3 ms·

Nuclear is not really geographically independent though. The plant has to be constructed to withstand earthquakes, floods, and other natural disasters.

• imtringued 6y ago
  It also has to be near a reliable water source so that it can be cooled. The bigger the power plant the more geographically constrained it is. France faces low river flow rates in the summer because of climate chance and this forces them to take some of the nuclear plants offline. Otherwise the waste heat would make it impossible for aquatic life to live near those power plants. Ever wondered why someone make an "obvious" mistake such as building Fukushima directly near the tsunami prone coast? Because the ocean is a reliable heat sink.
  • jnxx 6y ago
    Reliable cooling is also a big problem for the nuclear plants in the US East coast. They are away from the shore but well in reach of different types of disasters, like hurricanes, winter storms and flooding. They need reliable cooling and for that they depend on a working electrical grid. There are many ways in which the Fukushima disaster could repeat itself there - in a region which is rather densely populated.
    • manfredo 6y ago
      The US east coast does not suffer from earthquakes. A tsunami is a geological event, not a weather event.
      • pfdietz 6y ago
        While earthquakes on the east coast are uncommon, they do occur. For example, Virginia experienced a magnitude 5.8 quake in 2011. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Virginia_earthquake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Virginia_earthquake The US east coast faces a tsunami risk from undersea avalanches on the edge of the continental shelf: https://www.livescience.com/24813-east-coast-tsunamis.html https://www.livescience.com/24813-east-coast-tsunamis.html "An offshore earthquake of magnitude 4.5 or above could cause submarine avalanches and create dangerous tsunamis with waves higher than 26 feet (8 meters), [...] Underwater canyons and bays could focus these waves and make them even bigger."
        • manfredo 6y ago
          A submarine avalanche causes waves by a sudden displacement of earth under water. These occur regardless of earthquakes, and rarely result in significant waves: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbidity_current https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbidity_current
          • pfdietz 6y ago
            From the link I gave: "A 7.2-magnitude earthquake off the southern coast of Newfoundland in 1929 caused a large underwater landslide, creating a large wave that rushed ashore and killed 28 people on the island, ten Brink said. The waves were up to 26 feet high until some reached narrow inlets, where they grew to 43 feet (13 m), he said."
            • manfredo 6y ago
              Yes, caused by an earthquake 500 times more powerful than the magnitude 4.5 you had previously stated: > An offshore earthquake of magnitude 4.5 or above could cause submarine avalanches and create dangerous tsunamis with waves higher than 26 feet Turbidity currents occur on the regular without earthquakes and rarely result in substantial waves. They have been observed to happen due to earthquakes, but this is a rare event. The Grand Banks quake is the only known earthquake to have done this, and as you pointed out it was an earthquake with a much larger magnitude. In the grand scheme of things, turbidity events don't significantly impact the overall risk of tsunamis. The tsunami risk overwhelmingly comes from the earthquakes themselves, not the turbidity events they may trigger.
• jnxx 6y ago
  > and other natural disasters. Like Tsunamis. Do you know where Flamanville is situated? Right next to the Atlantic ocean. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan...