Most people have a definite plan of action in their lives plus a redundant plan B in the event the main plan does not work out for whatever reasons thereof. Similarly is the case with most projects in this world especially if there is a potential to harm the environment and human lives. But then my question here is that how much redundancy does one plan in this case…. Is it one two or three????.
The current events in Japan has really raised this question in my mind and I would like all person reading this note/blog give their comments for I am still confused. The designers of the Nuclear Power plant at Fukushima Daiichi did have three redundancy systems in their reactors to prevent the condition what is prevailing now and yet each one of them failed…..main power to the cooling system failed due to earthquake, then the tsunami took out the backup power generation system, cooling system to reactor by using water from condensed steam failed to provide sufficient water to immerse the fuel rods and finally pumping of sea water to cool the reactor failed.
This only goes to prove the Murphy’s Law “ When shit has to hit the fan … it sure will “
Being in the field of engineering I know that we normally provide one redundancy or maximum two but now for critical operations in most parts of the world are surely going to demand multiple redundancy so as to achieve a failsafe mechanism in the face of all odds… quite a challenge to most designers and engineers .
There is going to be a huge amount of money spent for these redundancy which may never be operational …. Your take on this please !!!!!!!