4 ms·
Fun facts, Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant was built beyond the warning limit of the tsunami stones. If those people that setup the tsunami stones are st
by teleforce 1y ago
Fun facts, Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant was built beyond the warning limit of the tsunami stones.
If those people that setup the tsunami stones are still alive during the incident they will have a kahuna of "I told you" moment.
- bumbledraven 1y agoDo you have a citation for this? The most Gemini could say is: "While research has not identified a specific tsunami stone located at the Fukushima Daiichi site that was directly violated, the spirit of these ancient warnings was undeniably ignored." (https://aistudio.google.com/app/prompts?state=%7B%22ids%22:%5B%2211ZkugJGDR4EcWQtS_LEsZuLT7YxSVPgt%22%5D,%22action%22:%22open%22,%22userId%22:%22117721088013073520032%22,%22resourceKeys%22:%7B%7D%7D&usp=sharing https://aistudio.google.com/app/prompts?state=%7B%22ids%22:%...)
- mytailorisrich 1y agoI don't know if there are "Tsunami stones" in the area but the nuclear power plant is built at sea level [1] so would most probably be below them. The issue is the height of the seawalls that was not sufficient (and perhaps historical warnings, if any, were ignored): "The subsequent destructive tsunami with waves of up to 14 metres (46 ft) that over-topped the station, which had seawalls" [1] Edit: Regarding historical warnings: "The 2011 Tōhoku earthquake occurred in exactly the same area as the 869 earthquake, fulfilling the earlier prediction and causing major flooding in the Sendai area." [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_Nuclear_Powe... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/869_J%C5%8Dgan_earthquake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/869_J%C5%8Dgan_earthquake
- m4rtink 1y agoIIRC 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.
- __turbobrew__ 1y agoAnother 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.
- cperciva 1y agoA 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.
- __turbobrew__ 1y agoIt seems like you should build a water reservoir at a higher elevation than the core and then apply a similar principle where valves regulate the water stream, but if the valves lose power they fail open. The reservoir can be built so that there is always enough water to cool the core. For light water reactors this basically just amounts to a large pool up a nearby hill or in a water tower.
- thescriptkiddie 1y agothere are reactor designs that work that way, but most civilian power plants are pressurized water reactors. it is important that the water stays pressurized or you get a chernobyl
- m4rtink 1y agoFukushima was based on a Westinghouse BWR (Boiling Water Reactor) design, so pressurization was not that much of an issue - if enough of sufficiently cold water was provided, there would be no meltdown.
- m4rtink 1y ago
- aaronax 1y ago"Beyond" is completely ambiguous in this case. Do you mean above or below?
- jonplackett 1y agoWell obviously they mean below
- gus_massa 1y agoI got very confused too. After reading a few times I interpreted it as a typo.
- aaronax 1y agoUnless they mean beyond the reach of the flood waters.
- baobabKoodaa 1y agoNot obvious to me
- shazbotter 1y agoThey famously got inundated with tsunami water. It's pretty reasonable to assume they were below the line of tsunami high water marks.
- baobabKoodaa 1y agoHow is that reasonable to assume? You can have a tsunami that is higher than the previous tsunamis, hence, exceeding previous water marks.
- shazbotter 1y agoWhat's more likely, worst tsunami ever, beyond previous safety stones? Or company shortcuts safety and falls over because they failed to account for predictable circumstances? Given the latter happens constantly, and the former is once in generations upon generations, I think it's safe to assume the problem is human and the tsunami was within historical ranges. Especially since other reactors were hit by the same tsunami and were fine.
- 542354234235 1y ago>Onagawa was… 60 kilometers closer than Fukushima Daiichi [to the epicenter] and the difference in seismic intensity at the two plants was negligible. Furthermore, the tsunami was bigger at Onagawa, reaching a height of 14.3 meters, compared with 13.1 meters at Fukushima Daiichi. The difference in outcomes at the two plants reveals the root cause of Fukushima Daiichi’s failures: the utility’s corporate “safety culture.” >Before beginning construction, Tohoku Electric conducted surveys and simulations aimed at predicting tsunami levels. The initial predictions showed that tsunamis in the region historically had an average height of about 3 meters. Based on that, the company constructed its plant at 14.7 meters above sea level, almost five times that height. >Tepco, on the other hand, to make it easier to transport equipment and to save construction costs, in 1967 removed 25 meters from the 35-meter natural seawall of the Daiichi plant site and built the reactor buildings at a much lower elevation of 10 meters. https://thebulletin.org/2014/03/onagawa-the-japanese-nuclear-power-plant-that-didnt-melt-down-on-3-11/ https://thebulletin.org/2014/03/onagawa-the-japanese-nuclear...
- Frieren 1y agoThis is why so many people are against nuclear. It may be theoretically possible to create safe nuclear plants, but capitalism is badly equipped to create them.
- akimbostrawman 1y agoI can't tell if this is a tongue in cheek joke or just blatant ignorance. The biggest in size and death nuclear powerplant disaster was Chernobyl under communism and it wasn't there first or last.
- shazbotter 1y agoJust because authoritarian communism is also not equipped to build nuclear reactors does not mean capitalism is. If A, then B does not imply "B, therefore A". This is called "affirming the consequent".
- veidr 1y ago
- numpad0 1y agoThe reactors were also largely fine except for grid connections and the hurricane-resistant backup generator in the basement. It was told ad nauseum at the time that there could have been couples of those on the roofs and the reactor could have just survived.
- bamboozled 1y agoImagine how much cheaper a few pumps on the roof would've been :) Similar to mitigating climate change effects 30 years ago. Now it's way too late.