Belgium bombings 22-Mar-2016 (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Sheik Yerbouti
- Start date
Allow me to clarify this nuclear plant situation
Like any large type of installation, a nuclear reactor operates trough an extensive proces controll system. PLC or better : DCS. This is a fully automated system. A few thousand sensors collect critical data all over the plant and send it via gateways into the main hardware as input signals. In the hardware, the proces controll software program will then controll a few hundreth/thousand output signals wich operates all kinds of devices or actions.
In this software , is a controll program and the critical controll proces safety parameters wich can be altered on several levels. Board operators sit behind a screen monitoring the controll program. The safety kicks in if they fuck up or the installation has a technical issue.
normal chemical installation
You want to start up some chemical reactor. For example a reactor that uses H2 gas and nitrous benzene to make aniline.
Operators will alter some safety's in the program and set it to startup. They will manually controll pumps and valves to do this. When the reactor is succesfully working at a low workload, they will put all pumps and valves into automized, and start to issue increased ratio's. They might manually controll pumps here and there, but thats it.
If at any point critical values are reached or breached, the plant goes into its shut down procedure. You have 0 chance of reverting this. It simply means you need to wait untill you are clear for another try.
Nuclear power plant
Same principle, only a billion times as strict.
- unlike a chemical reactor, this requires a ton of procedures and clearance unlockings to start up the reactor. Proces controll is tight as fuck and will shut it down if you fail. you need all responsible persons in the control rooms to commence start up. Designated people need to work the procedure, if 1 person fails, proces controll will shut off the startup.
Once you are in operation mode, a few hundreth "locks" are placed on manually operated controlls. Board operators monitor the proces and controll certain aspects. This is the current situation. If one of the thousand sensors goes into high alert over a few seconds, the entire reactor will go into shut down.
A chemical reactor that shuts down, can be restarted within the houre unless you need to drain the tanks.
A nuclear reactor that goes unto shutdown, takes a week to restart
Can you alter proces controll ? You'd need very high level clearence to do so, and the plant cannot be running, or it will shut down first.
What if you blow up the main proces controll hardware ? Impossible. IF (big if), you actually manage to reach one of the several hardware controll systems, and blow it up, sensors will simply register an anomaly and start shutdown sequence.
Oh, wich you cannot interrupt, because you cannot get into the reactor as fast. And would die on the way.
Sorry, i'm a shit of a peasant, what about chernobyl.
Chernobyl reactor design is considered by far the most dangerous in history, because of its safety mechanism. When the chain reaction initiates, in order to controll it, a safety system has to be controlled. This is unacceptable. (this isnt the only massive flaw, but the most important one today)
Today, every reactor is build in a way that you need to add to keep the reaction going. if you do nothing, it stops. Chernobyl worked the other way around. You lower graphite staves into the reactor to slow it down. IF that failed, you get a meltdown.
but what about the explosion and fallout etc.
Simple. Because of the failure to lower the graphite staves, the fuel staves melted, the primary water circuit overheated, the steam superheated and it created a steam explosion.
Modern reactors, work with primary(water trough reactor), secondary (via heat exchanger /w primary heated water), tertiary (via heat exchanger /w secondary heated water) water circuits(steam basically). Tertairy water circuits are going trough the alternators to create electricity. In case of a meltdown, the tertiary circuit will see its flow rate go up exponentially to release the heat, and its designed in a way that its impossible for the prime circuit to overheat.
Terrorists ? The entire place is monitored. If terrorists attack it, 1 of a few hundreth personel needs to push the emergency alarm, and a board operator (board rooms are locked btw) will put the reactor into shutdown.
If the reactor goes into shutdown, you can literally do nothing about it, and nothing will go wrong.
Stealing nuclear waste ? You might get into the area's to do so. Swat will have arrived before you even get there.
Like any large type of installation, a nuclear reactor operates trough an extensive proces controll system. PLC or better : DCS. This is a fully automated system. A few thousand sensors collect critical data all over the plant and send it via gateways into the main hardware as input signals. In the hardware, the proces controll software program will then controll a few hundreth/thousand output signals wich operates all kinds of devices or actions.
In this software , is a controll program and the critical controll proces safety parameters wich can be altered on several levels. Board operators sit behind a screen monitoring the controll program. The safety kicks in if they fuck up or the installation has a technical issue.
normal chemical installation
You want to start up some chemical reactor. For example a reactor that uses H2 gas and nitrous benzene to make aniline.
Operators will alter some safety's in the program and set it to startup. They will manually controll pumps and valves to do this. When the reactor is succesfully working at a low workload, they will put all pumps and valves into automized, and start to issue increased ratio's. They might manually controll pumps here and there, but thats it.
If at any point critical values are reached or breached, the plant goes into its shut down procedure. You have 0 chance of reverting this. It simply means you need to wait untill you are clear for another try.
Nuclear power plant
Same principle, only a billion times as strict.
- unlike a chemical reactor, this requires a ton of procedures and clearance unlockings to start up the reactor. Proces controll is tight as fuck and will shut it down if you fail. you need all responsible persons in the control rooms to commence start up. Designated people need to work the procedure, if 1 person fails, proces controll will shut off the startup.
Once you are in operation mode, a few hundreth "locks" are placed on manually operated controlls. Board operators monitor the proces and controll certain aspects. This is the current situation. If one of the thousand sensors goes into high alert over a few seconds, the entire reactor will go into shut down.
A chemical reactor that shuts down, can be restarted within the houre unless you need to drain the tanks.
A nuclear reactor that goes unto shutdown, takes a week to restart
Can you alter proces controll ? You'd need very high level clearence to do so, and the plant cannot be running, or it will shut down first.
What if you blow up the main proces controll hardware ? Impossible. IF (big if), you actually manage to reach one of the several hardware controll systems, and blow it up, sensors will simply register an anomaly and start shutdown sequence.
Oh, wich you cannot interrupt, because you cannot get into the reactor as fast. And would die on the way.
Sorry, i'm a shit of a peasant, what about chernobyl.
Chernobyl reactor design is considered by far the most dangerous in history, because of its safety mechanism. When the chain reaction initiates, in order to controll it, a safety system has to be controlled. This is unacceptable. (this isnt the only massive flaw, but the most important one today)
Today, every reactor is build in a way that you need to add to keep the reaction going. if you do nothing, it stops. Chernobyl worked the other way around. You lower graphite staves into the reactor to slow it down. IF that failed, you get a meltdown.
but what about the explosion and fallout etc.
Simple. Because of the failure to lower the graphite staves, the fuel staves melted, the primary water circuit overheated, the steam superheated and it created a steam explosion.
Modern reactors, work with primary(water trough reactor), secondary (via heat exchanger /w primary heated water), tertiary (via heat exchanger /w secondary heated water) water circuits(steam basically). Tertairy water circuits are going trough the alternators to create electricity. In case of a meltdown, the tertiary circuit will see its flow rate go up exponentially to release the heat, and its designed in a way that its impossible for the prime circuit to overheat.
Terrorists ? The entire place is monitored. If terrorists attack it, 1 of a few hundreth personel needs to push the emergency alarm, and a board operator (board rooms are locked btw) will put the reactor into shutdown.
If the reactor goes into shutdown, you can literally do nothing about it, and nothing will go wrong.
Stealing nuclear waste ? You might get into the area's to do so. Swat will have arrived before you even get there.
It was actually quite the reverse. It was brought up in a middle of a discussion. I was trying to argue that what is considered mainstream Islam changed over the ages. At one point Sufism was almost standard (visiting the shrines of saints and doing Zikr was extremely widespread) and that a return to Sufism would be better today for the region than the moderate or salafi versions of Islam. He countered by saying how wahhabism helped form the Gulf as we know it today and that it is the version most consistent with the texts and so on. He was aware that it is a type of salafism (its not advocating something that early sunnis did not) and was proud to follow it. The guy was saudi so abdelwahab is something big there.
i'm going to make a slight addition to this nuclear plant thing
"but fukushima"
Wel its in the name. "fuk". As in "fuck safety, we are japan".
A civilised country that is concerned with safety, does the following : You make risk assessment. You take it exceptionally serious. You get a risk rating. You issue a saveguard against these risks. You then supersize that saveguard so its dwarfing the potential risk.
Simple example : a bridge. You calculate its maximumload its lets say 10,000 tons. So you calculate how you can design your bridge that has to hold 50,000 tons. When you are done, you use materials so you are certain your bridge will be able to carry your demanded 250,000 tons.
Fukushima ?
We are in a zone that has a chance to get a level 9 tsunami. SO we build a nuclear powerplant, with saveguards that can protect it against a level 5 tsunami at best. We pick this cheap solution, because what can possibily go wrong.
This is not nitpicking. THis is exactly what happened there. They build a nuclear powerplant with walls capable of withstanding a level 5 tsunami in a potential level 9 zone.
In belgium, if the tertiary water circuit (only the primary circuit is radio active, secondary and tertiary are not), shows some 'cracks', we shut it down and have months of debates about it.
"but fukushima"
Wel its in the name. "fuk". As in "fuck safety, we are japan".
A civilised country that is concerned with safety, does the following : You make risk assessment. You take it exceptionally serious. You get a risk rating. You issue a saveguard against these risks. You then supersize that saveguard so its dwarfing the potential risk.
Simple example : a bridge. You calculate its maximumload its lets say 10,000 tons. So you calculate how you can design your bridge that has to hold 50,000 tons. When you are done, you use materials so you are certain your bridge will be able to carry your demanded 250,000 tons.
Fukushima ?
We are in a zone that has a chance to get a level 9 tsunami. SO we build a nuclear powerplant, with saveguards that can protect it against a level 5 tsunami at best. We pick this cheap solution, because what can possibily go wrong.
This is not nitpicking. THis is exactly what happened there. They build a nuclear powerplant with walls capable of withstanding a level 5 tsunami in a potential level 9 zone.
In belgium, if the tertiary water circuit (only the primary circuit is radio active, secondary and tertiary are not), shows some 'cracks', we shut it down and have months of debates about it.
All I see is a blind hate toward a sect that doesn't exist at all. I have read a lot of Mohammed bin Abdulwahab's books, and most of his preaching was focused on monotheism, rejecting polytheism and clearing superstitious and religious innovations which had spread during his time. What I don't understanding is throwing the blame on a person who died two centuries ago for any terrorist attack nowadays. Besides of that, these terrorists read and select verses from the Quran while taking them out of context and using them to justify their deeds while the book is innocent of their misinterpretation.
