4 ms·

That's nice. Now let's talk about costs. Not idealized costs, but actual, non-hidden costs of building, maintaining, and decommissioning nuclear power plants (

That's nice. Now let's talk about costs. Not idealized costs, but actual, non-hidden costs of building, maintaining, and decommissioning nuclear power plants (oh and storing the waste in effective perpetuity). What's that you think decommissioning would be too expensive and want to keep running the plant extra long with upgrades? Oooops, that's how you get Fukushima. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/world/asia/22nuclear.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/world/asia/22nuclear.html

Toast_ 9y ago
>oh and storing the waste in effective perpetuity The only reason we aren't upcycling the 'waste' is because of an order issued by Jimmy Carter to prohibit the proliferation of Plutonium; we could be using it as fuel in other reactors.
obstinate 9y ago
You get Fukushima by building backup generators right next to the ocean on an island prone to being hit by tsunamis.
- pdkl95 9y ago
  Building next to the ocean is fine. Japan has a lot of experience in protecting their shorelines. The seawall that covers over 40% of their coastline is very impressive. However, as the 2011 tsunami demonstrated, all defenses eventually fail. While some blame lies with TEPCO avoiding recommendations to upgrade the seawall, it's hard to defend against the insane[1] power of over 4m of moving water. This is why the real lesson is to build defenses in depth, with enough variety to protect against common mode failure. Fukushima Daini - only 12km away from Fukushima Daiichi - suffered similarly from the earthquake and tsunami, but a single surviving pump (and the skill and effort of the staff) was enough to prevent Daini from suffering the same fate as it's sister powerplant. Good engineering asks questions like, "Are we safe when (not "if"!) the entire bank of backup generators fail?", or "Can a single event cause catastrophic failure?" [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IKIazZc-a8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IKIazZc-a8
  - hvidgaard 9y ago
    It was my understanding that TEPCO was warned against the exact event that happened, and didn't upgrade their backup generator infastructure accordingly. Things only got bad when they ran out of power. Which seems ironic that they couldn't use their own generated power to prevent a meltdown, but that was because the reactors was shut down I assume.

Toast_ 9y ago

>oh and storing the waste in effective perpetuity The only reason we aren't upcycling the 'waste' is because of an order issued by Jimmy Carter to prohibit the proliferation of Plutonium; we could be using it as fuel in other reactors.

obstinate 9y ago

You get Fukushima by building backup generators right next to the ocean on an island prone to being hit by tsunamis.

pdkl95 9y ago
Building next to the ocean is fine. Japan has a lot of experience in protecting their shorelines. The seawall that covers over 40% of their coastline is very impressive. However, as the 2011 tsunami demonstrated, all defenses eventually fail. While some blame lies with TEPCO avoiding recommendations to upgrade the seawall, it's hard to defend against the insane[1] power of over 4m of moving water. This is why the real lesson is to build defenses in depth, with enough variety to protect against common mode failure. Fukushima Daini - only 12km away from Fukushima Daiichi - suffered similarly from the earthquake and tsunami, but a single surviving pump (and the skill and effort of the staff) was enough to prevent Daini from suffering the same fate as it's sister powerplant. Good engineering asks questions like, "Are we safe when (not "if"!) the entire bank of backup generators fail?", or "Can a single event cause catastrophic failure?" [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IKIazZc-a8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IKIazZc-a8
- hvidgaard 9y ago
  It was my understanding that TEPCO was warned against the exact event that happened, and didn't upgrade their backup generator infastructure accordingly. Things only got bad when they ran out of power. Which seems ironic that they couldn't use their own generated power to prevent a meltdown, but that was because the reactors was shut down I assume.