Quote:
Originally Posted by randolph
Conquistidor
Risk Mitigation?
There are still Mark 1 reactors in this country. Their containment vessel is much less robust that subsequent GE plants. That said, there has been no failure of any Mark 1 containment vessels. However, we still don't know if one has failed in Japan.
|
Huh. It was my understanding that most, if not all Mark 1 reactors have either been done away with or have been retrofitted and updated.
Quote:
The Japanese were well aware of the risk of placing nuclear plants on the East coast of the country and they planned carefully. They assumed a potential tsunami created by a 7.2 earthquake to be the maximum. They built a 25 foot breakwater wall around the plant. They installed backup diesel generators to maintain water levels in the reactor in case of a failure.
Well, instead of a 7.2, they had a 9.0! A 9.0 is many times more powerful than a 7.2 and the tsunami created, rushed over the breakwater as if it wasn't there. Severe damage was done to the plant including the diesel backup generators.
Mother nature seems to have a habit of doing in man's the best laid plans.
|
But again, in an area of the world with such active seismic activity, it seems like it would have been alot safer to put the reactor farther inland with reserve cisterns available for cooling. Placed right on the coast, it just screams like it's begging for trouble. Kinda like our San Onofre facility AKA The 2 Giant Titties...
The 2 Giant Titties! http://media.trb.com/media/photo/2009-08/48572366.jpg
__________________
*More posts than Bionca*
[QUOTE=God(from Futurama)]Right and wrong are just words; what matters is what you do... If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope... When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
|