TEPCO Readies Plan To Bring Reactor Under Control 116
Kyusaku Natsume writes "TEPCO has released details of their plan to bring Unit 1 of Fukushima Daiichi under control, to improve the working conditions inside the reactor building of this unit and install a new cooling system. From the success of this operation maybe we will know how they will address the emergency in the remaining damaged nuclear reactors."
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
fortune (Score:1, Insightful)
Tim, Fix the damn fortune database already!
they failed more (Score:3, Insightful)
TEPCO failed at not having prepared for the scenario when the plant suffers complete blackout, including all backups being flooded. That's all.
That is not all.
They had 8 to 24 hours (I forget) to bring and connect additional power generators or charged batteries to the site before the existing batteries failed, but they didn't do it despite knowing what the stakes were.
They failed to vent the hydrogen from the reactor buildings. They thought to vent the vessels to the buildings but didn't vent the hydrogen from the buildings. This lead to significant avoidable additional damage from explosions and probably raised the amount of radiation released to the environment.
Re:Just Unit 1? (Score:5, Insightful)
Think again. If that happened, every nuke plant owner would just drop any semblance of security and protection because it's evident that if they fuck up, they won't have to clean up the mess.
No, let them handle it. I want them to spend manpower and time and hence money on the mess. It's the only thing that matters to corporations and the more they suffer, the more their peers will probably invest in security.
Re:they failed more (Score:2, Insightful)
Um, the buildings were constructed without external vents. So at the time of the earthquake, it was not avoidable. Now, whether they should have foreseen this scenario and installed external venting... Also, you realize that every road for 100 miles around had been trashed by an 9+ magnitude earthquake? TEPCO should be second-guessed on many levels, and the lessons applied to every nuclear power management agency on the planet, but please try to keep it real.
Re:Reasonable first steps (Score:4, Insightful)
No, TEPCO failed because they relied on a design that requires active input to stay safe. Any measures you think of to improve safety for such a design come down to security by 'Allow by default' and closing holes after exploits. Since it is impossible to keep up with all possible circumstances, this means the design is unsafe.
Mart