On 16/03/2011 23:03, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 16/03/2011 22:29, The Other Mike wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 16:05:37 +0000, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@"
"insertmysurnamehere wrote:

The reason the plant was near the sea was so that any tsunami that hit
would only be water, not water plus bits of building, cars and other
assorted debris.

So where did that golden snippet of a basic design parameter come
from?

Is it that hard to understand that a wall of water is a lot less
destructive than a wall of water loaded with debris? A nuclear plant
has to be within a reasonable distance of a large body of water, so,
if that body is liable to giant waves, it is good design to ensure
that the wave will do the least damage when it hits.

Colin Bignell


However they are near the sea because of cooling issues

I assumed that was self-evident.

The tsunami aspect was considered, but not such a big one. The design
wave spec was IIRC 6m later raised to 7m. What hit was rather larger
than that.

Basically that buggered *all* the backup systems.

Except the batteries.

Tell me where anyone ever predicted a quake this big, offshore but close?

Exactly. The sixth largest earthquake ever recorded in probably the
worst place it could happen.

Colin Bignell