3 ms·

There has been more near misses in the nuclear industry than tsunamis. After Fukushima about all plants in the west had to install independent core cooling beca

There has been more near misses in the nuclear industry than tsunamis. After Fukushima about all plants in the west had to install independent core cooling because the regulators realized the risk was systemic, even though the cause was special. A nuclear reactor in Sweden had a severe incident in 2006 when many of the "defense in depth" layers had been accidentally removed through freak occurrences and upgrades. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forsmark_Nuclear_Power_Plant#July_2006_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forsmark_Nuclear_Power_Plant#J...

PaulHoule 4y ago
Fukushima had trouble with the backup coolant systems. One reactor had the isolation condenser fail. Unlike US plants, where the isolation condenser is regularly tested, they had never tested it so they didn't know what it sounded like when it was in operation (you couldn't miss it!) they didn't realize it wasn't working. They tried to cool another reactor by pumping in water from fire trucks and found that the water didn't go where it was supposed to go, it took quite a few months of work to really understand the path it went through.
kranke155 4y ago
Nuclear feels a bit like having a loaded gun in your home in an unsafe neighbourhood. You feel safer but there’s a lot of risk - accidental suicide, etc.
nl 4y ago
To expand on this, nuclear risk is significantly underestimated: > Despite significant reforms following past disasters, we estimate that, with 388 reactors in operation, there is a 50% chance that a Fukushima event (or more costly) occurs every 60–150 years. We also find that the average cost of events per year is around the cost of the construction of a new plant. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629615301067?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221462961...
- belorn 4y ago
  One nuclear accident every 60–150 years seems pretty fine compared to the estimated risk of global warming from fossil fueled power plants. It seems similar to the added risk of battery fire in electric cars compared to continuing using IC cars. If we can replace existing nuclear plants with exclusively using renewable and storage then that should naturally be considered, but accident rate of nuclear plants should not be considered in places where the current or future alternative is burning fossil fuels.
pfdietz 4y ago
> near misses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis%E2%80%93Besse_Nuclear_Power_Station#2002_reactor_head_hole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis%E2%80%93Besse_Nuclear_Po... And that was just the 5th worst nuclear incident in the US since 1979!

PaulHoule 4y ago

Fukushima had trouble with the backup coolant systems. One reactor had the isolation condenser fail. Unlike US plants, where the isolation condenser is regularly tested, they had never tested it so they didn't know what it sounded like when it was in operation (you couldn't miss it!) they didn't realize it wasn't working. They tried to cool another reactor by pumping in water from fire trucks and found that the water didn't go where it was supposed to go, it took quite a few months of work to really understand the path it went through.

kranke155 4y ago

Nuclear feels a bit like having a loaded gun in your home in an unsafe neighbourhood. You feel safer but there’s a lot of risk - accidental suicide, etc.

nl 4y ago

To expand on this, nuclear risk is significantly underestimated: > Despite significant reforms following past disasters, we estimate that, with 388 reactors in operation, there is a 50% chance that a Fukushima event (or more costly) occurs every 60–150 years. We also find that the average cost of events per year is around the cost of the construction of a new plant. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629615301067?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221462961...

belorn 4y ago
One nuclear accident every 60–150 years seems pretty fine compared to the estimated risk of global warming from fossil fueled power plants. It seems similar to the added risk of battery fire in electric cars compared to continuing using IC cars. If we can replace existing nuclear plants with exclusively using renewable and storage then that should naturally be considered, but accident rate of nuclear plants should not be considered in places where the current or future alternative is burning fossil fuels.

pfdietz 4y ago

> near misses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis%E2%80%93Besse_Nuclear_Power_Station#2002_reactor_head_hole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis%E2%80%93Besse_Nuclear_Po... And that was just the 5th worst nuclear incident in the US since 1979!