5 ms·

First, the Fukushima case is not yet closed. Tepco told us today (faz.net), that the three damaged reactors are stiil out of control, at least until end of this

by olaf 15y ago

First, the Fukushima case is not yet closed. Tepco told us today (faz.net), that the three damaged reactors are stiil out of control, at least until end of this year. We will see, what will happen. Second: don't you ignore the risk of how many people _could_ die, in the case of a big disaster? That would have global conequences for quite some days (ironic). Even if nobody would die under normal conditions (nuclear and coal), the consequenences of a (more or less probable) big catastrophe (height of fall) are the main counter argument against nuclear power.

Typhon 15y ago
>« Even if nobody would die under normal conditions (nuclear and coal » Except the point of what I was saying and of the link I gave is precisely that under "normal conditions", people die due to coal, whereas it is not the case with nuclear plant. The reason is that all a nuclear plant releases in the air is water. > « the consequenences of a (more or less probable) big catastrophe (height of fall) are the main counter argument against nuclear power. » You must take into account the odds of a probable disaster, such as an earthquake in Japan, but not the consequences of any disaster. It's just unreasonable to assume an improbable disaster will happen. You end up renouncing any technology by thinking that way. Obviously, Nuclear power plant must be built with security as the main concern. Obviously, a nuclear reactor can be very dangerous. But refusing to use nuclear plants, which are much more efficient than classic ones and a good long-term investment, is idiotic. We're far more likely to die in a car accident than because of radio-activity, or any other disaster that's on television. Yet, noone is suggesting that a country should be "car free". Until a better, safer replacement is found, we'll use cars, and nuclear plants.
- moe 15y ago
  Until a better, safer replacement is found, we'll use cars, and nuclear plants. I'd wager the change of mind will happen rather quickly after the first terrorist crashes a plane into an US nuclear facility.
  - vukk 15y ago
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjhxuhTmGk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjhxuhTmGk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7eI4vvlupY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7eI4vvlupY
    - moe 15y ago
      Impressive video. However, I wonder if that test would look as good with a real passenger jet. According to wikipedia the empty weight of a Phantom F4 is 30,328 lb. The empty weight of a Boeing 737 is up to 80,000 lb (almost 3x as much). The empty weight of an A380 is 610,000 lb (20 times as much).
    - eliasmacpherson 15y ago
      Would that the walls of the containment area on the reactors in Fukushima were that thick.
  - Typhon 15y ago
    I'm pretty sure a big earthquake followed by a tsunami is more damaging than a plane crash.
    - lispm 15y ago
      The recent review of reactor safety here in Germany found that not a single site would survive a large passenger aircraft crashing into it. http://www.bz-berlin.de/aktuell/deutschland/kein-deutsches-akw-sicher-vor-jet-absturz-article1184819.html http://www.bz-berlin.de/aktuell/deutschland/kein-deutsches-a...
      - Typhon 15y ago
        I don't read German. >« not a single site would survive a large passenger aircraft crashing into it. » Now, what does that even mean ? If surviving means "keep on working", obviously not. If it means destruction of the protection layers of concrete around the reactor, it's more dangerous, but just because the reactor is open, it doesn't mean the radioactive material is going to fly away.
tomp 15y ago
I can hardly imagine a bigger catastrophe than Fukushima... Now, the following facts are from my memory, so they might not be absolutely accurate, but I believe the points stand. - It was hit by an earthquake with a magnitude 1 point higher than it was built for, and it was perfectly OK. - Only the following tsunami damaged it, and only because it interrupted the power supply of the cooling pumps. Let us not forget that the power plant was 20 or so years old. New plants would no doubt be much safer.
- lispm 15y ago
  'only'? 6 reactors were affected. Four of them are wrecked. There are full pools of spent and active fuel exposed to sunshine. Tepco had twenty years to build higher walls against a Tsunami. There were already enough complaints about the weak security before it got hit. That there are earth quake in the sea causing Tsunamis is nothing new for Japan. They failed. You might be surprised to hear that there are also Tsunamis in North Europe.
- nl 15y ago
  They were lucky at Fukushima. There were no substantial aftershocks that damaged the plant, nor were there any secondary tsunamis. I can hardly imagine a bigger catastrophe than Fukushima That's a failure of imagination. Imagine if a comparatively minor secondary tsunami had hit after the containment vessel had been breached. That could spread highly radioactive materials just abotu anywhere - and, worse - could have made it too dangerous to get close enough to the plant for the for the fire engines (!) to spray water to cool the reactors.

by olaf 15y ago

Typhon 15y ago

>« Even if nobody would die under normal conditions (nuclear and coal » Except the point of what I was saying and of the link I gave is precisely that under "normal conditions", people die due to coal, whereas it is not the case with nuclear plant. The reason is that all a nuclear plant releases in the air is water. > « the consequenences of a (more or less probable) big catastrophe (height of fall) are the main counter argument against nuclear power. » You must take into account the odds of a probable disaster, such as an earthquake in Japan, but not the consequences of any disaster. It's just unreasonable to assume an improbable disaster will happen. You end up renouncing any technology by thinking that way. Obviously, Nuclear power plant must be built with security as the main concern. Obviously, a nuclear reactor can be very dangerous. But refusing to use nuclear plants, which are much more efficient than classic ones and a good long-term investment, is idiotic. We're far more likely to die in a car accident than because of radio-activity, or any other disaster that's on television. Yet, noone is suggesting that a country should be "car free". Until a better, safer replacement is found, we'll use cars, and nuclear plants.

moe 15y ago
Until a better, safer replacement is found, we'll use cars, and nuclear plants. I'd wager the change of mind will happen rather quickly after the first terrorist crashes a plane into an US nuclear facility.
- vukk 15y ago
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjhxuhTmGk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjhxuhTmGk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7eI4vvlupY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7eI4vvlupY
  - moe 15y ago
    Impressive video. However, I wonder if that test would look as good with a real passenger jet. According to wikipedia the empty weight of a Phantom F4 is 30,328 lb. The empty weight of a Boeing 737 is up to 80,000 lb (almost 3x as much). The empty weight of an A380 is 610,000 lb (20 times as much).
  - eliasmacpherson 15y ago
    Would that the walls of the containment area on the reactors in Fukushima were that thick.
- Typhon 15y ago
  I'm pretty sure a big earthquake followed by a tsunami is more damaging than a plane crash.
  - lispm 15y ago
    The recent review of reactor safety here in Germany found that not a single site would survive a large passenger aircraft crashing into it. http://www.bz-berlin.de/aktuell/deutschland/kein-deutsches-akw-sicher-vor-jet-absturz-article1184819.html http://www.bz-berlin.de/aktuell/deutschland/kein-deutsches-a...
    - Typhon 15y ago
      I don't read German. >« not a single site would survive a large passenger aircraft crashing into it. » Now, what does that even mean ? If surviving means "keep on working", obviously not. If it means destruction of the protection layers of concrete around the reactor, it's more dangerous, but just because the reactor is open, it doesn't mean the radioactive material is going to fly away.

tomp 15y ago

I can hardly imagine a bigger catastrophe than Fukushima... Now, the following facts are from my memory, so they might not be absolutely accurate, but I believe the points stand. - It was hit by an earthquake with a magnitude 1 point higher than it was built for, and it was perfectly OK. - Only the following tsunami damaged it, and only because it interrupted the power supply of the cooling pumps. Let us not forget that the power plant was 20 or so years old. New plants would no doubt be much safer.

lispm 15y ago
'only'? 6 reactors were affected. Four of them are wrecked. There are full pools of spent and active fuel exposed to sunshine. Tepco had twenty years to build higher walls against a Tsunami. There were already enough complaints about the weak security before it got hit. That there are earth quake in the sea causing Tsunamis is nothing new for Japan. They failed. You might be surprised to hear that there are also Tsunamis in North Europe.
nl 15y ago
They were lucky at Fukushima. There were no substantial aftershocks that damaged the plant, nor were there any secondary tsunamis. I can hardly imagine a bigger catastrophe than Fukushima That's a failure of imagination. Imagine if a comparatively minor secondary tsunami had hit after the containment vessel had been breached. That could spread highly radioactive materials just abotu anywhere - and, worse - could have made it too dangerous to get close enough to the plant for the for the fire engines (!) to spray water to cool the reactors.