Skip to main content

What To Do with Your Windows 95 Licenses

Run a nuclear power plant:

Nuclear_Power_Plant_in_Iran

Yes, this is alarming – from Iran’s Bushehr plant – at least on sight. First, that they’d use Windows for this purpose – no ding meant on Microsoft, but it’s a job that requires a real time system like QNX or Wind River or even real time Linux, which doesn’t have export concerns. Second, that error message looks an awful lot like Windows 95, which is an antique.

Well, it’s possible that this is a real time system that simply has error messages that resemble those of Windows 95 or a Windows front end is being used to make the programming easier. And the IAEA is puttering around the plant, too, so international standards do apply at Bushehr.

But you really don’t want error messages popping up on a control room screen – you want a logging system that is closely monitored by trained eyes. Things like error messages can create doubt where none need exist. Bushehr needs a better IT department, we think.

Note: Read the comments on this post. Being on the interwebs and all, this could be a hoax, but we don’t think Bushehr is all that vulnerable to a hoax. Its existence alarms people of many perspectives, though IAEA involvement mitigates alarm by a fair degree. But take a look at the comments – lots of good pushback.

From UPI via Gizmodo

Comments

Adam Gott said…
It's not really that big of a deal if the system was properly engineered. We use Win 3.11 (for workrgroups) as the graphical interface for our distributed control systems. As long as you have backup display systems and you aren't using these things to actually control anything (we have distributed control systems in the field manufactured by L&N/METSO) it's just not that alarming.

When I say 'we' I mean at my place of employement, the Advanced Test Reactor in Idaho.
Jason Ribeiro said…
It could also be WIN2K with the older interface chosen. But, you're right, Linux or some other rock solid variety like BSD unix would be a better choice.
J Wheeler said…
This story & photo contribute unnecessarily to the negative hype surrounding the Bushehr nuclear plant...adding fuel to the political fire that is already virtually out of control.

It is highly unlikely that Bushehr has PC based control systems. While the photo could be from inside the plant, there is no evidence that the image is from a control or protection system.

My guess is we are looking at a display screen of a non-safety related process monitoring tool, or of a simulation. If I am correct then the version of the operating system on the computer generating the display is not in any way related to plant operation or reactor safety.

Let's not spread misinformation about nuclear plants - there is already enough of that going on!
Joffan said…
Hear, hear, John.

And in any case, folks, these are the internets, where nothing should be taken as what it claims to be. My guess on this picture is that it's referring to a chemical plant, not a nuclear reactor, controlling (or simulating) streams like "Sulphuric Acid", "Polyacryl", "Coagulant", "Lime", etc. Read the labels.

Be alert. The world needs more lerts.
Anonymous said…
Joffan> good point! I looked in detail and this is obviously not a nuclear plant. It seems all media including NEI fell for a Greenpeace prank :-D

NEI please clarify this in the post. THnks.

anony-mouse (not Anonymous!!!)
Pamela said…
This picture may or may not be legit, but the Taiwan Lungmen ABWR is running on Windows (well, not running yet, still under construction). When I walked in the control room there was one of those window error messages popped up in the corner of one of the screens control panel touch screens. I don't know what it said because it was in chinese, but the bubble is unmistakable.

Windows doesn't run their plant process computer or safe shutdown systems, but I still found it hilarious.
Anonymous said…
What's the basis for attributing the posting of this image to Greenpeace?
Joffan said…
Incidentally, responding to the article update, I don't think it's Bushehr that's being hoaxed here, but the world media and thus the rest of us. Obviously I don't know "who" or "why" (and hoaxes generally need no "why").
Jason Ribeiro said…
I have to agree with John and others, looks like someone pulled a fast one. I'd say time for an update on the post - whoops :)
rsynnott said…
As long as it's a front-end, it's no problem. One occasionally sees ATMs running Windows 95 or 98; in this case the Windows element is simply a user interface which talks to a secure and safe black box (actually a separate computer in an ATM, usually, I believe). I'm sure this is a similar case.
Joseph Somsel said…
Sorry, but Pamela is incorrect about Lungmen. The plant operator interface screens are either a dedicated safety-related system or a non-safety Invensys platform.

The Lungmen simulator is run off a Dell multiprocessor with a Windows OS.

However, at least one reactor vendor is offering a nuke with Windows OS for the operator interface.
Anonymous said…
That's a water treatment system, definitely not safety related..
Hi,
I am the photographer of this picture and just found this post accidentally. I took this picture in Bushehr Power Plant. You may see more here:

http://webview.upi.com/?ss_c=bushehr%20kheirkhah&ss_nc=&ss_e=&ss_ds=o&s_date=02/25/2009&e_date

Best
Mo,
Chat said…
This is a standard Siemens WinCC or PCS7 message. Don't be worried. Doesn't give problems and is simple to fix.
This system runs under Windows XP or under Windows 2003 server.

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...