undefined | Better HN

0 pointsm4rtink9mo ago0 comments

IIRC the issue was the emergency diesel generators being flooded, preventing them from powering the emergency cooling pumps, resulting in the meltdowns from residual heat in the reactor cores and spent fuel pools.

Various construction changes could have prevented this from happening:

- the whole power plan being built higher up or further inland

-> this would likely be quite a bit more expensive due to land availability & cooling water management when not on sea level & next to the sea

- the emergency generators being built higher up or protected from a tsunami by other means (watertight bunker ?)

-> of course this requires the plan cooling systems & the necessary wiring itself working after surviving a massive earthquake & being flooded

An inland power plant - while quite wasteful in an island country - would be protected from tsunamis & certainly doable. On the other hand, I do wonder how would high concrete cooling towers handle strong earthquakes ? A lot of small cooling towers might have ti be used, like in Palo Verde nuclear generating station in Arizona.

Otherwise a bizzare case could still happen, with a meltdown possibly happening due to your cooling towers falling over & their cooling capacity being lost.

0 comments

__turbobrew__9mo ago

Another option is designing fail safe reactors. CANDU reactors designs are over 60 years old now and were built fail safe so that if outside power to the core is cut off the system would safe itself by dropping control rods which are held up by electromagnets into the core.

cperciva9mo ago

A reactor scram isn't necessarily enough -- you still have decay heat to worry about. In the case of Fukushima, the fission chain reaction was stopped but without cooling pumps the decay heat was still too much.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

__turbobrew__9mo ago

cperciva9mo ago

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse