4 ms·
In my mind, a nuclear power plant staffed with German engineers is the least likely to have a nuclear accident.
by WithinReason 5y ago
In my mind, a nuclear power plant staffed with German engineers is the least likely to have a nuclear accident.
- croes 5y agoThe same was thought about japanese nuclear power plants
- selfhoster11 5y agoExcept they built them in a place that's pretty known for earthquakes. An earthquake in Germany sounds like science fiction.
- arethuza 5y agoThere have been fairly large (VEI 6) volcanic eruptions in Germany fairly recently (at least by geological standards): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laacher_See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laacher_See
- selfhoster11 5y agoWhile I had no idea that Germany was volcanically active (thanks for the link!), this doesn't seem to be an ongoing thing.
- arethuza 5y agoWell, the area is categorised as volcanically active - I doubt if it is a very serious risk. Mind you - nobody thought we got tsunamis in Scotland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storegga_Slide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storegga_Slide Just to make clear: I'm completely comfortable with nuclear power and I live reasonably close to the remaining operational nuclear power station in Scotland: https://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/rants/nothing-like-this-will-be-buil.html https://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/rants/nothing-l...
- LargoLasskhyfv 5y agoWith a VEI 6 happening there, a lil' bit of radioactivity would be one of your lesser problems, I'd guess. One bigger potential problem would be damming the Rhine there, and flooding large areas behind that dam way upstream, with many large chemical plants. And then the flood downstream, if that dam breaks down.
- croes 5y agoYes, and the built it to withstand and earthquake or a tsunami, unfortunately not both. Because heavy earthquakes in Germany are unlikely the standards for german nuclear power plants aren't planned to withstand one because the planning is accordingly to the dangers of the location. And that is the problem. We are building something that has to last decades if not centuries and if we miss something the damage is severe. For example before satellite imagery ships were built according to the normal distribution of waves which said large waves are rare, freak waves nearly impossible. Stories about freak waves were even often dismissed as exaggeration or sailor's yarn. Nowadays we know freak waves happen a lot more often as we thought and ships are built accordingly but older ships have problems if a freak wave shows up or they simply sink.
- LargoLasskhyfv 5y agoUhm. Some "fiction" for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_earthquakes_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_earthquakes_in_Germany There is also post-glacial rebound in northern Germany with several fault lines, one of them roughly between Kiel and Lübeck. Where parts of Denmark, Sweden and Norway still slowly rise, while the outer parts bordering Northern Germany slowly sink, 'scratching' against it. Also several large salt domes, producing sink holes which can be seen as lakes today. Interestingly, some of these are being explored today as energy storage solution, what could possibly go wrong? edit: Besides that, flooding. Again and again https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_von_Sturmfluten_an_der_Nordsee https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_von_Sturmfluten_an_der_N... Pick your 'fiction or fantasy' ;->
- yourusername 5y ago9.0 earthquakes and tsunami's are not that common in Germany.
- croes 5y agoI doubt that german power plants are even built for that occasion. Power plants are built according to the requirements of their location and history shows we fail in getting all the risk Not to mention corruption and botching. Which company would you trust to built and operate these power plants? Vattenfall, Shell, Siemens, Facebook, Apple?
- LargoLasskhyfv 5y agoZe Amish-Naderite-Quaker-Mondragonz!1!! Edit: Alternatively Die Schwesternschaft des Heiligen Strahls, äh Scheins.
- LargoLasskhyfv 5y agoBut they could happen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storegga_Slide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storegga_Slide Besides that something like this https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erdgasleck_in_der_Nordsee https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erdgasleck_in_der_Nordsee could also lead to a tsunami if it caves in. Considering how many we have there it's not that unlikely: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_and_gas_fields_of_the_North_Sea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_and_gas_fields_of_...
- theshrike79 5y agoFukushima weathered both a record breaking earthquake AND a record breaking tsunami simultaneously. And still there were only a handful of deaths directly caused by it. More people die because of wind turbines every year.
- croes 5y agoHow many deaths per wind turbine, and how long is the location of a turbine accident to uninhabitable?
- theshrike79 5y agohttps://www.visualcapitalist.com/worlds-safest-source-energy/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/worlds-safest-source-energy... Nuclear deaths is 90 per TWh Wind death toll is 150 per TWh Solar 440/TWh and leading the pack is Coal at 100000/1Twh produced The question is, as always with nuclear: Do you want constant, verified, 100% certain deaths every day or do you risk a larger death toll that may or may not happen some time in the future?
- drran 5y agoFor solar, it looks like falls from a roof are accounted, to make the number scarier. I see an asterisk near to the number for solar, but no explanation of it, nor break down of the number.
- croes 5y agoI asked for death per turbine not per TWh. Nuclear energy provides lots of TWh so it skews the statistics in their favor. That's like comparing death by train accident or plane accident. Planes are better per kilometer but worse per hour.
- IAmEveryone 5y agoAnd if the German way to run a secure nuclear facility is to shut it down, that may also tell you something.