This is the issue...the reactor plants are all past their expected end of life.
IMO, it's too, too, too risky to keep operating inherently dangerous reactors indefinitely, so if we MUST do nuclear, lets minimize the risks and start getting rid of 40+ year old reactors right away. I really don't care what it costs, because the cost of NOT doing it is too great. Apparently, a vast majority the Japanese population feels the same way, and I can't blame them one bit.
In any significantly unusual event a plant's safety systems will automatically scram the reactor (fully insert control rods) and cut steam to the turbines to isolate the reactor in case of damage....continuing to run the reactor in a damaged state could make things far worse. Off site and/or backup power then kicks in to run the critical systems and cooling loop to manage the decay heat still being generated by the core. This is what happened at Fukushima until the wave hit and took out the diesel generators and damaged electrical switchgear that made it impossible to power the cooling system after the emergency batteries failed.
Modern designs have greatly expanded the passive safety features of nuclear plants. In the new Gen III+ reactors this accident would not even have been possible.
Everyday I lose a little more faith in humanity. Everyday... In a 100 years we may devolve back to horses and mules at the rate we're going here.
That's simply not true, sorry. Try again.I believe the passive shut down reactors have been available since the 70s, but neither we or Japan have built any. They cost a little more. Yeah, fuck the nuclear industry.
As an aside, anyone know where the term SCRAM came from for shutting down the reactor? It comes from the earliest reactors where the rods were lifted and dropped via ropes and pullies. SCRAM means Shutdown Critical Reactor Axe Man...a man would run in with an axe and chop all the ropes, dropping the absorption rods to the bottom instantly, thereby instantly shutting down the reactor.
Ah...the good ol days. LOL
It is simple topology. The hill 300 yards behind the plant was high and dry. It would cost x amount of dollars to locate a plant that much farther away from cooling water, and x amount was too much, or they thought in their arrogance they "had it covered". This was by no means the largest tsunami in Japan's recorded history.You can easily shut it down without external resources, you just cannot keep it cool after you do. You need power to run the pumps. This power has to come from somewhere, and it was supposed to come from diesel generators. However, these generators were under water.
How high should the protection be, 1,000 feet? You know, just incase an asteroid hits the Pacific Ocean? That is what I mean, you build it to a most likely scenario, then a little safer. You cannot protect against everything. Simply not possible.
I feel like my whole world has been turned upside down.
It is simple topology. The hill 300 yards behind the plant was high and dry. It would cost x amount of dollars to locate a plant that much farther away from cooling water, and x amount was too much, or they thought in their arrogance they "had it covered". This was by no means the largest tsunami in Japan's recorded history.
It is simple topology. The hill 300 yards behind the plant was high and dry. It would cost x amount of dollars to locate a plant that much farther away from cooling water, and x amount was too much, or they thought in their arrogance they "had it covered". This was by no means the largest tsunami in Japan's recorded history.
Anything would be better than right on the very edge of the sea.
It is the cooling costs that prompt putting them right on a river, shore, etc.