3 ms·

Why are they putting it in a region that has Earthquakes? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_earthquakes_in_Romania https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ea

by Teever 4y ago

Why are they putting it in a region that has Earthquakes? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_earthquakes_in_Romania https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_earthquakes_in_Romania

petrut_m 4y ago
Because it's where it's needed. Because of geography Romania has off shore wind, rooftop solar and nuclear as low carbon energy sources, (Hydro has 30% of the market and new dams are v difficult due to environmental concerns) All of these are needed, and small scale nuclear is a lot less susceptible to meltdown events due to loss of cooling. Earthquake resistant structures have been built for 50 years, so this is not a showstopper.
- hulitu 4y ago
  > small scale nuclear is a lot less susceptible to meltdown events due to loss of cooling Even your processor is "susceptible to meltdown events due to loss of cooling". It has some protection, of course, unless this reactor which does not exist even on paper.
pjc50 4y ago
This is a problem that nuclear advocates have to address; power is needed in imperfect locations.
- bufferout 4y ago
  We can (and do) build reactors to withstand these types of events. Objectively, the number of human casualties from nuclear plant disasters is comparatively very low, not even considering advances in safety technology.
justsomehnguy 4y ago
https://earthquaketrack.com/p/japan/fukushima/biggest https://earthquaketrack.com/p/japan/fukushima/biggest
- mateo1 4y ago
  One of them did it though.
  - justsomehnguy 4y ago
    Yes, but no: > In the late 1990s, three additional backup diesel generators for Units 2 and 4 were placed in new buildings located higher on the hillside, to comply with new regulatory requirements. All six units were given access to these diesel generators, but the switching stations that sent power from these backup generators to the reactors' cooling systems for Units 1 through 5 were still located in the poorly protected turbine buildings. Meanwhile, the switching station for Unit 6 was protected inside the only GE Mark II reactor building and continued to function.[54] All three of the generators added in the late 1990s were fully operational after the tsunami. If the switching stations had been moved to the interior of the reactor buildings or to other flood-proof locations, power would have been provided by these generators to the reactors' cooling systems and thus the catastrophe would have been averted.[54] Earthquake didn't did it, tsunami what flooded the generators which weren't moved/protected as ordered so (ie banal corruption) is what did it. And the purposed location is far enough from the coast.
    - mateo1 4y ago
      You missed my point. Despite all the planning surrounding the earthquakes in Japan, one of them still did damage in an unexpected way. For every nuclear catastrophe, you can easily say that if something was done differently, it would have been averted. Well, it wasn't.
      - justsomehnguy 4y ago
        Except it was pretty expected, but someone decided not to bother with it. For me there is a big difference between something could be done to prevent an unexpected event and something should had been done to prevent an expected event but haven't been. Fukushima Daini, which is on the same coast, with the same operating environment and was hit with the same wave - was shut down successfully. EDIT: this is just an example what the earthquakes are not a big problem for a nuclear power stations.
credit_guy 4y ago
Because you need to put it somewhere on this planet, not on some ideal parallel world planet. There are various potential hazards pretty much everywhere. The NRC has looked at all these and they have given their approval https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/smr/nuscale/ser-open-items.html It's thousands of pages, covering all things you can imagine, and many, many things you can't. It's their job. They have looked into earthquakes, what dangers they pose, what mitigands the design has against them, and in the end they decided the design is safe. But if you want the actual details, you can go to section 19.1.4.8.1 Seismic Risk Evaluation in this document: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2020/ML20205L410.pdf
hulitu 4y ago
Because a) it might never be built, b) it might not work, and c) nobody gives a ... so long as it stays away from american soil.
fomine3 4y ago
Every nuclear plants in Japan survived from a lot of earthquakes, but failed for tsunami.

by Teever 4y ago

Why are they putting it in a region that has Earthquakes? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_earthquakes_in_Romania https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_earthquakes_in_Romania

petrut_m 4y ago

Because it's where it's needed. Because of geography Romania has off shore wind, rooftop solar and nuclear as low carbon energy sources, (Hydro has 30% of the market and new dams are v difficult due to environmental concerns) All of these are needed, and small scale nuclear is a lot less susceptible to meltdown events due to loss of cooling. Earthquake resistant structures have been built for 50 years, so this is not a showstopper.

hulitu 4y ago
> small scale nuclear is a lot less susceptible to meltdown events due to loss of cooling Even your processor is "susceptible to meltdown events due to loss of cooling". It has some protection, of course, unless this reactor which does not exist even on paper.

pjc50 4y ago

This is a problem that nuclear advocates have to address; power is needed in imperfect locations.

bufferout 4y ago
We can (and do) build reactors to withstand these types of events. Objectively, the number of human casualties from nuclear plant disasters is comparatively very low, not even considering advances in safety technology.

justsomehnguy 4y ago

https://earthquaketrack.com/p/japan/fukushima/biggest https://earthquaketrack.com/p/japan/fukushima/biggest

mateo1 4y ago
One of them did it though.
- justsomehnguy 4y ago
  Yes, but no: > In the late 1990s, three additional backup diesel generators for Units 2 and 4 were placed in new buildings located higher on the hillside, to comply with new regulatory requirements. All six units were given access to these diesel generators, but the switching stations that sent power from these backup generators to the reactors' cooling systems for Units 1 through 5 were still located in the poorly protected turbine buildings. Meanwhile, the switching station for Unit 6 was protected inside the only GE Mark II reactor building and continued to function.[54] All three of the generators added in the late 1990s were fully operational after the tsunami. If the switching stations had been moved to the interior of the reactor buildings or to other flood-proof locations, power would have been provided by these generators to the reactors' cooling systems and thus the catastrophe would have been averted.[54] Earthquake didn't did it, tsunami what flooded the generators which weren't moved/protected as ordered so (ie banal corruption) is what did it. And the purposed location is far enough from the coast.
  - mateo1 4y ago
    You missed my point. Despite all the planning surrounding the earthquakes in Japan, one of them still did damage in an unexpected way. For every nuclear catastrophe, you can easily say that if something was done differently, it would have been averted. Well, it wasn't.
    - justsomehnguy 4y ago
      Except it was pretty expected, but someone decided not to bother with it. For me there is a big difference between something could be done to prevent an unexpected event and something should had been done to prevent an expected event but haven't been. Fukushima Daini, which is on the same coast, with the same operating environment and was hit with the same wave - was shut down successfully. EDIT: this is just an example what the earthquakes are not a big problem for a nuclear power stations.

credit_guy 4y ago

Because you need to put it somewhere on this planet, not on some ideal parallel world planet. There are various potential hazards pretty much everywhere. The NRC has looked at all these and they have given their approval https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/smr/nuscale/ser-open-items.html It's thousands of pages, covering all things you can imagine, and many, many things you can't. It's their job. They have looked into earthquakes, what dangers they pose, what mitigands the design has against them, and in the end they decided the design is safe. But if you want the actual details, you can go to section 19.1.4.8.1 Seismic Risk Evaluation in this document: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2020/ML20205L410.pdf

hulitu 4y ago

Because a) it might never be built, b) it might not work, and c) nobody gives a ... so long as it stays away from american soil.

fomine3 4y ago

Every nuclear plants in Japan survived from a lot of earthquakes, but failed for tsunami.