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] |
I wonder if it would be possible to make the backup systems tsunami-safe.How high was the wave at the power plant?
-----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:
hour
My understanding of the newscasts is that the diesels failed after an
due to the tsunami hitting the site. Seems likely to me that thetsunami
would have also knocked out on site generation. To me it looks likethe
present situation could have been avoided if the site was movedinland. I
heard that the water went 6 miles inland, so, if the site was morethan 6
miles inland (or some multiple of 6 miles) the diesel generators mighthave
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