4 ms·

Could you tell which is safer then? It sure is not hydroelectric power which worst disaster killed over 150 000 people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_D

by jeltz 14y ago

Could you tell which is safer then? It sure is not hydroelectric power which worst disaster killed over 150 000 people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam

seanmcdirmid 14y ago
Your point? The dam wasn't engineered well enough, definitely not up to western standards. Chernobyl is a similar situation. Anyone can build a dangerous power plant using whatever resource they want. Safety is something you invest in. The question then becomes how expensive is safe nuclear power vs. safe hydroelectric? The biggest problem with nuclear is that "safe" nuclear power is very expensive compared to the alternatives, but if they can get costs down without sacrificing safety (or the alternatives increase in price), its a good option for us.
- Game_Ender 14y ago
  Where are you getting your information that we have to chose between safe but expensive plants, or cheap but dangerous ones? On some level you can cut costs just by using thinner pressure vessels or containment structures, but the key issue with facilities like Fukishma is that when things fail the reactor starts to go critical unless you actively stop it. Many new designs are specifically design to go sub-critical when failure happen.
- hrktb 14y ago
  One of the question that arised after Fukushima was if we were good enough from a technical POV to handle nuclear power in a safe way. Not speaking only about the cost it takes to do things The Right Way, but also the education of your staff, handling of operational errors, covering of the unavoidable design and material deffects, and so on... For e.g. launching rockets to space can still fail from times to times, despite the effort and care it takes to do it. Crashing planes also occur from times to times, despite our extensive knowledge of the field and all the effort we can put in preventing disasters. Wouldn't it be sane to assume that nuclear power will also fail from times to times, and you can't do much about it?
- hrktb 14y ago
  One of the question that arised after Fukushima was if we were good enough from a technical POV to handle nuclear power in a safe way. Not speaking only about the cost it takes to do things The Right Way, but also the education of your staff, handling of operational errors, covering of the unavoidable design and material deffects, and so on... For e.g. launching rockets to space can still fail from times to times, despite the effort and care it takes to do it. Crashing planes also occur from times to times, despite our extensive knowledge of the field and all the effort we can put in preventing disasters. Wouldn't it be sane to assume that nuclear power will also fail from times to times, and you can't do much about it?

by jeltz 14y ago

seanmcdirmid 14y ago

Your point? The dam wasn't engineered well enough, definitely not up to western standards. Chernobyl is a similar situation. Anyone can build a dangerous power plant using whatever resource they want. Safety is something you invest in. The question then becomes how expensive is safe nuclear power vs. safe hydroelectric? The biggest problem with nuclear is that "safe" nuclear power is very expensive compared to the alternatives, but if they can get costs down without sacrificing safety (or the alternatives increase in price), its a good option for us.

Game_Ender 14y ago
Where are you getting your information that we have to chose between safe but expensive plants, or cheap but dangerous ones? On some level you can cut costs just by using thinner pressure vessels or containment structures, but the key issue with facilities like Fukishma is that when things fail the reactor starts to go critical unless you actively stop it. Many new designs are specifically design to go sub-critical when failure happen.
hrktb 14y ago
One of the question that arised after Fukushima was if we were good enough from a technical POV to handle nuclear power in a safe way. Not speaking only about the cost it takes to do things The Right Way, but also the education of your staff, handling of operational errors, covering of the unavoidable design and material deffects, and so on... For e.g. launching rockets to space can still fail from times to times, despite the effort and care it takes to do it. Crashing planes also occur from times to times, despite our extensive knowledge of the field and all the effort we can put in preventing disasters. Wouldn't it be sane to assume that nuclear power will also fail from times to times, and you can't do much about it?
hrktb 14y ago
One of the question that arised after Fukushima was if we were good enough from a technical POV to handle nuclear power in a safe way. Not speaking only about the cost it takes to do things The Right Way, but also the education of your staff, handling of operational errors, covering of the unavoidable design and material deffects, and so on... For e.g. launching rockets to space can still fail from times to times, despite the effort and care it takes to do it. Crashing planes also occur from times to times, despite our extensive knowledge of the field and all the effort we can put in preventing disasters. Wouldn't it be sane to assume that nuclear power will also fail from times to times, and you can't do much about it?