Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] Eartquaque in Japan



We have not had tsunami problems yet. My understanding is that we have
several plants along the very same Ring of Fire in California. The ones I
have seen are all right on the coastline. I do believe that California has
been know to have an earthquake or two, and a big one is expected in N. Cal
soon.
-mike barr

On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Bill Nettles <bnettles@uu.edu> wrote:

Great answers, guys. I wonder if it would be possible to make the backup
systems tsunami-safe. How high was the wave at the power plant?

Unfortunately, all the news networks have broadcast the minimalist "backup
cooling systems failed to operate" which will most likely become the mantra
of anti-nuclear power people. We don't often have tsunami impacts in our
nuclear zones in the US, but that fact won't make much difference in the
public relations wars.

People comparing this to Chernobyl (or near-Chernobyl) also are missing the
point that there was a graphite fire at Chernobyl which spewed
radioactive-laden smoke for weeks.

-----Original Message-----
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [mailto:phys-l-
bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of Hugh Haskell
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 12:48 PM
To: Forum for Physics Educators
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Eartquaque in Japan

At 13:32 -0400 03/14/2011, Donald Polvani wrote:

My understanding of the newscasts is that the diesels failed after an
hour
due to the tsunami hitting the site. Seems likely to me that the
tsunami
would have also knocked out on site generation. To me it looks like
the
present situation could have been avoided if the site was moved
inland. I
heard that the water went 6 miles inland, so, if the site was more
than 6
miles inland (or some multiple of 6 miles) the diesel generators might
have
done the job.

Of course the plants were placed on the shoreline because that gave
them access to the sea water they used for the necessary cooling of
the plants during normal operation. An inland location would only
have been suitable if they found one with suitable access to the
20-100 million gallons of cooling water needed per day (depending on
whether they chose open- or closed-cycle cooling) to operate each
plant.

Hugh
--

Hugh Haskell
mailto:hugh@ieer.org
mailto:haskellh@verizon.net

It isn't easy being green.

--Kermit Lagrenouille
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l




--
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail