4 ms·

Of course the probability is never 0,00%. But it is obvious that the Fukushima accident happened due to geological factors. The same power plant would hum away

Of course the probability is never 0,00%. But it is obvious that the Fukushima accident happened due to geological factors. The same power plant would hum away nicely in Germany to this day, where there is little to no seismic activity and none on the scale of what happened in Fukushima.

GekkePrutser 6y ago
But unforeseen factors are always a component of accidents. Otherwise it wouldn't be an accident. Of course boost is planning for this to happen. The point is that it does happen despite planning. It won't happen in the same way in Germany but something else can happen.
- nine_k 6y ago
  But the problems were very much foreseen! The chief architect of the Fukushima plant tried hard to convince his bosses that the wall which protects the plant is not tall enough to protect against rare but possible huge tsunami waves, but hasn't been heard. He turned out to be right. The plant also had emergency cooling pumps, but the pumps were connected incorrectly. This was unforeseen, I can give you that. In any case, the Fukushima disaster caused one direct human death, or something like that. In general, modern nuclear stations are no less reliable than fossil fuel plants, and only freak accidents, like a major earthquake and a tsunami, or personnel knowingly switching off all safety systems (the Chernobyl case) lead to catastrophic failures. This still can and should be improved upon, by using reactors with inherently self-contained designs, lack of high-pressure components within the reactor, etc.
  - GekkePrutser 6y ago
    That makes it even worse though! If the problems were foreseen but willfully ignored. It goes to show that even in developed countries corruption happens and this is a major liability to nuclear plants. If it can happen there it can happen anywhere. And deaths aren't the only measure of accidents. It also caused major pollution.
sokoloff 6y ago
Were the builders of Fukushima unaware of the geology of Japan? I would argue that they were aware and still got hit by the risk. I don’t see “well, that specific failure won’t be what gets us in Germany” as especially compelling.
- Aeolun 6y ago
  It’s hard to believe they took it fully into consideration. Or more likely someone just said ‘fuck it, just build it’ at some point. Given the costs involved however, I find it hard to imagine tepco will make the same mistake again in the next 50 years or so.
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    Your first paragraph is exactly my point. What suggests that the plants being contemplated elsewhere in the world won't be subject to the same "fuck it, just built it" decision-making, whether that's around site safety, engineering, fuel handling, waste disposal, and other topics? (Especially because, at some point, you do have to actually say "judging everything, let's build it" which can look to opponents exactly like "fuck it, just build it".) (Side note: I am pro-nuclear for baseline load in general. I'm also a realist about how likely problems are to repeat/ryhme.)
  - grey-area 6y ago
    They planned for a certain level of tsunami/earthquake, but this particular tsunami exceeded norms. They could have protected against this, but siting it near the coast is desirable for cooling purposes too (and has been helpful in some ways for cleanup as they've been able to dispose of waste in the ocean), so there are conflicting concerns here. Things fail from time to time, if that thing failing is catastrophic, it gets very expensive to ensure 100% reliability.
de_watcher 6y ago
Shoved the critical electrical stuff below the sea level... It's not like the reactors have fallen into a sudden volcano.

GekkePrutser 6y ago

But unforeseen factors are always a component of accidents. Otherwise it wouldn't be an accident. Of course boost is planning for this to happen. The point is that it does happen despite planning. It won't happen in the same way in Germany but something else can happen.

nine_k 6y ago
But the problems were very much foreseen! The chief architect of the Fukushima plant tried hard to convince his bosses that the wall which protects the plant is not tall enough to protect against rare but possible huge tsunami waves, but hasn't been heard. He turned out to be right. The plant also had emergency cooling pumps, but the pumps were connected incorrectly. This was unforeseen, I can give you that. In any case, the Fukushima disaster caused one direct human death, or something like that. In general, modern nuclear stations are no less reliable than fossil fuel plants, and only freak accidents, like a major earthquake and a tsunami, or personnel knowingly switching off all safety systems (the Chernobyl case) lead to catastrophic failures. This still can and should be improved upon, by using reactors with inherently self-contained designs, lack of high-pressure components within the reactor, etc.
- GekkePrutser 6y ago
  That makes it even worse though! If the problems were foreseen but willfully ignored. It goes to show that even in developed countries corruption happens and this is a major liability to nuclear plants. If it can happen there it can happen anywhere. And deaths aren't the only measure of accidents. It also caused major pollution.

sokoloff 6y ago

Were the builders of Fukushima unaware of the geology of Japan? I would argue that they were aware and still got hit by the risk. I don’t see “well, that specific failure won’t be what gets us in Germany” as especially compelling.

Aeolun 6y ago
It’s hard to believe they took it fully into consideration. Or more likely someone just said ‘fuck it, just build it’ at some point. Given the costs involved however, I find it hard to imagine tepco will make the same mistake again in the next 50 years or so.
- sokoloff 6y ago
  Your first paragraph is exactly my point. What suggests that the plants being contemplated elsewhere in the world won't be subject to the same "fuck it, just built it" decision-making, whether that's around site safety, engineering, fuel handling, waste disposal, and other topics? (Especially because, at some point, you do have to actually say "judging everything, let's build it" which can look to opponents exactly like "fuck it, just build it".) (Side note: I am pro-nuclear for baseline load in general. I'm also a realist about how likely problems are to repeat/ryhme.)
- grey-area 6y ago
  They planned for a certain level of tsunami/earthquake, but this particular tsunami exceeded norms. They could have protected against this, but siting it near the coast is desirable for cooling purposes too (and has been helpful in some ways for cleanup as they've been able to dispose of waste in the ocean), so there are conflicting concerns here. Things fail from time to time, if that thing failing is catastrophic, it gets very expensive to ensure 100% reliability.

de_watcher 6y ago

Shoved the critical electrical stuff below the sea level... It's not like the reactors have fallen into a sudden volcano.