4 ms·
But that kind of reactor is never going to be built again - its design was very outdated and outright bad. Today we can build reactors where any failure that wo
by TomMarius 8y ago
But that kind of reactor is never going to be built again - its design was very outdated and outright bad. Today we can build reactors where any failure that would result in an explosion of any kind is physically nearly impossible.
- ianai 8y agoBingo, there’s clearly plenty of progress to be made with nuclear power and plenty made already.
- est31 8y agoMaybe we won't build those reactor types any more. But they are still operational, and this is what matters. There is a huge incentive in keeping them operational as the major cost of nuclear energy is building the reactor. Already built reactors don't incur that cost any more so they make loads of money for their operators, especially when they are old and "mortage free". Due to this gigantic incentive, every political support of new nuclear plants will be misdirected into prolonging the operational life of existing highly dangerous reactors. As to your "physically near impossible": people said about the titanic that it was unsinkable. This only led to a major shortage of lifeboats once it sank because why would a unsinkable ship need so many lifeboats.
- lstodd 8y agoThere are 11 still in operation, and heavily modified to not allow anything like that thirty-year old disaster. If this bullshit cloud over nuclear got dissolved they'd be replaced with much more safe design. Instead they are forced to continue operation because nothing new can be built. Because of unfounded fears. That's what caused the Fukushima disaster. No new plants - no decommisioning of old plants - old plants blow up.
- est31 8y ago> If this bullshit cloud over nuclear got dissolved they'd be replaced with much more safe design. I've outlined above why this doesn't happen. Japan has been severely pro-nuclear in the 80s and 90s, and built tons of reactors, yet they only decommisioned a single old reactor in the 80s and 90s, according to this list [1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors#Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors#Japan
- lstodd 8y ago> I've outlined above No, you didn't. If anything, you supported my line of reasoning - if the insane push against nuclear didn't happen, then the plants would have been modernised or rebuilt and there would not have been a Fukushima.
- ianai 8y agoI wonder whether the tsunami would have been so bad if not for the effects of climate change on sea levels. A literally physical attack on nuclear from fossil fuels.
- Tomte 8y agoThat exact same argument was made back then. You need to accept that all trust is lost. You cannot take backsies every few decades and expect people to trust you that this time you really know what you#re talking about.