If the Chernobyl reactor had been suspended under water (in an artificial lake?) there would have been an abundance of emergency cooling water.
Much of the radioactive debris would have been contained in the water instead of ejected into the atmosphere.
I wonder how the environmental damage would compare to Crossroads Baker.
“Fukashima is a reason not to build a nuclear power plant above water.”
I’d say Fukashima’s problems stem from being built in an earthquake zone and on an ocean. The China Sea may have been a better place to build it, or in a protected bay like at Kagoshima on Kyushu. This would have at least lessened the problems from the tidal wave. The local power company has a two reactor plant on the Chesapeake Bay, and this has both the bay to protect it from tidal waves and is geologically stable.
When the earthquake hit…the plant shut down. That wasn’t the problem.
The problem happened when the tsunami hit and killed the generators. The generators were still needed to run the cooling pumps until the reactor cooled down. Even though it wasn’t active…the temp in core needed to be cooled. Since it wasn’t being cooled…it got hotter and caused the problem.
If the generators were put in a different location or built in an area that kept the water out…those nuclear plants would be operational today.
We have a nuclear plant in NH right on the ocean. NH is not in a high risk area for earthquakes. But since it’s on the ocean it can get hit with tsunami. And last assessment is that if a tsunami hits NH coast then Seabrook nuclear plant could suffer the same problem. The risk is lower…but not impossible.
Vepco built a nuclear reactor right on a fault line,some Joker told me it was intentional,if they had a meltdown, the radioactive mess would disappear far underground.
I believe that a system to properly vent the Hydrogen gas would have alleviated much of the problem.I watched a video feed and was waiting for the inevitable explosion at the Japanese reactor when it came you could see the air shimmer from the force of the explosion.The Navy has had a fairly good record with their reactors(not spotless-but pretty good)what does the Navy do with their spent reactors? I like nuclear power but we need to move in the direction of the more foolproof designs-Kevin
The Navy doesn’t have to account for over expenditures with it’s investors. It can " afford" to be safer. We probably could not afford to do it privately. The limits of acceptability for fool prove designs are too expensive for private investors. They all ready know what safe guards really work best. They choose the most economical solutions that meet standards we often find out after an accident like in other industries, weren’t enough…
You want more fool proof standards? They will have to be subsidized greater then they are with your tax dollar. That’s why nuclear energy is a very, slow growing solution. Like @ MikeInNh indicated, we accept some risk. People are expendable. Profit rules ! Let me add one more word. Nitrogen. Now we aren’t off topic.