5 ms·

One of those "purely political reasons" being the obvious and real risks involved with having nuclear power plants in an area known for large earthquakes which

by lepus 2y ago

One of those "purely political reasons" being the obvious and real risks involved with having nuclear power plants in an area known for large earthquakes which was made especially real in people's minds after Fukushima ( further down in the same page you linked: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Taiwan#Post-Fukushima https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Taiwan#Post-F... )

derlvative 2y ago
Are there any risks that are real and not just in people's minds?
- alephnerd 2y ago
  A significant portion of Taiwan grew up during authoritarian rule, and the anti-nuclear movement was heavily tied to the democracy movement of the 1980s-90s - especially because CKS tied his own ambitions to nuclear capacity - both for energy and potentially weapons. It's very difficult to separate the two given that the 80s-90s generation is in power in Taiwan.
  - derlvative 2y ago
    That's a long way of saying that it's just inside people's heads.
    - alephnerd 2y ago
      And that's a long way to say that you don't care about people's experiences.
    - giardini 2y ago
      What else is important?
- jay_kyburz 2y ago
  Was Fukushima real or just in people's minds?
  - PoignardAzur 2y ago
    Fukushima was perfectly fine after the earthquake. The tsunami is what provoked the accident by knocking out the backup generators. This is not a scenario most plants are remotely vulnerable to. It's reasonable to ask if peoples' worries about a Fukushima repeat are grounded in reality.
    - jay_kyburz 2y ago
      Fukushima is simply a good example of how dangerous and expensive nuclear can be when unknown unknowns rear their head. There are countless black swan events that are exacerbated by having nuclear around.
  - sofixa 2y ago
    What was real was that a bad design that the company operating the plant was warned about repeatedly, survived an earthquake, but didn't survive a tsunami. As a result, there was an evacuation. And nobody died from anything directly related to the power plant itself, only due to the evacuation. Multiple times more people died in an oil tank fire in another city due to the same earthquake+tsunami. And during its lifetime Fukushima saved countless lives by not emitting air pollution. On the "generating reliable power for a country" scale, everything is a tradeoff. There is no perfect solution that just works with no downside, especially in geographically challenged countries such as Japan.

by lepus 2y ago

derlvative 2y ago

Are there any risks that are real and not just in people's minds?

alephnerd 2y ago
A significant portion of Taiwan grew up during authoritarian rule, and the anti-nuclear movement was heavily tied to the democracy movement of the 1980s-90s - especially because CKS tied his own ambitions to nuclear capacity - both for energy and potentially weapons. It's very difficult to separate the two given that the 80s-90s generation is in power in Taiwan.
- derlvative 2y ago
  That's a long way of saying that it's just inside people's heads.
  - alephnerd 2y ago
    And that's a long way to say that you don't care about people's experiences.
  - giardini 2y ago
    What else is important?
jay_kyburz 2y ago
Was Fukushima real or just in people's minds?
- PoignardAzur 2y ago
  Fukushima was perfectly fine after the earthquake. The tsunami is what provoked the accident by knocking out the backup generators. This is not a scenario most plants are remotely vulnerable to. It's reasonable to ask if peoples' worries about a Fukushima repeat are grounded in reality.
  - jay_kyburz 2y ago
    Fukushima is simply a good example of how dangerous and expensive nuclear can be when unknown unknowns rear their head. There are countless black swan events that are exacerbated by having nuclear around.
- sofixa 2y ago
  What was real was that a bad design that the company operating the plant was warned about repeatedly, survived an earthquake, but didn't survive a tsunami. As a result, there was an evacuation. And nobody died from anything directly related to the power plant itself, only due to the evacuation. Multiple times more people died in an oil tank fire in another city due to the same earthquake+tsunami. And during its lifetime Fukushima saved countless lives by not emitting air pollution. On the "generating reliable power for a country" scale, everything is a tradeoff. There is no perfect solution that just works with no downside, especially in geographically challenged countries such as Japan.