3 ms·
But isn't it scary that political decisions about energy are made on reactionary terms rather than engineering terms? An engineer would not have said "we have t
by asdff 4y ago
But isn't it scary that political decisions about energy are made on reactionary terms rather than engineering terms? An engineer would not have said "we have to stop nuclear power," because of accidents, they would have studied those accidents and developed methods to mitigate them. This is why airlines are safe, because of past accidents that were deeply tragic and catastrophic but often went on to stymie some shortcoming of aircraft that wasn't apparent in modelling and testing that had been done at that point. If we reacted to aircraft disasters how the German government reacted to nuclear energy disasters that didn't even happen within their own borders, we'd be back to using clipper ships to cross the Atlantic in three weeks. This is regressive thinking that hurts our species overall, not progressive thinking that leads to technological improvements and benefits for our species.
- dorgo 4y ago> they would have studied those accidents and developed methods to mitigate them. So, eartchquakes and tsunamis were a new developement in japan. The engineers had never a chance to study them and develope methods to mitigate risks for nuclear plants? If plane crashes would endanger whole countries or continents we would ban air traffic all together.
- asdff 4y agoFukushima was actually preventable. There were other reactors in the Tsunami zone that were fine because they were designed for these magnitude events. The fact that Fukushima happened as it did was because engineers with knowledge on international standards were not let into the decision making process. If anything Fukushima is an argument about the dangers of allowing energy production to be controlled by a private company that will focus on its bottom line moreso than engineering best practices (this might ring familiar to people affected by PG&E wildfires). (1). That being said, fukushima still worked as intended and no radiation leaked out. And plane crashes can and did endanger entire countries in the past, such as 9/11 where hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and Afganistan civilians went on to die because of a plane crash in new york city. However, we responded to 9/11 by engineering better protocols, like installing a door lock to the pilots cabin and preventing the carrying on of certain blades. There were other times too when a plane crash threatened an entire country, such as when the soviet union shot down an airliner and caused a serious diplomatic incident as a result. 1. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2014.0379 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2014.037...
- freeqaz 4y agoI really like the way that you have phrased this here. This analogy is succinct and helpful. Thank you!
- cedilla 4y agoIt is scary, but it's not quite what happened. The original nuclear exit was a plan over some decades and included a clear exit from coal power as well. It also included a multi billion dollar plan to accelerate renewable energy as well, one that still reaps dividends today. Unfortunately, the Merkel government stopped these subsidies and dragged its feet regarding renewables for sixteen years. The flip-flopping stance regarding nuclear didn't help either, of course.