That gives plenty of time to figure how to build a reactor on the sea coast where the backup power generators can’t be flooded by a tsunami. And maybe even to find some cogernment nuclear power officials who aren’t totally incompetent.
“BTW: I’m ex US Navy submarine officer/engineer with 27 years experience in BWR design, testing and operation “
What does this poster say?
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3225300&postcount=2535
Which brings about the question of this plant
http://www.wltx.com/news/national/article/130536/142/SoCal-Nuclear-Plants-Safety-Questioned
not one of the experts roaming around on the threads for the last two days have answered my question as to whether that US plant is safe.
“The 28-year-old plant is just five miles from an earthquake fault. Like Fukushima, it has a long history of management problems and safety violations including faulty diesel generators, falsified fire watch reports, and inoperable emergency batteries.”
I'd go one level higher and mandate that enough cooling water be stored on site, uphill from the plant, so in the event power is lost you can gravity feed coolant to the reactors.
Many nuclear plants have cooling ponds; is it too much to ask that they be large enough to supply the reactors for weeks without replenishment, and upstream from the reactors so you can cool them by simply opening a valve?