4 ms·

> For two: Fukushima was a result of human incompetence, nothing to do with the reactor itself or nuclear technology thereof. The meltdowns at Fukushima #1 coul

> For two: Fukushima was a result of human incompetence, nothing to do with the reactor itself or nuclear technology thereof. The meltdowns at Fukushima #1 could have been completely avoided had the government of the time not been a bunch of worthless fools (hint: TEPCO wanted to scuttle the reactors before they melted down). Surely there is no reason to believe that couldn't happen again.

Dalewyn 4y ago
Humans being humans will always be a thing, but if we let that be the showstopper then we can't do anything period.
- emodendroket 4y ago
  If nuclear power requires more vigilance or competence from the people running it to avert disaster then that's a real demerit.
  - rightbyte 4y ago
    Which especially makes me nervous about all these plans for small reactors. Harder to supervise for authorities and more "silos" where incompetence could emerge.
    - tb_technical 4y ago
      Beware fear, uncertainty, and doubt. The new small reactors have safer designs and more fail-safes than the last gen reactors.
  - mpweiher 4y ago
    It doesn't. Fukushima clearly demonstrated this. 1. The reactor was an old design, not really considered safe 2. Known deficiencies were not fixed 3. Despite the regulations saying they needed to be fixed 4. Regulations that were also found to be insufficient So really colossal screwups piled on top of each other. And so an accident happened. Explosions happened. Without the containment of more modern plants. And yet, the actual effect was minimal. (The panic, on the other hand...)
    - cinntaile 4y ago
      You clearly prove his point, more vigilance and/or competence is needed.
      - mpweiher 4y ago
        If you mean that more vigilance and/or competence is always desirable: Absolutely! If you mean that more vigilance and/or competence is required to operate nuclear power: I clearly showed the opposite.
        cinntaile 4y ago
        I was under the assumption we were taking about what was required to operate a nuclear power plant while trying to prevent accidents. If accidents are no issue then I agree that the vigilance/competence bar needn't be very high to operate a plant. I don't see how you would sell that to the general public though and I'm not sure I get your point in that case? It's technically right but not really applicable to running a nuclear power plant in society. Society wants a safely operated plant without serious accidents.
        mpweiher 4y ago
        > operate a nuclear power plant No. I was talking about whether countries/societies operate nuclear power. Very different. For example, the Bhopal disaster at a chemical plant killed several thousand people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster Germany did not get out of chemicals production afterward, or after Seveso or Flixborough, even though the case for that was a lot stronger than for getting out of nuclear. But of course this does not imply it is fine to run a chemical plant this way. Separate issues. > trying to prevent accidents Key word is trying. You will never be able to prevent all accidents and being 100% certain to prevent all accidents cannot be the standard, and it is not a standard applied anywhere else. And Fukushima showed that a lot of idiocy has to be stacked on top of each other in order to get to an accident, and even then the actual effects of the accident are fairly benign. > If accidents are no issue No. Accidents are issues. But the response to those issues has to be appropriate and proportionate. > Society wants a safely operated plant without serious accidents. Society also wants and needs energy, and nuclear energy is one of the safest/cleanest forms of energy we have, and the safest/cleanest form of reliable energy we have. Not having reliable energy would be a far greater disaster than any nuclear accident to date. In fact, the net effect is highly, highly positive even for fossil fuels.
cbmuser 4y ago
The reactors in Fukushima and their protection against flooding and cooling failure would have never passed German safety standards. Japan’s nuclear safety standards were way too lenient before the Fukushima accident happened. All the changes that were implemented in Japan after the disaster have been standard in Germany for decades such as hydrogen recombiners, bunkered emergency generators and a filtered containment depression system. If any German nuclear reactor had been standing in Fukushima, there would have been no accident!
- cinntaile 4y ago
  It's quite amazing how many accidents happen on a daily basis that could have been prevented. How come we don't live in this platonic world?
- sudhirc 4y ago
  If I am not wrong, Volkswagen came to light in Germany not too long ago.
  - workingdog 4y ago
    Volkswagens diesels illegally spewing excess particulates have killed vastly more people than Japan's nuclear meltdown. Estimates are about 40 people. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.5b05190 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.5b05190
    - sudhirc 4y ago
      Parent commentor's assertion that German standards would have prevented the disaster magically. Germany or Japan Human nature doesn't change fundamentally.

Dalewyn 4y ago

Humans being humans will always be a thing, but if we let that be the showstopper then we can't do anything period.

emodendroket 4y ago
If nuclear power requires more vigilance or competence from the people running it to avert disaster then that's a real demerit.
- rightbyte 4y ago
  Which especially makes me nervous about all these plans for small reactors. Harder to supervise for authorities and more "silos" where incompetence could emerge.
  - tb_technical 4y ago
    Beware fear, uncertainty, and doubt. The new small reactors have safer designs and more fail-safes than the last gen reactors.
- mpweiher 4y ago
  It doesn't. Fukushima clearly demonstrated this. 1. The reactor was an old design, not really considered safe 2. Known deficiencies were not fixed 3. Despite the regulations saying they needed to be fixed 4. Regulations that were also found to be insufficient So really colossal screwups piled on top of each other. And so an accident happened. Explosions happened. Without the containment of more modern plants. And yet, the actual effect was minimal. (The panic, on the other hand...)
  - cinntaile 4y ago
    You clearly prove his point, more vigilance and/or competence is needed.
    - mpweiher 4y ago
      If you mean that more vigilance and/or competence is always desirable: Absolutely! If you mean that more vigilance and/or competence is required to operate nuclear power: I clearly showed the opposite.
      - cinntaile 4y ago
        I was under the assumption we were taking about what was required to operate a nuclear power plant while trying to prevent accidents. If accidents are no issue then I agree that the vigilance/competence bar needn't be very high to operate a plant. I don't see how you would sell that to the general public though and I'm not sure I get your point in that case? It's technically right but not really applicable to running a nuclear power plant in society. Society wants a safely operated plant without serious accidents.
        mpweiher 4y ago
        > operate a nuclear power plant No. I was talking about whether countries/societies operate nuclear power. Very different. For example, the Bhopal disaster at a chemical plant killed several thousand people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster Germany did not get out of chemicals production afterward, or after Seveso or Flixborough, even though the case for that was a lot stronger than for getting out of nuclear. But of course this does not imply it is fine to run a chemical plant this way. Separate issues. > trying to prevent accidents Key word is trying. You will never be able to prevent all accidents and being 100% certain to prevent all accidents cannot be the standard, and it is not a standard applied anywhere else. And Fukushima showed that a lot of idiocy has to be stacked on top of each other in order to get to an accident, and even then the actual effects of the accident are fairly benign. > If accidents are no issue No. Accidents are issues. But the response to those issues has to be appropriate and proportionate. > Society wants a safely operated plant without serious accidents. Society also wants and needs energy, and nuclear energy is one of the safest/cleanest forms of energy we have, and the safest/cleanest form of reliable energy we have. Not having reliable energy would be a far greater disaster than any nuclear accident to date. In fact, the net effect is highly, highly positive even for fossil fuels.

cbmuser 4y ago

The reactors in Fukushima and their protection against flooding and cooling failure would have never passed German safety standards. Japan’s nuclear safety standards were way too lenient before the Fukushima accident happened. All the changes that were implemented in Japan after the disaster have been standard in Germany for decades such as hydrogen recombiners, bunkered emergency generators and a filtered containment depression system. If any German nuclear reactor had been standing in Fukushima, there would have been no accident!

cinntaile 4y ago
It's quite amazing how many accidents happen on a daily basis that could have been prevented. How come we don't live in this platonic world?
sudhirc 4y ago
If I am not wrong, Volkswagen came to light in Germany not too long ago.
- workingdog 4y ago
  Volkswagens diesels illegally spewing excess particulates have killed vastly more people than Japan's nuclear meltdown. Estimates are about 40 people. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.5b05190 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.5b05190
  - sudhirc 4y ago
    Parent commentor's assertion that German standards would have prevented the disaster magically. Germany or Japan Human nature doesn't change fundamentally.