View Single Post
Old 03-15-2011, 03:05 AM   #34 (permalink)
roflwaffle
Master EcoModder
 
roflwaffle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 1,490

Camryaro - '92 Toyota Camry LE V6
90 day: 31.12 mpg (US)

Red - '00 Honda Insight

Prius - '05 Toyota Prius

3 - '18 Tesla Model 3
90 day: 152.47 mpg (US)
Thanks: 349
Thanked 122 Times in 80 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by cfg83 View Post
roflwaffle -

From what I hear (which may be wrong!), there are lots of things that could have been done in hindsight :

1 - House the backup generators in a tsunami-proof location nearby. They were in the basement, became flooded, and therefore useless.

2 - The power connections from the backup generators to the cooling systems were also (obviously) in the flooded basement. The building design could have incorporated multiple power connections from different locations around and above the building.

3 - They did transport new power generators into the site, but I don't know if this was part of an existing Plan-B or just improvisation. You could have heavy lift choppers for generators and diesel fuel on standby for just this scenario. The only requirement would be a high-ground heliport (aka tsunami-proof) that could get the generators and diesel-fuel to the reactor *and* installed before the backup batteries went dead. This does not address the possibility that the helicopters and/or backup-backup generators would *also* be damaged in the initial earthquake.

CarloSW2
That seems right. To a large degree anyone who needs an active source of electricity to keep the pumps running are constrained by having electrical connections that can be severed or electricity sources that can break down. I think that they should have at the very least water-proofed their diesel gensets ala the military, which would only require a water proof route for the electrical, intake, and exhaust, but hindsight is always 20/20, especially with 1,00+ year events.

I think some of the newer "passive" designs are the best bet, maybe w/ a greater time interval between when the water tank needs to be refilled since those are pretty much bullet proof provided they're water proof. The biggest challenge IMO is building a plant that will maintain enough structural integrity for it's passive systems to work, which is really hard given a 9.0 earthquake. I can only see designs that aren't quite as structurally robust being used with a large buffer between the population and the plant.
  Reply With Quote