

On 26/04/2022 14:25, Fredxx wrote:
> On 26/04/2022 12:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 26/04/2022 12:46, Fredxx wrote:
>>> On 26/04/2022 12:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 26/04/2022 12:11, Spike wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> A 100-metre-tall wind turbine has dramatically burst into flames,
>>>>> sending black smoke billowing into the sky. An investigation into the
>>>>> fire is now underway.
>>>>>
>>>>> An exclusion zone had to be set up while firefighters tackled the
>>>>> blaze.
>>>>> Residents living near the scene were also warned to keep their windows
>>>>> closed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue first shared news about the incident at
>>>>> around 5.45pm on Sunday, April 24. The incident took place at French
>>>>> Farm Wind Farm in the village of Thorney near Spalding,
>>>>>
>>>>> There are a total of 13 turbines at the site. The wind farm has a
>>>>> total
>>>>> capacity of 26MW, having become fully operational in 2016.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pictures show long trails of black smoke coming from the burning
>>>>> turbine. Lincolnshire firefighters handed the operation over to
>>>>> Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service, which said the cause of the
>>>>> fire
>>>>> was believed to be accidental and related to an equipment failure.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cambridgeshire firefighters left the scene at 10.40pm. A crew returned
>>>>> to reinspect the site on Monday morning before it was handed over
>>>>> to the
>>>>> company behind French Farm Wind Farm.
>>>>>
>>>>> A spokesperson for the wind farm said: "On Sunday evening we
>>>>> received a
>>>>> report of a turbine fire at French Farm Wind Farm. Lincolnshire
>>>>> Fire and
>>>>> Rescue attended the wind farm and ensured the site was safe.
>>>>>
>>>>> "The power to and from the turbines was switched off and a
>>>>> precautionary
>>>>> exclusion zone has been set up. There are no injuries and we would
>>>>> like
>>>>> to thank the fire service for their assistance.
>>>>>
>>>>> "An investigation is now underway. The affected turbine will be
>>>>> analysed
>>>>> by the manufacturer's experts to determine the cause of the fire."
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/exclusion-zone-set-up-wind-6997497>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Imagine if that had been a fire at a nuclear plant. front page news
>>>> on the beeb not a by-line in the Derby telegraph
>>>
>>> Quite, that could be because the exclusion zone could be slightly
>>> more than a few "residents living near the scheme".
>>>
>>>
>> No, it couldn't.
>> No UK nuke under any circumstances less than nuclear attack  would
>> require more than site evacuation.
>> As did neither 3MI or Fukushima.
>> The Fukushima evacuation was political.
>
> Remind us about the exclusion zone associated with Chernobyl. Was that
> more than site evacuation?
>
> That you conveniently missed from your list of nuclear disasters.

That was due to the plant having graphite cores and built without a
containment vessel. No such plant is still in service today, nor would
one be built.

The cause of the Chernobyl accident was almost exactly the same as that
of Three mile Island. However, TMI had a containment vessel and
residents were simply advised to stay indoors. Later, due to uncertainty
about a possible hydrogen explosion, children and pregnant women were
advised to evacuate from within a five mile radius of the plant. This
was a precautionary measure, which ultimately proved to be unnecessary.

The possible death toll from Chernobyl, now thought to be an
overestimate, raised the death rate per TWh for nuclear from 0.004 to
0.04, still leaving it the safest way to generate electricity.

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

Later figures suggest that wind power may be approaching the figure of
0.04, but, as Chernobyl was an anomaly, the figure of 0.004 for nuclear
is probably more realistic.

--
Colin Bignell

Colin Bignell wrote:

> Fredxx wrote:
>
>> Remind us about the exclusion zone associated with Chernobyl.
>
> That was due to the plant having graphite cores and built without a containment
> vessel. No such plant is still in service today, nor would one be built.

I was looking earlier, wikip says 8x RBMK-1000 reactors are still in service,
there is some talk about "different models" or "alterations" but I doubt you can
change that much about an existing reactor.

On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 23:25:39 +1000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:

> On 26/04/2022 12:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 26/04/2022 12:46, Fredxx wrote:
>>> On 26/04/2022 12:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 26/04/2022 12:11, Spike wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> A 100-metre-tall wind turbine has dramatically burst into flames,
>>>>> sending black smoke billowing into the sky. An investigation into the
>>>>> fire is now underway.
>>>>>
>>>>> An exclusion zone had to be set up while firefighters tackled the
>>>>> blaze.
>>>>> Residents living near the scene were also warned to keep their
>>>>> windows
>>>>> closed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue first shared news about the incident at
>>>>> around 5.45pm on Sunday, April 24. The incident took place at French
>>>>> Farm Wind Farm in the village of Thorney near Spalding,
>>>>>
>>>>> There are a total of 13 turbines at the site. The wind farm has a
>>>>> total
>>>>> capacity of 26MW, having become fully operational in 2016.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pictures show long trails of black smoke coming from the burning
>>>>> turbine. Lincolnshire firefighters handed the operation over to
>>>>> Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service, which said the cause of the
>>>>> fire
>>>>> was believed to be accidental and related to an equipment failure.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cambridgeshire firefighters left the scene at 10.40pm. A crew
>>>>> returned
>>>>> to reinspect the site on Monday morning before it was handed over to
>>>>> the
>>>>> company behind French Farm Wind Farm.
>>>>>
>>>>> A spokesperson for the wind farm said: "On Sunday evening we
>>>>> received a
>>>>> report of a turbine fire at French Farm Wind Farm. Lincolnshire Fire
>>>>> and
>>>>> Rescue attended the wind farm and ensured the site was safe.
>>>>>
>>>>> "The power to and from the turbines was switched off and a
>>>>> precautionary
>>>>> exclusion zone has been set up. There are no injuries and we would
>>>>> like
>>>>> to thank the fire service for their assistance.
>>>>>
>>>>> "An investigation is now underway. The affected turbine will be
>>>>> analysed
>>>>> by the manufacturer's experts to determine the cause of the fire."
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/exclusion-zone-set-up-wind-6997497>
>>>> Imagine if that had been a fire at a nuclear plant. front page news
>>>> on the beeb not a by-line in the Derby telegraph
>>>
>>> Quite, that could be because the exclusion zone could be slightly more
>>> than a few "residents living near the scheme".
>>>
>>>
>> No, it couldn't.
>> No UK nuke under any circumstances less than nuclear attack would
>> require more than site evacuation.
>> As did neither 3MI or Fukushima.
>> The Fukushima evacuation was political.

> Remind us about the exclusion zone associated with Chernobyl.

He did say UK, stupid.

> Was that more than site evacuation?
>
> That you conveniently missed from your list of nuclear disasters.

No one else but the russians build such stupidly badly designed nukes.

On 26 Apr 2022 at 17:57:59 BST, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:

> On 26/04/2022 17:47, Tim Streater wrote:
>> On 26 Apr 2022 at 17:20:36 BST, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Most would call a meltdown a disaster. I accept that you are
>>> so blind to the risks with nuclear that you wouldn't.
>>
>> Why, if there are no injuries or deaths? Was Buncefield a disaster? It could
>> have been, but wasn't. I'd say that when more than 200 are killed and 200 more
>> severly burnt when a liquified gas tanker overturned near a Spanish night
>> club, *that* is a disaster. (See
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Alfaques_disaster). And there are plenty
>> more industrial accidents even in this day and age, if you bother to look into
>> it.
>>
>> You need to get a sense of proportion.
>
> I have and I agree. Except a meltdown isn't just an accident. The
> reactor and the surrounding area are a disaster.

Not at TMI, and not really at Fukushima. At Fukushima the disaster was the
tsunami and the more than 20,000 it killed.

> Chernobyl was a disaster. It wasn't just an accident.

Yeah, we know this.

--
"Once you adopt the unix paradigm, the variants cease to be a problem - you bitch, of course, but that's because bitching is fun, unlike M$ OS's, where bitching is required to keep your head from exploding." - S Stremler in afc

On 26 Apr 2022 at 18:32:02 BST, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:

> Colin Bignell wrote:
>
>> Fredxx wrote:
>>
>>> Remind us about the exclusion zone associated with Chernobyl.
>>
>> That was due to the plant having graphite cores and built without a containment
>> vessel. No such plant is still in service today, nor would one be built.
>
> I was looking earlier, wikip says 8x RBMK-1000 reactors are still in service,
> there is some talk about "different models" or "alterations" but I doubt you can
> change that much about an existing reactor.

Chernobyl happened because the operators, without realising it, worked hard to
*make* it happen. And you'll note it hasn't happened to any of the others of
similar build. Not that that is any reason to build more of the same.

--
"A committee is a cul-de-sac down which ideas are lured and then quietly strangled." - Sir Barnett Cocks (1907-1989)

On 26/04/2022 18:32, Andy Burns wrote:
> Colin Bignell wrote:
>
>> Fredxx wrote:
>>
>>> Remind us about the exclusion zone associated with Chernobyl.
>>
>> That was due to the plant having graphite cores and built without a
>> containment vessel. No such plant is still in service today, nor would
>> one be built.
>
> I was looking earlier, wikip says 8x RBMK-1000 reactors are still in
> service, there is some talk about "different models" or "alterations"
> but I doubt you can change that much about an existing reactor.

You can add a containment vessel, which is what was done to those
without one after Chernobyl.

--
Colin Bignell

On 26/04/2022 18:53, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 26 Apr 2022 at 17:57:59 BST, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 26/04/2022 17:47, Tim Streater wrote:
>>> On 26 Apr 2022 at 17:20:36 BST, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Most would call a meltdown a disaster. I accept that you are
>>>> so blind to the risks with nuclear that you wouldn't.
>>>
>>> Why, if there are no injuries or deaths? Was Buncefield a disaster? It could
>>> have been, but wasn't. I'd say that when more than 200 are killed and 200 more
>>> severly burnt when a liquified gas tanker overturned near a Spanish night
>>> club, *that* is a disaster. (See
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Alfaques_disaster). And there are plenty
>>> more industrial accidents even in this day and age, if you bother to look into
>>> it.
>>>
>>> You need to get a sense of proportion.
>>
>> I have and I agree. Except a meltdown isn't just an accident. The
>> reactor and the surrounding area are a disaster.
>
> Not at TMI, and not really at Fukushima. At Fukushima the disaster was the
> tsunami and the more than 20,000 it killed.

I agree, and thoroughly dislike the attention away from the 20,000 who died.

But it also clearly shows that the authorities are willing to run a
reactor that was known to have issues with submerged switchgear in the
even of a tsunami. I would say that stupidity was on par with Chernobyl
with a well kept secret associated with the dodgy control rods.
>
>> Chernobyl was a disaster. It wasn't just an accident.
>
> Yeah, we know this.
>

On 26/04/2022 18:17, Colin Bignell wrote:
> On 26/04/2022 14:25, Fredxx wrote:
>> On 26/04/2022 12:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 26/04/2022 12:46, Fredxx wrote:
>>>> On 26/04/2022 12:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> On 26/04/2022 12:11, Spike wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A 100-metre-tall wind turbine has dramatically burst into flames,
>>>>>> sending black smoke billowing into the sky. An investigation into the
>>>>>> fire is now underway.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An exclusion zone had to be set up while firefighters tackled the
>>>>>> blaze.
>>>>>> Residents living near the scene were also warned to keep their
>>>>>> windows
>>>>>> closed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue first shared news about the incident at
>>>>>> around 5.45pm on Sunday, April 24. The incident took place at French
>>>>>> Farm Wind Farm in the village of Thorney near Spalding,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are a total of 13 turbines at the site. The wind farm has a
>>>>>> total
>>>>>> capacity of 26MW, having become fully operational in 2016.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pictures show long trails of black smoke coming from the burning
>>>>>> turbine. Lincolnshire firefighters handed the operation over to
>>>>>> Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service, which said the cause of
>>>>>> the fire
>>>>>> was believed to be accidental and related to an equipment failure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cambridgeshire firefighters left the scene at 10.40pm. A crew
>>>>>> returned
>>>>>> to reinspect the site on Monday morning before it was handed over
>>>>>> to the
>>>>>> company behind French Farm Wind Farm.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A spokesperson for the wind farm said: "On Sunday evening we
>>>>>> received a
>>>>>> report of a turbine fire at French Farm Wind Farm. Lincolnshire
>>>>>> Fire and
>>>>>> Rescue attended the wind farm and ensured the site was safe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The power to and from the turbines was switched off and a
>>>>>> precautionary
>>>>>> exclusion zone has been set up. There are no injuries and we would
>>>>>> like
>>>>>> to thank the fire service for their assistance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "An investigation is now underway. The affected turbine will be
>>>>>> analysed
>>>>>> by the manufacturer's experts to determine the cause of the fire."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/exclusion-zone-set-up-wind-6997497>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Imagine if that had been a fire at a nuclear plant. front page news
>>>>> on the beeb not a by-line in the Derby telegraph
>>>>
>>>> Quite, that could be because the exclusion zone could be slightly
>>>> more than a few "residents living near the scheme".
>>>>
>>>>
>>> No, it couldn't.
>>> No UK nuke under any circumstances less than nuclear attack  would
>>> require more than site evacuation.
>>> As did neither 3MI or Fukushima.
>>> The Fukushima evacuation was political.
>>
>> Remind us about the exclusion zone associated with Chernobyl. Was that
>> more than site evacuation?
>>
>> That you conveniently missed from your list of nuclear disasters.
>
> That was due to the plant having graphite cores and built without a
> containment vessel. No such plant is still in service today, nor would
> one be built.
>
> The cause of the Chernobyl accident was almost exactly the same as that
> of Three mile Island. However, TMI had a containment vessel and
> residents were simply advised to stay indoors. Later, due to uncertainty
> about a possible hydrogen explosion, children and pregnant women were
> advised to evacuate from within a five mile radius of the plant. This
> was a precautionary measure, which ultimately proved to be unnecessary.
>
> The possible death toll from Chernobyl, now thought to be an
> overestimate, raised the death rate per TWh for nuclear from 0.004 to
> 0.04, still leaving it the safest way to generate electricity.
>
> https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html
>
> Later figures suggest that wind power may be approaching the figure of
> 0.04, but, as Chernobyl was an anomaly, the figure of 0.004 for nuclear
> is probably more realistic.

I agree, that is not the point I am making. It is when some are blasé
about nuclear power when issues arise. Being dimwitted to call a
disaster a mere accident shows they're not fit to judge risk.

I agree that the greater public cannot assess risk, but comparing a
single turbine failure and death with Fukushima is crass stupidity and
the sort of thing I would expect from an art student.

On 26/04/2022 18:55, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 26 Apr 2022 at 18:32:02 BST, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>
>> Colin Bignell wrote:
>>
>>> Fredxx wrote:
>>>
>>>> Remind us about the exclusion zone associated with Chernobyl.
>>>
>>> That was due to the plant having graphite cores and built without a containment
>>> vessel. No such plant is still in service today, nor would one be built.
>>
>> I was looking earlier, wikip says 8x RBMK-1000 reactors are still in service,
>> there is some talk about "different models" or "alterations" but I doubt you can
>> change that much about an existing reactor.
>
> Chernobyl happened because the operators, without realising it, worked hard to
> *make* it happen.

It had a number of design flaws that made it difficult to operate.

> And you'll note it hasn't happened to any of the others of
> similar build. Not that that is any reason to build more of the same.

They actually fixed the control rod problem. But yes, they were not the
greatest reactor design.

On 26/04/2022 18:51, Rod Speed wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 23:25:39 +1000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 26/04/2022 12:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 26/04/2022 12:46, Fredxx wrote:
>>>> On 26/04/2022 12:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> On 26/04/2022 12:11, Spike wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A 100-metre-tall wind turbine has dramatically burst into flames,
>>>>>> sending black smoke billowing into the sky. An investigation into the
>>>>>> fire is now underway.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An exclusion zone had to be set up while firefighters tackled the
>>>>>> blaze.
>>>>>> Residents living near the scene were also warned to keep their
>>>>>> windows
>>>>>> closed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue first shared news about the incident at
>>>>>> around 5.45pm on Sunday, April 24. The incident took place at French
>>>>>> Farm Wind Farm in the village of Thorney near Spalding,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are a total of 13 turbines at the site. The wind farm has a
>>>>>> total
>>>>>> capacity of 26MW, having become fully operational in 2016.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pictures show long trails of black smoke coming from the burning
>>>>>> turbine. Lincolnshire firefighters handed the operation over to
>>>>>> Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service, which said the cause of
>>>>>> the fire
>>>>>> was believed to be accidental and related to an equipment failure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cambridgeshire firefighters left the scene at 10.40pm. A crew
>>>>>> returned
>>>>>> to reinspect the site on Monday morning before it was handed over
>>>>>> to the
>>>>>> company behind French Farm Wind Farm.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A spokesperson for the wind farm said: "On Sunday evening we
>>>>>> received a
>>>>>> report of a turbine fire at French Farm Wind Farm. Lincolnshire
>>>>>> Fire and
>>>>>> Rescue attended the wind farm and ensured the site was safe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The power to and from the turbines was switched off and a
>>>>>> precautionary
>>>>>> exclusion zone has been set up. There are no injuries and we would
>>>>>> like
>>>>>> to thank the fire service for their assistance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "An investigation is now underway. The affected turbine will be
>>>>>> analysed
>>>>>> by the manufacturer's experts to determine the cause of the fire."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/exclusion-zone-set-up-wind-6997497>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Imagine if that had been a fire at a nuclear plant. front page news
>>>>> on the beeb not a by-line in the Derby telegraph
>>>>
>>>> Quite, that could be because the exclusion zone could be slightly
>>>> more than a few "residents living near the scheme".
>>>>
>>>>
>>> No, it couldn't.
>>> No UK nuke under any circumstances less than nuclear attack  would
>>> require more than site evacuation.
>>> As did neither 3MI or Fukushima.
>>> The Fukushima evacuation was political.
>
>> Remind us about the exclusion zone associated with Chernobyl.
>
> He did say UK, stupid.

I'm not the stupid one saying 3MI or Fukushima are in the UK.
>
>> Was that more than site evacuation?
>>
>> That you conveniently missed from your list of nuclear disasters.
>
> No one else but the russians build such stupidly badly designed nukes.

Japanese were closely second, not considering the effect of a tsunami.
Something that was very likely during the life of the reactors.

On 26 Apr 2022 at 21:48:17 BST, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:

> On 26/04/2022 18:53, Tim Streater wrote:
>> On 26 Apr 2022 at 17:57:59 BST, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 26/04/2022 17:47, Tim Streater wrote:
>>>> On 26 Apr 2022 at 17:20:36 BST, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Most would call a meltdown a disaster. I accept that you are
>>>>> so blind to the risks with nuclear that you wouldn't.
>>>>
>>>> Why, if there are no injuries or deaths? Was Buncefield a disaster? It could
>>>> have been, but wasn't. I'd say that when more than 200 are killed and 200 more
>>>> severly burnt when a liquified gas tanker overturned near a Spanish night
>>>> club, *that* is a disaster. (See
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Alfaques_disaster). And there are plenty
>>>> more industrial accidents even in this day and age, if you bother to look into
>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>> You need to get a sense of proportion.
>>>
>>> I have and I agree. Except a meltdown isn't just an accident. The
>>> reactor and the surrounding area are a disaster.
>>
>> Not at TMI, and not really at Fukushima. At Fukushima the disaster was the
>> tsunami and the more than 20,000 it killed.
>
> I agree, and thoroughly dislike the attention away from the 20,000 who died.
>
> But it also clearly shows that the authorities are willing to run a
> reactor that was known to have issues with submerged switchgear in the
> even of a tsunami. I would say that stupidity was on par with Chernobyl
> with a well kept secret associated with the dodgy control rods.

Only in the case of a tsunami greater than the 1 in 1000 year tsunami, or
whatever it was. There was a sea wall that would have protected against all
except the exceptional event.

In the case of Chernobyl, the control rods were fine in normal operation,
AIUI. They only became a problem when the reactor was operated outside its
normal operating range. Under these circs they made the problem worse. The
Winky article on this is quite detailed and interesting, I found.

--
What you must understand is that, for today's left intellectuals, education is useful only to the extent that it endorses their prejudices. Beyond that, they refuse to go.

Roger Scruton

On 26 Apr 2022 at 21:57:36 BST, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:

> On 26/04/2022 18:51, Rod Speed wrote:

>> No one else but the russians build such stupidly badly designed nukes.
>
> Japanese were closely second, not considering the effect of a tsunami.
> Something that was very likely during the life of the reactors.

They did consider the effect of a tsunami. Just not one of the magnitude that
actually happened. Although I don't understand why the generators for
emergency power were put in the basement instead of upstairs.

--
All of science is either physics or stamp-collecting.

Ernest Rutherford

On 26/04/2022 21:56, Fredxx wrote:
> On 26/04/2022 18:55, Tim Streater wrote:
>> On 26 Apr 2022 at 18:32:02 BST, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Colin Bignell wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fredxx wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Remind us about the exclusion zone associated with Chernobyl.
>>>>
>>>> That was due to the plant having graphite cores and built without a
>>>> containment
>>>> vessel. No such plant is still in service today, nor would one be
>>>> built.
>>>
>>> I was looking earlier, wikip says 8x RBMK-1000 reactors are still in
>>> service,
>>> there is some talk about "different models" or "alterations" but I
>>> doubt you can
>>> change that much about an existing reactor.
>>
>> Chernobyl happened because the operators, without realising it, worked
>> hard to
>> *make* it happen.
>
> It had a number of design flaws that made it difficult to operate.

And which meant that it would never have been licensed in the West.

>> And you'll note it hasn't happened to any of the others of
>> similar build. Not that that is any reason to build more of the same.
>
> They actually fixed the control rod problem. But yes, they were not the
> greatest reactor design.

I have a vague recollection that they added more, strategically
positioned graphite, but I could be wrong.

On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 06:57:36 +1000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:

> On 26/04/2022 18:51, Rod Speed wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 23:25:39 +1000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 26/04/2022 12:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 26/04/2022 12:46, Fredxx wrote:
>>>>> On 26/04/2022 12:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>> On 26/04/2022 12:11, Spike wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A 100-metre-tall wind turbine has dramatically burst into flames,
>>>>>>> sending black smoke billowing into the sky. An investigation into
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> fire is now underway.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An exclusion zone had to be set up while firefighters tackled the
>>>>>>> blaze.
>>>>>>> Residents living near the scene were also warned to keep their
>>>>>>> windows
>>>>>>> closed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue first shared news about the incident
>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>> around 5.45pm on Sunday, April 24. The incident took place at
>>>>>>> French
>>>>>>> Farm Wind Farm in the village of Thorney near Spalding,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are a total of 13 turbines at the site. The wind farm has a
>>>>>>> total
>>>>>>> capacity of 26MW, having become fully operational in 2016.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pictures show long trails of black smoke coming from the burning
>>>>>>> turbine. Lincolnshire firefighters handed the operation over to
>>>>>>> Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service, which said the cause of
>>>>>>> the fire
>>>>>>> was believed to be accidental and related to an equipment failure.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cambridgeshire firefighters left the scene at 10.40pm. A crew
>>>>>>> returned
>>>>>>> to reinspect the site on Monday morning before it was handed over
>>>>>>> to the
>>>>>>> company behind French Farm Wind Farm.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A spokesperson for the wind farm said: "On Sunday evening we
>>>>>>> received a
>>>>>>> report of a turbine fire at French Farm Wind Farm. Lincolnshire
>>>>>>> Fire and
>>>>>>> Rescue attended the wind farm and ensured the site was safe.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The power to and from the turbines was switched off and a
>>>>>>> precautionary
>>>>>>> exclusion zone has been set up. There are no injuries and we would
>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>> to thank the fire service for their assistance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "An investigation is now underway. The affected turbine will be
>>>>>>> analysed
>>>>>>> by the manufacturer's experts to determine the cause of the fire."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/exclusion-zone-set-up-wind-6997497>
>>>>>> Imagine if that had been a fire at a nuclear plant. front page news
>>>>>> on the beeb not a by-line in the Derby telegraph
>>>>>
>>>>> Quite, that could be because the exclusion zone could be slightly
>>>>> more than a few "residents living near the scheme".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> No, it couldn't.
>>>> No UK nuke under any circumstances less than nuclear attack would
>>>> require more than site evacuation.
>>>> As did neither 3MI or Fukushima.
>>>> The Fukushima evacuation was political.
>>
>>> Remind us about the exclusion zone associated with Chernobyl.
>> He did say UK, stupid.
>
> I'm not the stupid one saying 3MI or Fukushima are in the UK.

No one did that, stupid.

>>> Was that more than site evacuation?
>>>
>>> That you conveniently missed from your list of nuclear disasters.
>> No one else but the russians build such stupidly badly designed nukes.
>
> Japanese were closely second, not considering the effect of a tsunami.

They did consider the effect of a tsunami, that is why the reactor was so
high up.

The problem was that the aux power generators weren't as high.

> Something that was very likely during the life of the reactors.

That's why it was so high up and the tsunami didnt wash over it.

On 26/04/2022 22:15, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 26 Apr 2022 at 21:48:17 BST, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 26/04/2022 18:53, Tim Streater wrote:
>>> On 26 Apr 2022 at 17:57:59 BST, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 26/04/2022 17:47, Tim Streater wrote:
>>>>> On 26 Apr 2022 at 17:20:36 BST, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Most would call a meltdown a disaster. I accept that you are
>>>>>> so blind to the risks with nuclear that you wouldn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why, if there are no injuries or deaths? Was Buncefield a disaster? It could
>>>>> have been, but wasn't. I'd say that when more than 200 are killed and 200 more
>>>>> severly burnt when a liquified gas tanker overturned near a Spanish night
>>>>> club, *that* is a disaster. (See
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Alfaques_disaster). And there are plenty
>>>>> more industrial accidents even in this day and age, if you bother to look into
>>>>> it.
>>>>>
>>>>> You need to get a sense of proportion.
>>>>
>>>> I have and I agree. Except a meltdown isn't just an accident. The
>>>> reactor and the surrounding area are a disaster.
>>>
>>> Not at TMI, and not really at Fukushima. At Fukushima the disaster was the
>>> tsunami and the more than 20,000 it killed.
>>
>> I agree, and thoroughly dislike the attention away from the 20,000 who died.
>>
>> But it also clearly shows that the authorities are willing to run a
>> reactor that was known to have issues with submerged switchgear in the
>> even of a tsunami. I would say that stupidity was on par with Chernobyl
>> with a well kept secret associated with the dodgy control rods.
>
> Only in the case of a tsunami greater than the 1 in 1000 year tsunami, or
> whatever it was. There was a sea wall that would have protected against all
> except the exceptional event.

I read it could cope with a 1 in 100 year tsunami? BICBW

> In the case of Chernobyl, the control rods were fine in normal operation,
> AIUI. They only became a problem when the reactor was operated outside its
> normal operating range. Under these circs they made the problem worse. The
> Winky article on this is quite detailed and interesting, I found.

I have read this and seen the HBO series. The issue is that in the
Chernobyl disaster, graphite ends on the control rods sent the reactor
critical. Of course they were operating outside the normal operating
range, but that was in part down to confidence the reactor could be shut
down quickly.

On 26/04/2022 21:48, Fredxx wrote:
> On 26/04/2022 18:53, Tim Streater wrote:
>> On 26 Apr 2022 at 17:57:59 BST, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 26/04/2022 17:47, Tim Streater wrote:
>>>> On 26 Apr 2022 at 17:20:36 BST, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Most would call a meltdown a disaster. I accept that you are
>>>>> so blind to the risks with nuclear that you wouldn't.
>>>>
>>>> Why, if there are no injuries or deaths? Was Buncefield a disaster?
>>>> It could
>>>> have been, but wasn't. I'd say that when more than 200 are killed
>>>> and 200 more
>>>> severly burnt when a liquified gas tanker overturned near a Spanish
>>>> night
>>>> club, *that* is a disaster. (See
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Alfaques_disaster). And there are
>>>> plenty
>>>> more industrial accidents even in this day and age, if you bother to
>>>> look into
>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>> You need to get a sense of proportion.
>>>
>>> I have and I agree. Except a meltdown isn't just an accident. The
>>> reactor and the surrounding area are a disaster.
>>
>> Not at TMI, and not really at Fukushima. At Fukushima the disaster was
>> the
>> tsunami and the more than 20,000 it killed.
>
> I agree, and thoroughly dislike the attention away from the 20,000 who
> died.
>
> But it also clearly shows that the authorities are willing to run a
> reactor that was known to have issues with submerged switchgear in the
> even of a tsunami.

That didn't stop the battery backup from keeping the plant running
normally for eight hours. It wouldn't have stopped the backup generators
from keeping it running, if their fuel tanks had been mounted a metre or
so higher and they had not floated away.

I would say that stupidity was on par with Chernobyl
> with a well kept secret associated with the dodgy control rods.
>>
>>> Chernobyl was a disaster. It wasn't just an accident.

Most man-made disasters start out with accidents.

>>
>> Yeah, we know this.
>>
>

--
Colin Bignell