Remix.run Logo
AngryData 2 hours ago

Fukushima was a known risk though, they just never bothered to fix the problem. Plus just being planned in the 60s meant the initial design was born only about 15 years after nuclear power was invented. Fukishima was like driving around in a Model T, being told original brakes and tires and lack of seatbelts were unsafe, but still being regularly driven down busy roads without bothering to upgrade those features.

thrownthatway an hour ago | parent [-]

You reckon during the 44 years Fukushima Daiitchi operated there were no systems control and data acquisition upgrades?

And you reckon that the site operated for 44 years on a Gen II design without melting down is somehow an insisted or how unsafe those reactors were.

If that earthquake and tsunami had been only a bit different in either magnitude or location, those reactors could be operating still now.

Or if the plant operated had hardened those backup generators and water pumps a bit more.

There are 70 AP1000 reactors in operation, construction or planned.

Look at this:

Because of its simplified design compared to a Westinghouse generation II PWR, the AP1000 has:

50% fewer safety-related valves 35% fewer pumps 80% less safety-related piping 85% less control cable 45% less seismic building volume

Isn’t this the kind of thing hackers and tech advocates should be getting a raging hardon over.

This reactor does nearly twice as much as its predecessor using half the materials to build, at least for some systems.

Danox 14 minutes ago | parent [-]

Fukushima failed because of the aftermath of a 9.1 earthquake.