by Caskhades » Fri Mar 18, 2011 2:43 pm
To be fair, Col. Sun's point that prior to last Friday, it seemed perfectly reasonable that Nuclear Plants be built to withstand a maximum of a 8M earthquake. I think that (or 8.5?) is standard practice throughout the world, as costs grow exponentially when you move towards and past 9M proofing. After all, 9M earthquake are assumed to be very, very rare. For goodness' sake the WHOLE OF JAPAN MOVED 19 meters or so during this thing!
It makes perfect sense to build nuclear plants on the seashore for easy access to coolant. (even small nuclear plants generate a lot of residual heat, and Fukushima was a BIG nuclear power plant) -- Not clear that Japan's river system could take that sort of load (Endo, can you name any big Japanese rivers? I seem to recall a "this is not a river, but a waterfall" comment re Japan's river system, can't remember who it was)
A few points though -- might it be reasonable in the future to:
a) Build future plants on the West Coast of Japan - would that result in a lesser risk of major tsunami? I think most of Japan's plants are already on that coast.
b) Build +15m reinforced concrete sea-walls around nuclear plants on seashore? Not much use for backup systems if they can be all simultaneously destroyed by a tsunami.
Wyrd bið ful aræd