3 ms·
Fukushima was an outdated design that was not safe under passive cooling (ie, it was physically possible for it to melt down). It's construction predated Cherno
by ori_b 13y ago
Fukushima was an outdated design that was not safe under passive cooling (ie, it was physically possible for it to melt down). It's construction predated Chernobyl, and it's design was even older, and designed around a weaponizable fuel.
Fukushima doesn't represent the state of the art. It didn't even represent the state of the art a quarter of a century ago.
- marze 13y agoHmm, if it is so outdated, should we close all 45 of the identical General Electric-design reactors operating in US cities soon? Or, we could extend their operating license each for 20 years and see if they can handle it.
- ori_b 13y agoYES. We should definitely be upgrading our nuclear reactors to modern designs. While the USA mostly isn't in an earthquake zone, which reduces the risks, the reactors are definitely past their useful life, less safe than they could be, and require more expensive, dangerous, and weaponizable fuel than then should. The problem with upgrading, of course, is political. The amount of public outcry that would occur if we started to build new reactors, even based on better designs, would make things very difficult politically.
- VladRussian2 13y agoevery time i drive to San Diego, i'm always struck at the view of this thing and how out of place it is and what could happen there. Seems common sense is winning as i heard they stopped reactors there and don't plan to restart.