Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Tackling TEPCO's Water Problem

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 03:43 PM
Original message
Tackling TEPCO's Water Problem


"TEPCO is a bearer of a water problem that sets daunting challenges ahead of its ambitious plan to decommission the Fukushima reactor site. In many ways, getting the millions of gallons of radioactive water out of buildings at the site is a path to getting the decommissioning program in place and working against a predictable schedule."

<>

"According to the Daily Yomiuri and the Associated Press, last week TEPCO started to transport tanks, each with a storage capacity of 120 tons and measuring 15.1 meters long and 3.7 meters in diameter, to Fukushima Prefecture from a tank manufacturer in Kanuma, Tochigi Prefecture."

"TEPCO plans to deliver a total of 370 tanks -- 170 units with a storage capacity of 120 tons and 200 units with a capacity of 100 tons. The operation is expected to continue until mid-August, according to the utility. So how much water will the tanks hold?"

http://theenergycollective.com/dan-yurman/58861/tackling-tepcos-water-problem?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=The+Energy+Collective+%28all+posts%29
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 04:29 PM
Response to Original message
1. So well planned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpoonFed Donating Member (801 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-10-11 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Maybe
They could modify that mayor's plan a bit and put solar panels on the top of all those tanks while they are at it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpoonFed Donating Member (801 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-11-11 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. I'm just going to assume that it was the hubris of the operator and the engineers involved...
Edited on Sat Jun-11-11 03:26 PM by SpoonFed
that didn't stop for a second to plan out this sort of contingency. If you work from some false assumptions like nuke power is fail-safe, there haven't been any "developed" countries with major incidents, our designs are better, blah, blah, then you probably aren't sitting around on a Wednesday morning thinking about what to do with a gazillion tons of contaminated water across 3+ reactors at a massive plant, now are you? (That would be a cold January or February morning, not a March, April, May, June... morning)

Now it's taking a disturbing turn when the world's best and brightest are supposed to be finding solutions and things continue...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 01:56 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC