I run a small software business in central Japan. Over the years, I’ve worked both in the local Japanese government (as a translator) and in Japanese industry (as a systems engineer), and have some minor knowledge of how things are done here. English-language reporting on the matter has been so bad that my mother is worried for my safety, so in the interests of clearing the air I thought I would write up a bit of what I know.
-
Well worth a readBehold the warranty -- the bold print giveth and the fine print taketh away. -
Inteesting read unril I read thisOriginally posted by Sysman View Post
The instant response — scramming the reactors — happened exactly as planned and, instantly, removed the Apocalyptic Nightmare Scenarios from the table
Oh really ? -
Most likely - a lot more reactors could have gone critical and have lots of explosions all over Japan.Originally posted by AlfredJPruffock View Post
What they failed (in my view) to take into account is tsunami - it might have been convinient to place nuclear power stations near water that is necessary for them to not blow up even when they are "shutdown", but placing them so close to the shore that can be affected by tsunami seems reckless to me.
Frankly, why are those things not deep underground?
Comment
-
Yes cos that's the best place to be in an earthquake. Deep underground with only a lift shaft to get you in and out.Originally posted by AtW View PostFrankly, why are those things not deep underground?While you're waiting, read the free novel we sent you. It's a Spanish story about a guy named 'Manual.'Comment
-
NORAD command center was build inside mountain to withstand earthquakes and near direct hits of massive nukes.Originally posted by doodab View Post
Some meltdown in a nuclear plant is ok if its underground - after all they were blowing up nukes there and if that works for full blown explosion then it should work for nuclear plans, locating them near water (!) is crazy.Comment
-
Locating them near water is what makes them safe in the first place. They weren't built there because the workers like the sea view.Originally posted by AtW View PostComment
-
How does locating a nuclear reactor in known earthquake zone where tsunamies are common is safe?Originally posted by PRC1964 View Post
Maybe it's entirely safe to build such a reactor in place of shaunbhoy's family house in Devon, but it sure ain't safe in place where that reactor had been.
Frankly this whole concept of "we'll shutdown plant in event of earthquake instantly" is total bulltulip - there is no proper on/off with such reactors, get some damage to water delivery and the whole thing blows - how is that a safe design?!?!Comment
-
Does anyone know how high the waves got at the Fukushima power plant where the failing reactors are located? Some chap on the TV said the diesel trucks got washed away, although other people are saying the room where the generators were kept was flooded. How bad did it get there?
At the end of the day all reactors failed through pump failure (for whatever underlying reason you might believe) and that's why modern designs don't have that feature, I gather.Comment
-
So where do you propose to build them. Underground a long way away from water? And how do you cool it? You've got something like 2 billion Watts of heat to get rid of somehow. That's like 2 million 1 bar electric fires, or maybe 5 million servers.Originally posted by AtW View PostComment
-
Nowhere - I think this technology is inherently unsafe with deadly consequences much worse than fire.Originally posted by TimberWolf View Post
Using coal stations makes more sense - and if the Greens don't like it then they can live next to nuclear station
Comment
Comment