Advertisements

Tag Archive: Mitsubishi Heavy Industries


The New York Times

 

Yoshikazu Tsuno/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

An offshore wind turbine off the coast of Fukushima.

 

 

 

 

OFF THE COAST OF FUKUSHIMA, Japan — Twelve miles out to sea from the severely damaged and leaking nuclear reactors at Fukushima, a giant floating wind turbine signals the start of Japan’s most ambitious bet yet on clean energy.

The project’s turbines, and even the substation and electrical transformer equipment, float on giant platforms anchored to the seabed.

 

When this 350-foot-tall windmill is switched on next month, it will generate enough electricity to power 1,700 homes. Unremarkable, perhaps, but consider the goal of this offshore project: to generate over 1 gigawatt of electricity from 140 wind turbines by 2020. That is equivalent to the power generated by a nuclear reactor.

The project’s backers say that offshore windmills could be a breakthrough for this energy-poor nation. They would enable Japan to use a resource it possesses in abundance: its coastline, which is longer than that of the United States. With an exclusive economic zone — an area up to 200 miles from its shores where Japan has first dibs on any resources that ranks it among the world’s top 10 largest maritime countries, Japan has millions of square miles to position windmills.

The project is also a bid to seize the initiative in an industry expected to double over the next five years to a global capacity of 536 gigawatts, according to the industry trade group Global Wind Energy Council. The Japanese have lagged at wind turbine manufacturing, which is dominated by European and Chinese makers.

The Japanese government is paying the 22 billion yen, or $226 million, cost of building the first three wind turbines off Fukushima, part of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s push to make renewable energy a pillar of his economic growth program. After that, a consortium of 11 companies, including Hitachi, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Shimizu and Marubeni, plan to commercialize the project.

“It’s Japan’s biggest hope,” said Hideo Imamura, a spokesman for Shimizu, during a recent trip to the turbine ahead of its test run. “It’s an all-Japan effort, almost 100 percent Japan-made.”

What sets the project apart from other offshore wind farms around the world, consortium officials say, is that its turbines, and even the substation and electrical transformer equipment, float on giant platforms anchored to the seabed. That technology greatly expands potential locations for offshore wind farms, which have been fixed into the seabed, limiting their location to shallow waters.

For this reason, there have been few great sites for offshore wind farming in Japan, which lies on a continental shelf that quickly gives way to depths that make it unfeasible to build structures into the seabed. But floating wind farms could change the picture in a big way.

Read More Here

Enhanced by Zemanta
Advertisements

Indian Point Nuclear Plant, New York, NRC ENR 02142013

onthewaytoextinctiononthewaytoextinction

Published on Feb 15, 2013

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-col…
http://www.entergy-nuclear.com/plant_…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_P…
http://www.entergy-nuclear.com/plant_…
http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/nu…

MANUAL REACTOR TRIP ON LOW STEAM GENERATOR WATER LEVEL

“At 1352 [hrs. EST], the Unit 2 CCR [Central Control Room] noted a trip of both heater drain tank pumps and entered Abnormal Operating Procedure 2-AOP-FW-1, ‘Loss of Feedwater’. Prior to the event, Instrumentation and Controls personnel were performing testing on the heater drain tank level control system. Turbine load was reduced per plant procedures, however a manual reactor trip was initiated at 1355 due to an inability to maintain steam generator water levels. The team subsequently entered E-0, ‘Reactor Trip or Safety Injection’. All control rods fully inserted. All safety systems responded as expected with the exception of source range detector N-31 and intermediate range detector N-35. N-31 and N-35 were declared inoperable. The auxiliary feedwater system actuated as expected and provided feedwater to maintain steam generator water level. Decay heat removal is via the steam generators to the main condensers. Offsite power and plant electrical lineups are normal. No primary or secondary code safety relief valves lifted. The reactor is in Mode 3 and stable. Unit 3 was unaffected and remains at 100% power. An investigation is in progress.”

Unit 2 is currently at normal operating pressure and temperature. The licensee plans to issue a press release on this event.

The licensee notified the State of New York Public Service Commission and the NRC Resident Inspector.

FAIR USE NOTICE: Any copyrighted (©) material is made available to advance understanding of ecological, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, which constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission daily reports (what’s happening at nuclear plants near you):
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-col…

Union of Concerned Scientists (watchdog over NRC):
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/

NRC ADAMS Public Documents
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
24-Hour Center for Emergencies number 301-816-5100
Safety or security concern line 1-800-695-7403
General help or information line 1-800-397-4209
Switch Board: Toll free: 1-800-368-5642 | Local: 301-415-7000
http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/contactu…

EPA National Response Center 1-800-424-8802
http://www.epa.gov/epahome/violations…

How close is your home to a nuclear power plant?
http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/nu…
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/r…

Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant Protest~ Before Hurricane Sandy!

Published on Oct 30, 2012

NOTE DATE ON THIS VIDEO First published on Oct 13, 2011 http://youtu.be/7k-MGi4T-oo

I haven’t seen this video yet, but have a peek at it if you get a moment.
HURRICANE SANDY was an INSIDEJOB (?)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXhCHT…

HURRICANE SANDY .. LINKS to MORE: it’s all there..no “AJ” excuse. Patents & more
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/598…
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?…
http://www.seektress.com/patlist.htm
http://www.cfr.org/content/thinktank/…
Veteran weather modification expert Ben Livingston is a former Navy Physicist who briefed President Lyndon B. Johnson on the effectiveness of weather control back in the 1960’s during the Vietnam era, when he was involved in cloud seeding programs that worked to slow down the advance of Vietnamese and Korean troops. Livingston asserts that asserts that hurricane control was a national priority of the government more than 40 years ago and that the technology was fully operational to control the weather at the time.
Livingston explains how for decades the US government has had the power to both lessen and increase the severity of adverse weather for their own purposes.
Dr. Livingston was assigned in 1966 from the Naval weapons research Laboratory to a marine fighter squadron in Vietnam. Instead of guns, the aircraft under Livingston’s control were fitted with cloud seeding equipment. “My mission was to find clouds and seed them for maximum precipitation value” he stated.

Dr. Livingston presents evidence from the Stanford research Institute, who were brought into Project Storm Fury (a weather control program) in the late sixties as a third party, which stated conclusively that knowledge of how to stop hurricanes had been uncovered and that they would be directly liable should a hurricane hit and cause extensive damage and loss of life. Four decades later and Livingston exposes how the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina could have been greatly minimized but was allowed to fully impact Gulf states for political reasons.

Having personally flown on 265 missions into the eyes of hurricanes, Livingston remarks that he was “disgusted” by the failure to lessen the impact of Katrina. Livingston’s revelations that weather control has been a decades long program in which the US government has been deeply involved are particularly alarming given the abundant modern-day evidence of how chemtrails are being used to warp our environment in a secret geoengineering plot that threatens a myriad of unknown human health and ecological consequences.

Operating  Power Plants  in the  United  States  According  to  the  Pennsylvania Sierra Club

Map of the United States Showing Power Plant Locations

Alphabetical List of Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Name

Nuclear Tourist .com

U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors - Years of Operation

United States Regulatory Commissin

These radioactive plumes from severe nuclear accidents were calculated by NRDC based on the actual weather patterns of March 11-12, 2011. The result on any given day will vary according to the type of reactor accident and on the prevailing weather patterns at the time.

These five nuclear power plants had emergency shutdowns in 2011:

There are 104 nuclear reactors in the United States. If one of them lost both primary and backup power for even a matter of hours, it could lead to a meltdown and an airborne radioactive plume. See what could have happened if a reactor in your area had a severe nuclear accident on March 11, 2011.info

Legend

  • Threshold for Radiation Sickness (75 rads)*
  • Maximum Radiation Dose Recommended for Emergency Responders (25 rads)*
  • Evacuation Recommended (5 rads)*
  • Sheltering Recommended (1 rad)*
  • 10-mile Evacuation Zoneinfo
  • 50-mile Potential Contamination Zoneinfo

* Acute radiation dose based on 48 hour exposure, assuming no sheltering. Sheltering can reduce radiation dose by a factor of ten or more.

Why U.S. nuclear power plants are vulnerable to severe accident with nuclear fallout

A future severe nuclear accident at a U.S. nuclear power plant is a real possibility. In 2011 five nuclear power plants in the United States lost primary power due to earthquake or extreme weather events, including tornados, hurricanes, and flooding. Fortunately backup power systems kicked in at these plants and a disaster was averted. But weather is not the only risk factor. Other risk factors include:

  • Type of reactor – There are two types of reactors operating it the United States: Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs) and Pressurized Water Reactors (PWRs). Some experts judge that the design and structure of BWRs do not protect against the release of radiation during a severe accident as effectively as PWRs. The four reactors involved in the Fukushima nuclear crisis were BWRs. On the map, NRDC experts assigned a red flag to a reactor if it is a BWR.
  • Age of reactor – Reactors were designed to operate for 40 years, yet the regulatory body that oversees nuclear safety in the United States, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, has re-licensed some nuclear power plants to operate for 60 years, well beyond their originally engineered design lifetime. On the map, NRDC experts assigned a red flag to a reactor if the NRC has approved the reactor to operate for 60 years.
  • Power level of reactor – The NRC has approved many utility operators to increase the operating power of their nuclear reactors, including for Fukushima-type reactors, and in some cases multiple times and to significantly higher power levels. These so-called “power uprates” push reactors beyond what they were originally engineered to do, and could increase the radiation hazard if a nuclear accident occurred. On the map, NRDC experts assigned a red flag if the NRC has granted a reactor a power uprate.

Read Full Article Here