| ▲ | tiberius_p 3 days ago |
| I remember the anti-nuclear fever went viral in 2011 after the Fukushima nuclear accident caused by the Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. I think the correct lesson to be learned from that experience is not to built nuclear power plants in places where they can be damaged by natural disasters...and not to call for all nuclear power plants around the world to be shut down. |
|
| ▲ | mpweiher 3 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Or if you build them there, build them so they can withstand that disaster. There was another similar plant even closer to the epicenter, and it was hit with a (slightly) higher tsunami crest. It survived basically undamaged and even served as shelter for tsunami refugees. Because they had built the tsunami-wall to spec. And didn't partially dismantle it to make access easier like what was done in Fukushima. Oh, and for example all the German plants would also have survived essentially unscathed had they been placed in the exact same spot, for a bunch of different reasons. |
| |
| ▲ | scrlk 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > Because they had built the tsunami-wall to spec. If you're referring to the Onagawa plant, one engineer (Yanosuke Hirai) pushed for the height of the wall to be increased beyond the original spec: > A nuclear plant in a neighboring area, meanwhile, had been built to withstand the tsunamis. A solitary civil engineer employed by the Tohoku Electric Power Company knew the story of the massive Jogan tsunami of the year 869, because it had flooded the Shinto shrine in his hometown. In the 1960s, the engineer, Yanosuke Hirai, had insisted that the Onagawa Nuclear Power Station be built farther back from the sea and at higher elevation than initially proposed—ultimately nearly fifty feet above sea level. He argued for a seawall to surpass the original plan of thirty-nine feet. He did not live to see what happened in 2011, when forty-foot waves destroyed much of the fishing town of Onagawa, seventy-five miles north of Fukushima. The nuclear power station—the closest one in Japan to the earthquake’s epicenter—was left intact. Displaced residents even took refuge in the power plant’s gym. https://www.economist.com/open-future/2019/12/06/were-design... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa_Nuclear_Power_Plant#20... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanosuke_Hirai | | |
| ▲ | mpweiher 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes. And in Fukushima, they apparently actually lowered an existing natural barrier. https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Tepco-Rem... In addition, they didn't have hydrogen recombinators, which for example are/were standard in all German plants. Those plants also had special requirements for bunkers for the Diesel backup generators so they couldn't be knocked out by water. | |
| ▲ | natmaka 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | The point is not about "someone may not err" but about "someone may err", or more precisely "someone WILL err", coupled with the effects of such mistakes. Failing to correctly design, build, exploit or maintain a wind turbine or solar panel isn't a big deal. Failing to do so on a nuclear reactor can become a huge and lasting disaster for many. | | |
| ▲ | mpweiher 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Wind turbines cause more deaths than nuclear reactors. Fact. | | |
| ▲ | natmaka 2 days ago | parent [-] | | It depends upon nuclear accident victims' estimation one choses to consider. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the... Moreover pretending that the words nuclear accident is not more dangerous than the worst wind turbine accident will be difficult. | | |
| ▲ | mpweiher 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | You are making the very common "mistake" of comparing 1 nuclear accident with 1 wind turbine accident. And are completely missing that you need a LOT more wind turbines, and these have a lot more accidents. For example, wind turbine accidents killed 14 people just in one year, 2011. How many people were killed in the UK in nuclear accidents that year? That decade. Ladder accidents kill ~80 people per year in Germany. Google "avilability bias" | | |
| ▲ | natmaka 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | The various estimations of "victims of nuclear" also neglect victims from such accidents. In 2011 2 workers died while working to build the new EPR in Flamanville, and aren't officially (nor AFAIK anywhere) counted as nuclear victims. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | slightwinder 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Or if you build them there, build them so they can withstand that disaster. You can't build to withstand humans ignorance. You always can argue to do this or that, but if the responsible managers won't approve it, it's all just theory and good hopes. Even worse if the ignorance grows over time; because the last decades it worked out, surely it will work another decade or two... That's why things like nuclear are so problematic, because small neglections can explode into cataclysmic events. |
|
|
| ▲ | ZeroGravitas 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I read that Germans watched their local nuclear experts explain on TV what was happening while Japanese authorities were still in denial. They had a stereotype of Japanese hypercompetence and seeing them fuck up and then try to cover it up in the middle of a disaster had an impact even on traditional nuclear supporters. |
|
| ▲ | makeitdouble 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > in places where they can be damaged by natural disasters. And places where they can be damaged by human actions as well. That leaves so many places to build reactors, right ? |
| |
| ▲ | tiberius_p 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I think human actions are easier to predict and prevent than natural disasters. Earthquakes are the biggest deal breakers. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [deleted] |
