national

TEPCO weighs options over tsunami threat to Fukushima plant

25 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Thomson Reuters 2020.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

25 Comments
Login to comment

TEPCO will examine the latest projections and analyze the impact

20 minus 11 equals 9. I did the math Tepco. Your 11 meter walls are too short. Please send me check in the mail.

Thanks

10 ( +11 / -1 )

These predictions exist since at least 20 years, recommended countermeasures have never been implemented - hence the 2011 disaster - and still procrastinating 9 years later.

10 ( +11 / -1 )

Well, it's TEPCO, so they're "thinking about it" means doing nothing.

10 ( +12 / -2 )

This days is really the right time to publish such articles...

5 ( +5 / -0 )

20 minus 11 equals 9. I did the math Tepco. Your 11 meter walls are too short. Please send me check in the mail.

Thanks

Yes, except walls are not built from sea level. You tried to be clever, but you weren’t.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Why did you build it next to the sea?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Some countries simply do not have the capability or work ethic, if you prefer, to handle Nuclear Power. If it takes 9 years to build a tall enough wall or 8 years to decide what to do with polluted water because nothing was done to maintain a power plant ... Obviously Japan is not the "asian Germany" and shouldn't have Nuclear power plants.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

At Bugle

This is a simple link so you can see how the sea walls were started. They were started in the sea...as should be. Sorry, I did not try to be clever as you have tried to be, I just wanted to be informative.

Please investigate things before trying to be knowledgeable or offensive or demeaning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Y_S-_Q_m78

4 ( +5 / -1 )

While spent nuclear fuel remains in the reactor cooling ponds the situation remains critical and even more so if the site was hit again by another power earthquake and tsunami which could empty the cooling water from the ponds or even sending the ponds crashing down to the ground.

The spent fuel is currently being removed from the No3 pool which will take until sometime next year. Removing the spent fuel from reactors 1&2 will be even more difficult because of the highly dangerous levels of radiation.

A second disaster of this nature would be worse than the first on 3/11.

No news on how the Covid 19 pandemic is effecting the nuclear disaster site workers and the progress of the vital works.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

A Meeting to Weigh Options:

A: Is it still going to cost a lot to do anything?

B: Yes, it is.

A: That is regrettable. However, I brought sake.

B: Wonderful!

3 ( +3 / -0 )

First it was Fukushima, now its the Olympics and Covid-19. Its like Japan is trying to host a house party with a plugged toilet.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The cost of the nuclear disaster to date is about ¥25 trillion, five times the original estimate of ¥5 trillion but will probably cost more than than ¥50 trillion.

The purpose of building a higher sea wall needs to be measured against now long before all the reactor spend fuel can be removed from the 1-3 reactors pools. Once the spend fuel is removed the situation will be less critical and less dangerous.

The problem of the melted fuel remains a problem but not has dangerous and critical as the spend fuel.

How long will it take to build and what will be the costs?

Another solution instead of a sea wall would be to build a wall around the reactors 1-4.

The reactors are in a very fragile condition following the earthquake, tsunami and hydrogen explosions. A powerful earthquake alone could cause serious and dangerous damage that wouldn't be helped by building a higher sea wall.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@Tom

That’s not the wall in question.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The "wall" in the linked video is actually in the dock area. The purpose of that wall was to stop or slow down the irradiated waste water leaking into the sea.

The seawall (tsunami) is between the dock area and the sea and was constructed when the plant was build. TEPCO was warned several years before the disaster that is wasn't high enough for a possible tsunami. They ignored the report and as they say, the rest is history.

The pant survived the earthquake but not the tsunami.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The sea wall can be seen in this photo.

https://www.lambdaconsult.com/images/38.jpg

2 ( +2 / -0 )

And they still claim to not know where the coriums are from reactors reactors 1,2 and 3.

And almost no reporting on the damaged spent fuel containment/ removal.

watch the vids of the explosions. They were clearly different.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I unfortunately watched them live. Seems there is a collective amnesia sometimes

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Blattamexiguus

And they still claim to not know where the coriums are from reactors reactors 1,2 and 3.

And almost no reporting on the damaged spent fuel containment/ removal.

watch the vids of the explosions. They were clearly different.

All of what you say isn't available, is actually available on the TEPCO website if you care to visit. Photo's, video's reports, updates, are all available.

TEPCO does not the exact location of all the melted fuel because the radiation levels are so high it quickly destroys the robots sent in.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Virtual tour of the nuclear disaster site.

https://www4.tepco.co.jp/en/insidefukushimadaiichi/index-e.html

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I reckon their preparations amount to creating a Microsoft Word shortcut to save them typing the word "soutei-gai" (unforeseen) when the inevitable happens.

On second thoughts, the shortcut might be in that Japanese word processor Ichitaro running on WIndows XP.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Don't think too hard on it. It's only been 9 years so far. Plenty of time.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

but will probably cost more than than ¥50 trillion.

Almost 500 billion US dollars. 500 billion divided by 120 million people, it will cost every human in Japan $4166 to fix this. How much would a decent set of generators have cost in 2011?

Japan seems to be able to magically pull trillions of yen out of its arse.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Bugle: Zichi and links and general investigating proves me correct. What seawall are you trying to talk about. Maybe a Tokyo or Yokohama one?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Tom

@Bugle: Zichi and links and general investigating proves me correct. What seawall are you trying to talk about. Maybe a Tokyo or Yokohama one?

The wall shown in the video link was constructed at the dock landing, made from steel pipe and concrete to stop or reduce the flow of the radiated waste water.

The actual seawall is where the dock ends and the sea begins has in the photo link I posted.

There is the plant site which ends at the dock. The dock was used for delivery of nuclear fuel by ship. Then the new steel and concrete wall, then the dock with an opening into the sea. A seawall at that place.

The seawall is located where the sea is not the dock.

In the post, and looking online does not reveal any accurate details other than the height of the proposed seawall but they do call it a seawall.

You posted a link showing the dock wall.

Simple question. The proposed height increase for the wall is for the dock wall or the seawall? Not sure where you did the investigating?

I am not challenging you but the post says "seawall".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Are they flushing some of the contained water into the ocean yet?........mmmm...Let's not talk about that now"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites