4 ms·

To some extent, it turns out that the problem is France never actually had those specialized nuclear techniques and skillsets. For example, they had huge proble

by makomk 6y ago

To some extent, it turns out that the problem is France never actually had those specialized nuclear techniques and skillsets. For example, they had huge problems with defective welding and large forgings that weren't up to spec and had faked QA testing documentation which caused big delays. Then the regulators went back and looked at the old plants from the original wave of nuclear building, and they had the same problems. It's just that French nuclear wasn't so well scrutinized back then, possibly for political reasons.

wahern 6y ago
I suspect this is true of many industries, including aircraft and car manufacturing. And I suspect the quality issues in the French nuclear industry were, very broadly speaking (trying not to equivocate), similar to issues in nuclear industries elsewhere.[1] As quality control and analysis become better, you're often going to belatedly realize that earlier claims fell short. As a rule of thumb I always add a fudge factor to any sales pitch. For example, whatever the 2020 nuclear industry claims today, let's just assume what they can deliver is what they were selling in 2000. And I'm comfortable with what they were selling circa 2000 in terms of safety, as I suspect many others were, too. Nuclear wasn't "unsafe" in 2000, neither in reality nor on paper. With the benefit of hindsight it's clear it was less safe than claimed, an effect hindsight has on most things. But the evidence regarding nuclear has been clear for quite awhile: safety is very good, with large and ever growing margins for error. [1] Fukushima being an obvious example. I'm neither an engineer nor nuclear cynic, but I was always skeptical of the claims nuclear engineers were making on the news in their self-defensive and, ultimately, self-defeating attempts to mitigate panic. They were far too credulous of engineering tolerances and quality control despite the evidence piling up in front of them regarding the probability of the supposedly improbable. Anyone remotely familiar with any kind of construction project knows things always fall short in the field.

by makomk 6y ago

wahern 6y ago

I suspect this is true of many industries, including aircraft and car manufacturing. And I suspect the quality issues in the French nuclear industry were, very broadly speaking (trying not to equivocate), similar to issues in nuclear industries elsewhere.[1] As quality control and analysis become better, you're often going to belatedly realize that earlier claims fell short. As a rule of thumb I always add a fudge factor to any sales pitch. For example, whatever the 2020 nuclear industry claims today, let's just assume what they can deliver is what they were selling in 2000. And I'm comfortable with what they were selling circa 2000 in terms of safety, as I suspect many others were, too. Nuclear wasn't "unsafe" in 2000, neither in reality nor on paper. With the benefit of hindsight it's clear it was less safe than claimed, an effect hindsight has on most things. But the evidence regarding nuclear has been clear for quite awhile: safety is very good, with large and ever growing margins for error. [1] Fukushima being an obvious example. I'm neither an engineer nor nuclear cynic, but I was always skeptical of the claims nuclear engineers were making on the news in their self-defensive and, ultimately, self-defeating attempts to mitigate panic. They were far too credulous of engineering tolerances and quality control despite the evidence piling up in front of them regarding the probability of the supposedly improbable. Anyone remotely familiar with any kind of construction project knows things always fall short in the field.