What if they beefed up the disaster-proofing on the backup generators?

[phantom power]

Just a crazy-ass thought.

[Wilms]

1. That has puzzled me.

The reactors may have survived the quake, but the generators may have been swamped by the tsunami. Could they have raised them and avoided this?

I mean, no one could have ever imagined....

[phantom power]

2. That's my assessment too. They quake-proofed the reactors. Generators... oopsie!

[kristopher]

11. I suspect a small bureaucratic error is one underlying cause.

I have an atlas of Japan dated 1985, at least a decade after the plants were built. One panel shows the areas in danger from volcanoes, spots of high seismic activity (they nailed the area of this earthquake) AND the areas of the coast that were in danger of tsunami.

The area from Ojikahanto (the peninsula at the top of Sendai Bay) north is identified as an area subject to tsunami. The area south of Ojikahanto is not.

I suspect that when they pull the records they will find that this led to the decision to install the b/u generators without protecting them from a tsunami. If the plant had been built north of the peninsula things might have turned out very different.

[Wilms]

14. So they correctly identified the epicenter as quake-prone but assumed a tsunami wasn't an issue?

That hurts.

[kristopher]

22. I think it might have to do with...

...the expected path of a tsunami based on the underwater geography of the area. This quake was strong and it is possible that the upward 'flip' occurred in a way that pushed the water into other channels than the path of least resistance. Just guessing of course, although the bathymatry on the map looks to support the possibility. Remember the other side of the peninsula and north was identified as the an area under threat from that same earthquake zone.

[Kalun D]

3. Richter

the entire plant was only Richter proofed to 7.7

[FBaggins]

24. The quake probably wasn't any higher than that at the reactor site.

n/t

[pickle juice]

4. New designs do not require backup pumps or generators.

They're walk-away safe. Making policy based on shortcomings of 50 year old designs is beyond stupid, if that were SOP, no new airplanes would have been built after the Lockheed Electra.

[AtheistCrusader]

5. They have to milk the old reactors for as long as possible to get a return on the

insane start-up costs of building one.

So, yeah, I think they should be looking into some modifications to protect the backup generators. Or quadruple the battery capacity of each reactor, etc.

I'm also unsure why the USS George Washington and other nuclear powered vessels in the area haven't moved in to supply juice. This problem demands aggressive solutions. Just an idea, but beach the Washington right in front of the reactor, and string power ashore.

[pickle juice]

8. Well, the problem with using a vessel to provide power is that the grid is wrecked...

they could run a big cable onshore...and connect it to - what, exactly? (The idea sounds good but making it usable/useful is a different kettle of fish, unfortunately)

[Wilms]

9. Connect it to the, uhm, plant?

I'd start looking at the output terminals of the disabled generators. That would be right around the place to tie-in.

[pickle juice]

10. Oh, well I thought he meant to supply power to the grid...however another problem is this:

in the eastern half of Japan their AC power is 50 hz (it's 60 west of Kyoto) so that would be a very big problem as I'd bet our naval vessels adhere to the US standard 60.


on edit, should have said eastern half of Honshu...I don't recall off the top of my head what Hokkaido uses...

[Wilms]

12. For the motors, 50hz vs. 60hz is no biggy.

They'll run a little faster. But that's assuming the motors are AC and not DC. And it also assumes the power is 60hz, not 400hz which does show up in military equipment. That could be a problem. Finally, the control equipment could well be freq. sensitive.

:(

[pickle juice]

18. Sure...all of which is probably uncertain or maybe unknown. I really don't know what kind of exces

power a ship has available, I'd be surprised if it was more than a few hundred KW though since it's not the principal function as far as I can imagine. I've run a lot of 50 cycle motors on 60 in Japan and other countries and vice versa but it's not a long term good idea. :-)

[AtheistCrusader]

21. Sure. My idea to beach a nuke powered ship in front of it could go hilariously

wrong if another 9.0+ event plus tsunami goes down.

As for capacity, the Lincoln had enough juice to desalinate 250,000 gallons of seawater a day during the indian ocean tsunami recovery efforts. I've read that our attack subs can power a small city as well, but I do not have specifics. Obviously, it's a cartoonish solution. It would probably be easier to airlift in diesel generators.

[AtheistCrusader]

13. Might be ok. Pretty sure our ships pump out 3 phase, 50 and 60.

And yes, I meant just connect to the plants to get the cooling systems working.

Granted, the cooling systems are likely damaged in more ways than just 'no power'. They suffered a powerful earthquake AND got directly smacked with a tsunami, so who knows what's broken plumbing-wise.

[kristopher]

15. I don't think power is the problem any longer.

The problem is the damage that was initiated during the period without power. At one point the rods were 90% above the water.

[AtheistCrusader]

17. Maybe yes, maybe no. The plants still keep losing cooling systems.

Which suggests to me they are still having power problems. But it could be more mundane plumbing problems in the coolant systems, given the plants were physically damaged, on top of the shutdown.

Reactor three HAD working cooling systems yesterday, and they broke today. Some at another site broke today as well.

Edit for terrible spelling.

[kristopher]

23. Things were going well at #3 until the explosion at #1 then the water stopped rising

Again just speculation, but what I've heard would support a scenario where the explosion cracked the substructure which is now allowing water to escape underground from both 1 & 3.

The pumps are working at capacity but the chamber isn't filling. At least they were able to somehow vent #3, this morning they couldn't operate the valve.

[PamW]

19. It's not that simple.

I'm also unsure why the USS George Washington and other nuclear powered vessels in the area haven't moved in to supply juice. This problem demands aggressive solutions. Just an idea, but beach the Washington right in front of the reactor, and string power ashore.
=================================

The latest reports I heard is that CVN-76, the USS Ronald Reagan has also arrived
on President Obama's orders.

First problem is that the main use of the reactors on an aircraft carrier is propulsion.
The big turbines on the carriers are connected to the screws ( propellers ) not a generator.

They have smaller turbines hooked to generators for electricity.

The other problem in using multiple ships is "phasing". It's AC power. Like a bunch of
lumberjacks sawing with a hand saw, they all have to push together in the same direction
at the same time.

Power plants have special feedback controls on the turbines and generators that allow
them to synchronize with the other power plants on the grid. A ship board generator
doesn't have to synchronize to any other generators, so I don't believe they have the
means to do so.

PamW

[PamW]

6. Double standard - nuclear power vis-a-vis airliners

no new airplanes would have been built after the Lockheed Electra.
==========================

Or in the case of jet airliners, the de Havilland Comet. The British were
the first to design / build a jet passenger airliner.

So how come, for many years, ( prior to Airbus ), practically the whole
commercial airliner design / build industry belonged to the USA and two
companies, Boeing and McDonnell-Douglas ( now merged )?

The British Comet had a design flaw. They made the windows square. That leads
to a stress fracture at the window corner, and a Comet crashed. It killed 60 people.

The British citizenry was so appalled at the loss of life, they turned away from the
commercial jet business, and ceded that lucrative business to the USA.

If a jet airliner crashed today, and 60 people were killed, would we ban air travel?

Let's see what the final consequences are of the events in Japan. Right now we have
people that want to ban nuclear power just on the potential that someone gets killed or
injured.

PamW

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kristopher]

16. The nuclear industry doesn't make a sympathetic victim.

You can just give that shit up right now.

[pickle juice]

20. Who comprises this amorphous "nuclear industry"?

Is it based in Japan, or France...?