On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 22:57:56 +0000, "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.

A Tsunami can move in and out many times (as it did during the one on
Boxing Day 2004) Any loose debris / houses or anything not anchored
in concrete behind the plant could quite easily cause as much damage
to the installation as the side that just faced the sea.

But the sole reason the plant was near the sea, just like hundreds of
other power stations worldwide both conventionally fueled and nuclear
fueled was to permit a suitable supply of cooling water for the
condensers. Nothing more, nothing less.

--