3 ms·

One of them did it though.

by mateo1 4y ago

justsomehnguy 4y ago
Yes, but no: > In the late 1990s, three additional backup diesel generators for Units 2 and 4 were placed in new buildings located higher on the hillside, to comply with new regulatory requirements. All six units were given access to these diesel generators, but the switching stations that sent power from these backup generators to the reactors' cooling systems for Units 1 through 5 were still located in the poorly protected turbine buildings. Meanwhile, the switching station for Unit 6 was protected inside the only GE Mark II reactor building and continued to function.[54] All three of the generators added in the late 1990s were fully operational after the tsunami. If the switching stations had been moved to the interior of the reactor buildings or to other flood-proof locations, power would have been provided by these generators to the reactors' cooling systems and thus the catastrophe would have been averted.[54] Earthquake didn't did it, tsunami what flooded the generators which weren't moved/protected as ordered so (ie banal corruption) is what did it. And the purposed location is far enough from the coast.
- mateo1 4y ago
  You missed my point. Despite all the planning surrounding the earthquakes in Japan, one of them still did damage in an unexpected way. For every nuclear catastrophe, you can easily say that if something was done differently, it would have been averted. Well, it wasn't.
  - justsomehnguy 4y ago
    Except it was pretty expected, but someone decided not to bother with it. For me there is a big difference between something could be done to prevent an unexpected event and something should had been done to prevent an expected event but haven't been. Fukushima Daini, which is on the same coast, with the same operating environment and was hit with the same wave - was shut down successfully. EDIT: this is just an example what the earthquakes are not a big problem for a nuclear power stations.

One of them did it though.

by mateo1 4y ago

One of them did it though.

Yes, but no: > In the late 1990s, three additional backup diesel generators for Units 2 and 4 were placed in new buildings located higher on the hillside, to comply with new regulatory requirements. All six units were given access to these diesel generators, but the switching stations that sent power from these backup generators to the reactors' cooling systems for Units 1 through 5 were still located in the poorly protected turbine buildings. Meanwhile, the switching station for Unit 6 was protected inside the only GE Mark II reactor building and continued to function.[54] All three of the generators added in the late 1990s were fully operational after the tsunami. If the switching stations had been moved to the interior of the reactor buildings or to other flood-proof locations, power would have been provided by these generators to the reactors' cooling systems and thus the catastrophe would have been averted.[54] Earthquake didn't did it, tsunami what flooded the generators which weren't moved/protected as ordered so (ie banal corruption) is what did it. And the purposed location is far enough from the coast.

mateo1 4y ago
You missed my point. Despite all the planning surrounding the earthquakes in Japan, one of them still did damage in an unexpected way. For every nuclear catastrophe, you can easily say that if something was done differently, it would have been averted. Well, it wasn't.
- justsomehnguy 4y ago
  Except it was pretty expected, but someone decided not to bother with it. For me there is a big difference between something could be done to prevent an unexpected event and something should had been done to prevent an expected event but haven't been. Fukushima Daini, which is on the same coast, with the same operating environment and was hit with the same wave - was shut down successfully. EDIT: this is just an example what the earthquakes are not a big problem for a nuclear power stations.