3 ms·

The plant is old, but that doesn't mean there would be anything wrong with it. When it is properly maintained, any worn components are replaced and it's complet

The plant is old, but that doesn't mean there would be anything wrong with it. When it is properly maintained, any worn components are replaced and it's completely stable. Safety systems improve all the time.

hrktb 10y ago
Perhaps I'm misreading your comment, but do you have actual insights that these particular power plants are properly maintained, components replaced, and there safety systems being improved in any way ? There seem to be a generic feeling of "nuclear is fine" in reaction to all the anti-nuclear bashing going on, but few people seem to be really paying attention to the case at hand. From what I read these reactors are not just old, they are built on an area that can have up to M7 earthquakes. The seismic risk was taken into account when building the power plants, but after a new security audit following Fukushima, it appears the risk was vastly underestimated, and from there all plans of building replacement plants in the area got nerfed. Basically these reactors are not actually deemed to be safe, it's just not practical to shut them down now without any alternative plan to cover for the electric needs of the whole country, when there is enough chance of no major earthquakes until they get decommissioned.
- 1wd 10y ago
  Not deemed safe by whom? The ENSI deemed them safe. > In 2011, in response to Fukushima, ENSI called for a rapid review of seismic safety at all nuclear power plants in Switzerland. The results were to be submitted within a year and concentrated on the most important aspects. They showed that all Swiss nuclear power plants are sufficiently protected against earthquakes and flooding potentially caused by a breach in a dam following a seismic event. Further investigations also revealed that all nuclear power plants in Switzerland have a safety margin. https://www.ensi.ch/en/2016/05/31/updated-seismic-hazard-assumptions-require-new-safety-cases-to-be-drawn-up-for-swiss-nuclear-power-plants/?noredirect=en_US https://www.ensi.ch/en/2016/05/31/updated-seismic-hazard-ass...
  - hrktb 10y ago
    > Not deemed safe by whom? The ENSI deemed them safe. An audit commanded by the Health departments to non goverment related parties points at the vastly under-estimated seismic risk: http://www.atomschutzverband.ch/xs_daten/Fakten/93_3_Expertise-Fessenheim-f.pdf http://www.atomschutzverband.ch/xs_daten/Fakten/93_3_Experti... BTW the operation of nuclear power plant in Switzerland seems to be allowed as long as the ENSI accepts it as safe. Without any knowledge in the matter, I highly doubt there's no tremendous pressure and work done on the ENSI to be more lenient towards risk.
- petre 10y ago
  Switzerland won't get a tsunami, even if a M7 earthquake takes place. Also it's in the middle of Europe so better interconnected with other grids. Passive cooling is next to useless if your reactor containment and/or the passive cooling tanks or radiators break due to an earthquake. You still need power to drive pumps to cool down the reactor until the nuclear reaction is fully stopped and all heat removed. The fuel still generates heat after the rods are removed and nuclear poison is injected.
  - ptaipale 10y ago
    And if Switzerland would get an earthquake and a tsunami, the actual disaster would not be with the nuclear reactors; it would be with the direct consequences of the earthquake and tsunami. Just like in Japan.

hrktb 10y ago

Perhaps I'm misreading your comment, but do you have actual insights that these particular power plants are properly maintained, components replaced, and there safety systems being improved in any way ? There seem to be a generic feeling of "nuclear is fine" in reaction to all the anti-nuclear bashing going on, but few people seem to be really paying attention to the case at hand. From what I read these reactors are not just old, they are built on an area that can have up to M7 earthquakes. The seismic risk was taken into account when building the power plants, but after a new security audit following Fukushima, it appears the risk was vastly underestimated, and from there all plans of building replacement plants in the area got nerfed. Basically these reactors are not actually deemed to be safe, it's just not practical to shut them down now without any alternative plan to cover for the electric needs of the whole country, when there is enough chance of no major earthquakes until they get decommissioned.

1wd 10y ago
Not deemed safe by whom? The ENSI deemed them safe. > In 2011, in response to Fukushima, ENSI called for a rapid review of seismic safety at all nuclear power plants in Switzerland. The results were to be submitted within a year and concentrated on the most important aspects. They showed that all Swiss nuclear power plants are sufficiently protected against earthquakes and flooding potentially caused by a breach in a dam following a seismic event. Further investigations also revealed that all nuclear power plants in Switzerland have a safety margin. https://www.ensi.ch/en/2016/05/31/updated-seismic-hazard-assumptions-require-new-safety-cases-to-be-drawn-up-for-swiss-nuclear-power-plants/?noredirect=en_US https://www.ensi.ch/en/2016/05/31/updated-seismic-hazard-ass...
- hrktb 10y ago
  > Not deemed safe by whom? The ENSI deemed them safe. An audit commanded by the Health departments to non goverment related parties points at the vastly under-estimated seismic risk: http://www.atomschutzverband.ch/xs_daten/Fakten/93_3_Expertise-Fessenheim-f.pdf http://www.atomschutzverband.ch/xs_daten/Fakten/93_3_Experti... BTW the operation of nuclear power plant in Switzerland seems to be allowed as long as the ENSI accepts it as safe. Without any knowledge in the matter, I highly doubt there's no tremendous pressure and work done on the ENSI to be more lenient towards risk.
petre 10y ago
Switzerland won't get a tsunami, even if a M7 earthquake takes place. Also it's in the middle of Europe so better interconnected with other grids. Passive cooling is next to useless if your reactor containment and/or the passive cooling tanks or radiators break due to an earthquake. You still need power to drive pumps to cool down the reactor until the nuclear reaction is fully stopped and all heat removed. The fuel still generates heat after the rods are removed and nuclear poison is injected.
- ptaipale 10y ago
  And if Switzerland would get an earthquake and a tsunami, the actual disaster would not be with the nuclear reactors; it would be with the direct consequences of the earthquake and tsunami. Just like in Japan.