5 ms·

The Fukushima cleanup cost half a trillion dollar and displaced 120000 people. It is simply not sustainable to "price in" the risk.

by fsh 3y ago

XorNot 3y ago
The Tsunami killed 19,759 people. It is also notable that the nuclear plant was damaged by the Tsunami, not the earthquake. When is the last time California experience a Tsunami?
- Gwypaas 3y ago
  After Fukushima independent core cooling became a global requirement that was retrofitted on existing plants. While it is easy to blame the tsunami the regulators realized the risk was systemic so I would suggest to not be as dismissive next time. As an example: 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...
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    Fukushima would have been helped by FCVSs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filtered_Containment_Venting_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filtered_Containment_Venting_S...
- fsh 3y ago
  Fukushima was not a freak accident. The japanese coasts experience huge tsunamis every couple of decades. Yet the engineers completely underestimated the flooding risk when building the reactors. This raises the question which other risks were overlooked elsewhere.
Moldoteck 3y ago
ok, nice, how much it costed when dams accidents happened, where also a lot of people needed to move, a lot more killed? Fossils also caused move of people (climate migration) and how much costs it provoked in healthcare system by making a lot of people sick or in costs provoked in other directions? Again, I understand, nuclear has risks, but we should look in perspective, are those risks(even cost) that orders of magnitude high compared to others when all important factors are considered? I can't say, I'm not a scientist, but I see France that has a LOT of nuclear plants and a reprocessing plant and it does not look that bad there? Or maybe China?

The Fukushima cleanup cost half a trillion dollar and displaced 120000 people. It is simply not sustainable to "price in" the risk.

by fsh 3y ago

The Fukushima cleanup cost half a trillion dollar and displaced 120000 people. It is simply not sustainable to "price in" the risk.

XorNot 3y ago

The Tsunami killed 19,759 people. It is also notable that the nuclear plant was damaged by the Tsunami, not the earthquake. When is the last time California experience a Tsunami?

Gwypaas 3y ago
After Fukushima independent core cooling became a global requirement that was retrofitted on existing plants. While it is easy to blame the tsunami the regulators realized the risk was systemic so I would suggest to not be as dismissive next time. As an example: 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...
- pfdietz 3y ago
  Fukushima would have been helped by FCVSs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filtered_Containment_Venting_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filtered_Containment_Venting_S...
fsh 3y ago
Fukushima was not a freak accident. The japanese coasts experience huge tsunamis every couple of decades. Yet the engineers completely underestimated the flooding risk when building the reactors. This raises the question which other risks were overlooked elsewhere.

Moldoteck 3y ago

ok, nice, how much it costed when dams accidents happened, where also a lot of people needed to move, a lot more killed? Fossils also caused move of people (climate migration) and how much costs it provoked in healthcare system by making a lot of people sick or in costs provoked in other directions? Again, I understand, nuclear has risks, but we should look in perspective, are those risks(even cost) that orders of magnitude high compared to others when all important factors are considered? I can't say, I'm not a scientist, but I see France that has a LOT of nuclear plants and a reprocessing plant and it does not look that bad there? Or maybe China?