3 ms·

I would imagine a worst-case scenario would be something much worse than an earthquake and tsunami, which are, while not usual, certainly expected. And while n

by duaneb 12y ago

I would imagine a worst-case scenario would be something much worse than an earthquake and tsunami, which are, while not usual, certainly expected. And while nobody died (yet), that's not the problem... the problem is that so many resources had to be invested just to ensure nobody was hurt that makes the prospect of building more nuclear reactors in similar positions scary. IMHO nuclear reactors should be built to deal with problems of the magnitude of an earthquake or a tsunami as a base line. Fukushima was built with this in mind, I'm sure, but it's hardly a worst-case scenario.... Worst-case would be something like a direct hit from a comet when all the engineers who know how to run it are already dead. EDIT: It's also that we should be designing these things to run in 100+ years when equipment is failing, the disasters could be an order of magnitude worse than expected, etc.

Turing_Machine 12y ago
"IMHO nuclear reactors should be built to deal with problems of the magnitude of an earthquake or a tsunami as a base line." No power generation source is built to handle a 9.0 earthquake as a baseline, especially not hydroelectric plants.
- jessaustin 12y ago
  A breaking dam will drown some people downstream, but once the flood passes it's over. Nuclear disasters have more staying power.
  - Turing_Machine 12y ago
    "Nuclear disasters have more staying power." Not really. And no, spreading FUD like "Eludium P-38 has a half-life of umpteen bazillion years" doesn't actually make it more dangerous. "Longer half-life" = "less radioactive". By definition.
    - jessaustin 12y ago
      Off the top of my head, I can think of three currently-uninhabitable nuclear sites. I'm drawing a blank on uninhabitable dam sites. Keep in mind that there are many more dams than nuclear facilities in existence.
      - gnoway 12y ago
        No, not uninhabitable. But there have been orders of magnitude more people killed in dam disasters than nuclear plant meltdowns. I haven't done the math, but I would suspect this is true even adjusting for the popularity of dams. Here's the worst dam disaster on record: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam There are some parallels with Fukushima; in general most of the dam disasters you can find quickly are kicked off or exacerbated by concurrent natural disasters and/or poor maintenance. I'll grant you that as a force multiplier for disaster, nuclear has more potential than e.g. hydroelectric. But both can be deadly: you can die of thyroid cancer or by drowning, either way, you're dead; your home could be uninhabitable or just washed away, either way, you're homeless.
        rurounijones 12y ago
        http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-so... is a useful source for general numbers
      - TheSpiceIsLife 12y ago
        The Three Gorges Damn in China displaced 1.3 million people.[1] Before the evacuation Chernobyl had a population of 14,000.[2] All dam sites are uninhabitable. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl

by duaneb 12y ago

Turing_Machine 12y ago

"IMHO nuclear reactors should be built to deal with problems of the magnitude of an earthquake or a tsunami as a base line." No power generation source is built to handle a 9.0 earthquake as a baseline, especially not hydroelectric plants.

jessaustin 12y ago
A breaking dam will drown some people downstream, but once the flood passes it's over. Nuclear disasters have more staying power.
- Turing_Machine 12y ago
  "Nuclear disasters have more staying power." Not really. And no, spreading FUD like "Eludium P-38 has a half-life of umpteen bazillion years" doesn't actually make it more dangerous. "Longer half-life" = "less radioactive". By definition.
  - jessaustin 12y ago
    Off the top of my head, I can think of three currently-uninhabitable nuclear sites. I'm drawing a blank on uninhabitable dam sites. Keep in mind that there are many more dams than nuclear facilities in existence.
    - gnoway 12y ago
      No, not uninhabitable. But there have been orders of magnitude more people killed in dam disasters than nuclear plant meltdowns. I haven't done the math, but I would suspect this is true even adjusting for the popularity of dams. Here's the worst dam disaster on record: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam There are some parallels with Fukushima; in general most of the dam disasters you can find quickly are kicked off or exacerbated by concurrent natural disasters and/or poor maintenance. I'll grant you that as a force multiplier for disaster, nuclear has more potential than e.g. hydroelectric. But both can be deadly: you can die of thyroid cancer or by drowning, either way, you're dead; your home could be uninhabitable or just washed away, either way, you're homeless.
      - rurounijones 12y ago
        http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-so... is a useful source for general numbers
    - TheSpiceIsLife 12y ago
      The Three Gorges Damn in China displaced 1.3 million people.[1] Before the evacuation Chernobyl had a population of 14,000.[2] All dam sites are uninhabitable. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl