3 ms·

Meanwhile in Japan...

• loeg 5y ago
  France is not building reactors forty years ago, with generators below sea level, on a major fault line.
  • oblib 5y ago
    We and France are no where near solving that problem. And it's likely we never will... https://www.power-technology.com/features/managing-nuclear-waste-france-long-short-game/ https://www.power-technology.com/features/managing-nuclear-w...
• rad_gruchalski 5y ago
  > Fukushima would have survived if they followed Europe's lead and improved the plant's design. In short, had Tepco and the nuclear safety agency followed international standards and best practice, the Fukushima accident would have been prevented. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/10/opinion/fukushima-could-have-been-prevented.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/10/opinion/fukushima-could-h...
  • rq1 5y ago
    This is an illusion of control. Once someone doesn’t follow some guideline or makes a mistake somewhere. Would you come again with an article saying: oh it’s safe, if only we didn’t do X or Y or Z… Yes if only… Elevation of sea levels (and rivers), elevation of temperature lead to plants downtimes because either the plants can’t be cooled down or the water level is too high for safe operations. So it has its own intermittences. The other issue is nuclear waste. A small one. I would prefer them to put a higher effort on the Tokamak iter and develop orbital plants with microwave lenses.
  • pfdietz 5y ago
    Nuclear is much safer if the construction and operation are not allowed to make a single mistake (and that is what it would take, as we cannot predict ahead of time which mistake will be the fatal one.) Of course, then the nuclear stans will complain about the cost of excessive regulation. Perhaps nuclear proponents should advocate investment in crystal balls, so we can know ahead of time which mistakes to avoid.