3 ms·
Not an expert in any of the related fields, but Japan is also a heavy seismic activity zone. Piling up loose dirt is just asking for liquefaction. My armchair
by mjevans 7y ago
Not an expert in any of the related fields, but Japan is also a heavy seismic activity zone. Piling up loose dirt is just asking for liquefaction.
My armchair spectator opinion is that I want each reactor 'unit' built in an engineered safe solution, far up, supported by a seismic isolation system. Up in the hills, where people would be sent to evacuate after the earthquake due to the tsunami risk? Yeah, put that thing there.
Also the plant engineers need to be personally authorized and held responsible to do whatever it takes to keep things "safe" in the event of a disaster. They're on site, they're seeing the details, let them have the authority to ensure the greatest possible safety.
- Animats 7y agoUp in the hills That limits the cooling water supply. Almost all large reactors are near bodies of water. Palo Verde in Arizona is one of the very few exceptions. They operate a sewerage disposal plant to get water.
- WalterBright 7y ago> Piling up loose dirt is just asking for liquefaction. Having investigated this myself when I bought property for a house, this is not expensive to deal with. Heck, my neighbor did. You bore a hole with a big auger, fill it with concrete, and set the structure on it. You can even build skyscrapers on fill with such (see San Francisco). The only reason these problems were not addressed when Fukushima was built is because people didn't think of it in their failure analysis, not because it is expensive, impractical, or impossible. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the Fukushima design, just details.