Stalins Organ Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Here's a great presentation on the technical aspects of just what the e/q & Tsunami did, and what happened to the reactors afterwards and why - http://energyfromthorium.com/2011/03/30/areva-fd-presentation/ For those of interested in the pro/anti-nuke debate thing I got this link through Depleted Cranium - a blog that is quite aggressively pro-nudcelar power & makes for interesting reading.....but I think the other thread is probably the best place for that debate - can we keep this one technical?? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 What surprised me is that the cooling pools were so vulnerable. Especially how the temporarily shut down #4 threatened to overshadow the 3 active reactors. It seems very sloppy that there was apparently so little safety measures for the cooling pool, especially containment options. It is okay to have surprised me, I'm an idiot. I feel it ought not have surprised the plant designers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 The wikipedia page; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents is actually pretty good on this. The summary tables at the bottom, especially, provide a useful overview. Somewhere I've seen a day-by-day sequence of those tables which I found very informative in conveying the unfolding story. The thing, for me, to keep foremost is that this was 12 simultaneous emergencies or near-emergencies; that is each of the six reactors, and each of the six associated cooling ponds. And, yeah - I agree with EB; the cooling ponds seem like one of those things that'd be quite hard to design such that they wouldn't fail-safe, but they seem to have managed it with this plant design. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 Surely putting each rod into some kind of moderator (like Boron) sleeve would have done nicely - wouldn't have needed to be open to the elements. Also not building the generators on the bluffs above the plant in a tsunami zone is tremendously short-sighted. Profit first, as usual. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Belenko Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 As they were struggling to get power to the plant to get the cooling water pumps going and when they were dropping water from the helos I kept thinking: How difficult is it to helo in five or ten 50KW generators? How difficult is it to helo in ten or twenty 6-inch pumps with 10,000 feet of hose to go from the ocean to the plants? Why the long delays? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedy Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 Why the long delays? Maybe they had far more pressing matters to deal with. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Belenko Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 Maybe they had far more pressing matters to deal with. More pressing than nuclear meltdown. What might that be? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ng cavscout Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 More pressing than nuclear meltdown. What might that be? not drowning? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigduke6 Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 They DID prepare for tsunamis. There are some serious wave breaks at Fukushima. Just not big enough. Still, I think the delays are better explained because obviously the Japanese government is most worried about a reappearance of Godzilla. Or maybe they're bleeding radiation into the ocean sort of as bait for the big guy. Great way to overcome falling property values in Tokyo, have Godzilla come in and kick half of the city down, that's great for the construction industry! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
__Yossarian0815[jby] Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 Surely putting each rod into some kind of moderator (like Boron) sleeve would have done nicely - wouldn't have needed to be open to the elements. . The reaction that generates heat in the spent fuel is within the rod. I think putting boron on the outside wouldn´t change a thing. Boron is not a moderator. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris talpas Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 Was watching NOVA this week and they mentioned that the break walls all over the devastated areas were less effective because the coast subsided by 1 m during the quake. Chris 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.