rigney Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 (edited) Even with the deepest of resect, nature is still our most formidable enemy. http://www.abc.net.au/news/events/japan-quake-2011/beforeafter.htm Edited March 16, 2011 by rigney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyMcC Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 It seems the tsumani was a greater threat to the nuclear installations than the earthquake. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I have to wonder why the installations were built on low lying land near the sea. Probably because they needed sea water for cooling purposes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rigney Posted March 17, 2011 Author Share Posted March 17, 2011 (edited) It seems the tsumani was a greater threat to the nuclear installations than the earthquake. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I have to wonder why the installations were built on low lying land near the sea. Probably because they needed sea water for cooling purposes? With all of the precautions taken, it does make you wonder about the location? My hope now is that they can do a quick fix to cool the monster before it become another Chernobyl. Japan just doesn't have the luxury of fifty square miles of land lying fallow. Edited March 17, 2011 by rigney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainPanic Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 It seems the tsumani was a greater threat to the nuclear installations than the earthquake. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I have to wonder why the installations were built on low lying land near the sea. Probably because they needed sea water for cooling purposes? Yes, they need cooling water. The sea provides that, which makes it a lot cheaper to build at the coast. This facility is so big that no river in Japan is big enough to provide enough cooling water. It was either the sea, or massive cooling towers. It's also a lot easier to develop a factory on a flat surface. Higher ground is not flat. This facility is enormous. Several hectares of flat ground are hard to come by on higher ground. Both of these arguments are ultimately a matter money. It's possible to make the surface flat, even if it's not flat yet. And it's possible to pipe water to a higher location inland. But both cost money... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Yes, they need cooling water. The sea provides that, which makes it a lot cheaper to build at the coast. This facility is so big that no river in Japan is big enough to provide enough cooling water. It was either the sea, or massive cooling towers. It's also a lot easier to develop a factory on a flat surface. Higher ground is not flat. This facility is enormous. Several hectares of flat ground are hard to come by on higher ground. Both of these arguments are ultimately a matter money. It's possible to make the surface flat, even if it's not flat yet. And it's possible to pipe water to a higher location inland. But both cost money... And it's not just money that it costs - it uses energy and lowers the efficiency of the whole set up. If we were to make all of our power stations (not just nuclear) as safe and as non-polluting as technically possible we would be in huge global energy debt. Nuclear power plants are built to a standard that would shame any other industry due to the perceived increased risk of nuclear energy. But, in the words of the bard, "shit happens" - we build to a very high tolerance or we build to a lower tolerance, but every action hides a risk reward calculation and sometimes we don't get the payout we were hoping for Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now