"Rich Grise" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Rich Grise" wrote in message

For heaven's sakes, let's put the reactors on oceangoing barges - didn't
we learn how to build undersea cables about a century or so ago?

Can you say, "tsunami"? d8-)

Yeah, that's why it makes sense to put them out on the high seas. When
we got the tsunami warnings, the boats that put out to see simply rode
it out - it's just a big, fast, longwave wave until it hits shore and
starts to break. On the open ocean, they're almost imperceptible:
http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/T...n_tsunami.html

Hope This Helps!
Rich

I just read a report in a local paper, based on evaluations from the two
owners of nukes in NJ (We have four nukes in total, I think). They say we
have no danger from tsunamis, because the nearest fault line is in 8,000
feet of water and our continental shelf slopes so much that it can't build
up much of a tsunami. The nuke in Oyster Creek, home of the three-eyed,
eight-pound, glowing crabs (delicious and meaty!), supposedly is designed to
handle an 18-foot storm surge or tsunami.

However, we have had at least one Category 4 hurricane. How do those
reactors on a barge do when they're flipped upside-down? g

(Our local operators say that the situation in Japan is making them re-think
a lot of things, such as the 4-hour battery backup, which they want to
double or triple now.)

--
Ed Huntress