3 ms·

They don't have to pay for it all this year

bamboozled 2y ago
Very naive comment. It’s still a lot of money. Are you aware about the current economic and demographic situation in Japan ? It’s not good here. That money could’ve went to a lot more useful things. Also remember this was a man made disaster. The plant was not upgraded (as recommended) to meet new safety guidelines, because, as if a mega tsunami would actually happen, right ? Then right after the event the operator was downplaying the extent of meltdown for too long. The PM had to step in and get a proper response team organised.
- exe34 2y ago
  > The plant was not upgraded (as recommended) to meet new safety guidelines, because, as if a mega tsunami would actually happen, right ? And others on this same thread are trying to use the same disaster to paint nuclear as expensive.
  - natmaka 2y ago
    The Onagawa nuclear plant, albeit more exposed, resisted thanks to a single man (Yanosuke Hirai), deciding in conscience, and the Big Complicated System of Central Authority "controlling everything" failed miserably at Fukushima. Full story: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa_Nuclear_Power_Plant#2011_T%C5%8Dhoku_earthquake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa_Nuclear_Power_Plant#20... What works is local and managed by a few people, any Big Thing is a colossus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa_Nuclear_Power_Plant#2011_T%C5%8Dhoku_earthquake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa_Nuclear_Power_Plant#20... feet of clay collapse is all the more painful. This state of affairs doesn't seem to benefit to nuclear (vs. 'renewable sources').
  - bamboozled 2y ago
    The upgrades weren't outrageously expensive, I bet they would've cost 1/100th of what the cleanup costs will be. We're talking about moving backup generator to the roof level work: https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2012/03/why-fukushima-was-preventable?lang=en https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2012/03/why-fukushima...

Very naive comment. It’s still a lot of money. Are you aware about the current economic and demographic situation in Japan ? It’s not good here. That money could’ve went to a lot more useful things. Also remember this was a man made disaster. The plant was not upgraded (as recommended) to meet new safety guidelines, because, as if a mega tsunami would actually happen, right ? Then right after the event the operator was downplaying the extent of meltdown for too long. The PM had to step in and get a proper response team organised.

exe34 2y ago
> The plant was not upgraded (as recommended) to meet new safety guidelines, because, as if a mega tsunami would actually happen, right ? And others on this same thread are trying to use the same disaster to paint nuclear as expensive.
- natmaka 2y ago
  The Onagawa nuclear plant, albeit more exposed, resisted thanks to a single man (Yanosuke Hirai), deciding in conscience, and the Big Complicated System of Central Authority "controlling everything" failed miserably at Fukushima. Full story: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa_Nuclear_Power_Plant#2011_T%C5%8Dhoku_earthquake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa_Nuclear_Power_Plant#20... What works is local and managed by a few people, any Big Thing is a colossus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa_Nuclear_Power_Plant#2011_T%C5%8Dhoku_earthquake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa_Nuclear_Power_Plant#20... feet of clay collapse is all the more painful. This state of affairs doesn't seem to benefit to nuclear (vs. 'renewable sources').
- bamboozled 2y ago
  The upgrades weren't outrageously expensive, I bet they would've cost 1/100th of what the cleanup costs will be. We're talking about moving backup generator to the roof level work: https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2012/03/why-fukushima-was-preventable?lang=en https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2012/03/why-fukushima...