3 ms·

Most of the anti-nuclear prejudice in the US comes from known design flaws in plants that are over 30 years old that were built before people knew what they wer

by caf 14y ago

Most of the anti-nuclear prejudice in the US comes from known design flaws in plants that are over 30 years old that were built before people knew what they were doing. Modern, passive-safety nuclear plants just don't have those TMI/Fukushima/Chernobyl risks. I wonder if they said similar things 30 years ago, too.

michaelochurch 14y ago
To be fair on that, nuclear (even using those creaky, old designs) still has a better safety record per kilowatt-hour than fossil fuels.
mpyne 14y ago
Chernobyl-style designs have been known to be a less safe design for as long as they have been around. They are weapons-production reactors scaled up for power production, without any of the design changes to add inherent safety that were made for even 1950s-era Western designs. Chernobyl belongs in a category all by itself for that reason. TMI was certainly an economic issue, but it was never a public health concern, even in the middle of the meltdown. In fact TMI was a validation of the public safety concept of nuclear power plant containment design; despite suffering a full as-bad-as-it-gets meltdown there was only a minimal release of radioactive gases to the environment. As far as Fukushima, there were actually two different sites, Dai-ichi and Dai-ni. The Dai-ni reactors were a very slight spec bump up from the Dai-ichi reactors due to being started later. Both sites suffered the same earthquake & tsunami; all of the operational Dai-ichi reactors melted down, none of the operational Dai-ni reactors suffered damage. The disasters were beyond design basis for both. So even 40-50 years ago they were continuing to make design improvements to increase the safety margin of nuclear power to account for "unknown unknowns". Meanwhile even today coal plants pump carcinogenic exhaust directly to atmosphere and people judge it as an acceptable tradeoff because the damage is constant.
- maxerickson 14y ago
  The two sites experienced different levels of ground acceleration and inundation (with the newer one experiencing less of both). If you want to insist that the design made a difference, you should probably do more than just wave your hands. The fact that Dai-ni only almost lost backup power was probably a major boon. If they had lost active cooling, things probably would have been just as tenuous as they were at Dai-ichi.
7952 14y ago
Nuclear power stations are safe in the same way that modern airliners are safe. It may be possible to perfect machines but people will always make mistakes.

by caf 14y ago

michaelochurch 14y ago

To be fair on that, nuclear (even using those creaky, old designs) still has a better safety record per kilowatt-hour than fossil fuels.

mpyne 14y ago

Chernobyl-style designs have been known to be a less safe design for as long as they have been around. They are weapons-production reactors scaled up for power production, without any of the design changes to add inherent safety that were made for even 1950s-era Western designs. Chernobyl belongs in a category all by itself for that reason. TMI was certainly an economic issue, but it was never a public health concern, even in the middle of the meltdown. In fact TMI was a validation of the public safety concept of nuclear power plant containment design; despite suffering a full as-bad-as-it-gets meltdown there was only a minimal release of radioactive gases to the environment. As far as Fukushima, there were actually two different sites, Dai-ichi and Dai-ni. The Dai-ni reactors were a very slight spec bump up from the Dai-ichi reactors due to being started later. Both sites suffered the same earthquake & tsunami; all of the operational Dai-ichi reactors melted down, none of the operational Dai-ni reactors suffered damage. The disasters were beyond design basis for both. So even 40-50 years ago they were continuing to make design improvements to increase the safety margin of nuclear power to account for "unknown unknowns". Meanwhile even today coal plants pump carcinogenic exhaust directly to atmosphere and people judge it as an acceptable tradeoff because the damage is constant.

maxerickson 14y ago
The two sites experienced different levels of ground acceleration and inundation (with the newer one experiencing less of both). If you want to insist that the design made a difference, you should probably do more than just wave your hands. The fact that Dai-ni only almost lost backup power was probably a major boon. If they had lost active cooling, things probably would have been just as tenuous as they were at Dai-ichi.

7952 14y ago

Nuclear power stations are safe in the same way that modern airliners are safe. It may be possible to perfect machines but people will always make mistakes.