Quote:
Originally Posted by cfg83
roflwaffle -
There is an LA Times article that claims that the California nuclear power plants are safer because of 3-Mile Island. The San Onofre nuclear power plant is pretty much at sea level, just like Fukushima. They claim to have a 30 foot " tsunami-wall", but I can't see it from the freeway when I am driving to/from San Diego.
... googling ...
Okay, the San Onofre is on a bluff, so it's not at sea level. Sea water cooling is also a part of the San Onofre design :
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
CarloSW2 |
Odds are SO will be fine, but the problem is getting unlucky like Japan did. Geophysicists have speculated that a magnitude 7.6 quake is possible right next to SO, so in that context being able to withstand a 7.0 may not be good enough, especially since the cost of upgrading is probably much smaller than the cost of an accident. The same goes for Diablo Canyon if I remember right. Even if SO can withstand a 9.0 and a 30ft Tsunami, do they have something in place that can insure the sea-water intakes don't get clogged with mud/debris? While it's unlikely to ever happen, there are huge risks associated with not upgrading reactors.