2 ms·

Please note that I have not said that earthquakes are not something they took into account, I've said beside earthquakes, terrorist attacks and anything, there

by maigret 16y ago

Please note that I have not said that earthquakes are not something they took into account, I've said beside earthquakes, terrorist attacks and anything, there is also an additional risk that no one can calculate. Every engineer knows that prevision has its limit. So it's all about inner danger. In case of an earthquake, a barrage could also break and make huge damages. What such an accident would not do, though, and what an airliner accident would also not do, is damaging big areas during decades in unknown ways. Of course they are risks, but if you look at the Rasmussen report, it tells a meltdown is likely happen all 20000 years per reactor. We have around 430 reactors over the world, so this event should happen every 46 years. It seems that this calculation is optimistic at best (if you don't take all the partial meltdowns into account) https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Nuclear_meltdown https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Nuclear_meltd.... So I think we might need to reconsider nuclear energy - at least have a public debate on that topic. Also, using capitals don't serve your argument.

rosser 16y ago
And what is a "melt down", but an accident at a reactor that causes damage to the reactor core. Nothing more. If a reactor core is damaged every 40-odd years, that's a pretty small price to pay for the terawatts it supplied during that span. Yes, sometimes other things happen, and the damage goes beyond the core. That's deeply unfortunate, and I feel for the people affected. But "melt down" is one of those loaded terms like "death tax" -- it serves more to create an image of unimaginable dire consequence in the lay mind than support informed debate.
ericd 16y ago
No form of energy is entirely clean or risk free. To say that any risk of a relatively large accident is unacceptable is unrealistic. Look at what the use of oil caused in the Gulf of Mexico, let alone the environmental damage caused by the normal use of oil as a power source. Short of a breakthrough on fusion or something else exotic, nuclear power with modern designs is by far the best hope for decreasing our dependence on fossil fuels, and only with reprocessing (also unpopular) could it bear the burden for very long while being economical. It's a tragedy that this will be used as an example for why it should be locked away in a closet in the coming years. Believing that efficiency and saving can solve our energy problems is pretty naive, and taking away from the debate of the matter at hand.

by maigret 16y ago

rosser 16y ago

And what is a "melt down", but an accident at a reactor that causes damage to the reactor core. Nothing more. If a reactor core is damaged every 40-odd years, that's a pretty small price to pay for the terawatts it supplied during that span. Yes, sometimes other things happen, and the damage goes beyond the core. That's deeply unfortunate, and I feel for the people affected. But "melt down" is one of those loaded terms like "death tax" -- it serves more to create an image of unimaginable dire consequence in the lay mind than support informed debate.

ericd 16y ago

No form of energy is entirely clean or risk free. To say that any risk of a relatively large accident is unacceptable is unrealistic. Look at what the use of oil caused in the Gulf of Mexico, let alone the environmental damage caused by the normal use of oil as a power source. Short of a breakthrough on fusion or something else exotic, nuclear power with modern designs is by far the best hope for decreasing our dependence on fossil fuels, and only with reprocessing (also unpopular) could it bear the burden for very long while being economical. It's a tragedy that this will be used as an example for why it should be locked away in a closet in the coming years. Believing that efficiency and saving can solve our energy problems is pretty naive, and taking away from the debate of the matter at hand.