3 ms·
It's hard to say Fukushima was a case of "doing it wrong." You can only protect against a certain level of natural disasters. Even if you get totally paranoid a
by hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
It's hard to say Fukushima was a case of "doing it wrong." You can only protect against a certain level of natural disasters. Even if you get totally paranoid and put the plant deep under earth you can never be sure an earthquake doesn't damage it. We just can't be 100% sure.
On the other hand, can we afford not doing it? We don't yet have clean and efficient energy storage technologies that would allow us to switch to renewables completely. So if the alternative is to burn coal and worsen our already bad situation, the nuclear risk seems much smaller.
- pvaldes 5y ago> It's hard to say Fukushima was a case of "doing it wrong." If you tsunami safety plan in a country prone to have tsunamis fits in one page and has not been updated in the last 9 years to include the new scientific data, yes, you are doing it wrong. If your plans calculate less than 6m high waves as a maximum and there is a 14m high wave event. If your calculus failed for more than 50%, not, this is not a good job. You could have done much more. Can blame the nature or the bad luck, or the constellations, but you are just lying to yourself.
- hdjjhhvvhga 5y agoA fair point. Mine is: whatever wave height you plan for, you can be sure a higher one will come. It's not a question of if, only when.