3 ms·
> realize it was likely impractical to meltdown reactors just to develop the technology to clean them up That's a great insight. Maybe if some technologist a
by randomsearch 8y ago
> realize it was likely impractical to meltdown reactors just to develop the technology to clean them up
That's a great insight.
Maybe if some technologist approaches you and says "this is a great tech but we can't possibly recreate the worst case scenario, even in an expensive simulation" then that tells you that this is a straight "no".
Fukushima is evidence that the worst case cannot be sufficiently modelled and mitigated, at least in a commercial market.
Not saying "don't build nuclear", just that pro-nuclear lobbies should have been able to predict this situation (with a small chance of occurrence) and model it. If not, don't build. If you can predict it, but govt doesn't care about the risks, publicly document it, and that's OK.
OT, but at this point the nuclear debate looks irrelevant - direction of travel is that renewables win.
[ further OT ...moment of wild speculation: the idea that energy will be scarce will, within the 21st century, become as crazy as the idea that food could be scarce in rich nations right now. The race to renewables will look irrelevant as solar costs hit rock bottom, and no-one will remember why coal/nuclear plants were ever a thing. Within our lifetimes. I genuinely think that scenario is more likely than not. ]
- AngryData 8y agoI don't entirely agree with you, based mainly on when these reactors were originally designed. They started building in '67, but the actual construction designs were based on even earlier plans and tests that were conceived of in the 50s. So the original designs of the plant were born only around 15-20 years after we even invented nuclear technology. I find it similar to discussing automobile safety based on a Model-T. Sure they have upgraded some things over the years, but there are only so much you can do when your modifications are done after it was already built or even in the middle of being built. I just don't see how we can really compare nuclear technology of the 60s, with nuclear technology of the 2019.
- dralley 8y agoThe Chernobyl reactors were built after Fukushima. It was a really, really old plant, that had already gone 10 years past it's intended lifespan, but they kept it open despite that because they didn't have a viable replacement source of energy.
- aaronmdjones 8y agoThe Fukushima situation was predicted, several times, and TEPCO were warned about the dangers of having basement emergency generators at least 6 times. Nothing happened, because fixing that would cost money. The sea wall was artificially lowered from 30 metres to 10 metres, because keeping it at 30 during construction would have cost more money. At the end of the day it's money.
- underwater 8y agoAnd people. Neither of which new plant designs will address.