johnu, on 2019-May-30, 01:34, said:
There's always a design flaw, a mistake in engineering, an oversight in construction, an unforseen mechanical error that nobody accounted for, just bad luck. Of course, there are safety cost factors too. The plants have to be cheap enough to be profitable to build and operate. You're a glass half full guy on this one, I'm a glass half empty.
Corporations in the US are not only people in the US, they are supermen according to the Supreme Court. They can legally buy elections and as a result, buy politicians by the busload. Those politicians will pass bills to immunize them from damages. They can lie, steal, cheat, break laws at will, and almost never have to pay any penalties. It's pretty rare for corporations to be penalized for bad behavior, and then it is usually a slap on the wrist.
You are the one who said
So what is it? Are you saying nuclear plants aren't safe from airborne attacks, or is this mostly for show since the plants are so well built that there won't be serious damage?
It's mostly for show for modern plants. For old plants, there may be an issue, especially in the USA where I don't know the technology so well. Besides politicians like a no-fly zone option. Many plants in Germany and France are however in the regular paths of commercial airlines. When coming from the East to Munich airport, you can see a nuclear power plant. In Lyon also coming in from the east.
Quote
Duhhh, if the plant is in the middle of a meltdown, armed troops aren't going to be able to stop anything. Maybe they can get into the plant and kill any remaining terrorists. Stop a meltdown? There weren't any terrorists in Fukushima and there was still an explosion.
The point is it takes many hours to reach this point.
Quote
I'll take your word on phone systems for now. Nuclear plants are guarded by fairly low paid, lightly armed employees, most with no military combat or police swat team training. They would probably offer limited resistance to a surprise attack by a heavily armed group. Then, as you say, it's not easy to get IN so any first responders would be outside looking in.
There is enough time to send in special forces. There will be no hesitation to do so.
Quote
Don't have to leave your house next to a meltdown (and possible explosion)? I'm sure the power companies have added it to their brochures and TV commercials. What incentive would they have to mislead the public just a little bit?
The explosions in Fukushima were hydrogen explosions, which were caused by the lack of having modern mitigation systems as sold by all nuclear construction companies. Until 2011, Japanese utilities were not interested in such refittings. After that, they are standing in line. Modern plants all have that.
To convince sceptical public living close, the licensing process for new plants in the UK is completely public. You can find the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report for the Hinkley Point C Reactor online.
Quote
Yikes, build a wall??? And if the tsunami is higher than the wall and the wall is damaged by the earthquake so water pours in? Is that your professional safety analysis opinion? What about not building a plant on land low enough to be hit by a tsunami, and not building on land that is over a known fault? Of course, new fault lines are constantly being discovered in previously "safe" areas so you never know for sure.
Read about the village of Fudai. The mayor of that village had the expensive idea to build a wall. After 3/11 destroyed the north-eastern coast of Japan, many villages were flattened. But Fudai remained standing. Unfortunately the mayor had already passed away at that point. Much criticised while in office, they built a statue for him post-mortem for saving their town.
I am fully with you that building the Fukushima Daiichi plant on the spot where it stands was a bad idea. Or any other plants in tsunami area. Or near an active volcano (again Japan). Or on major fault lines (Japan again...).
Still I emphasize the earthquake was not a problem. Japan manages earthquakes in nuclear power plants well. The problem here is you can protest about this, but you are intruding on Japanese authority. Or you can try to help the best you can.
Natural hazards are a big issue when building a nuclear power plant, but has been neglected when the older plants were built.
Quote
We may have to have nuclear power, but sugarcoating the very real dangers of potential disasters is burying your head in the sand.
I am not sugarcoating the dangers of potential disasters, in my daily work in the nuclear safety department I am doing everything possible to reduce these dangers. What I find is that there is often a difference between the expected danger and the real danger. People are afraid of flying, yet the most dangerous part of any flight is the taxi ride to the airport. Motor cycle? 50 times more dangerous than a car.
Similar with nuclear power. The IAEA demands that the risk of nuclear meltdown shall be lower than 0.0001 per reactor year (for new plants this has been reduced to 0.00001). Multiplied by 500 reactors worldwide gives a rate of 0.05 per year or every 20 years. This number is close to what actually happened, the problem however is: The risk is not evenly divided but concentrates on a minority of plants.
And among them, this was known in 2010, Fukushima Daiichi. After the EU stress test, not among them ANY nuclear power plants within the EU. Former GDR and Lithuania had to shut down their Soviet-built plants to be able to join the EU.
The sun is shining in Germany, it is near noon near the longest day of the year, and solar power has the biggest contribution to Germany electricity production (a good thing - I am all for solar power). But on average, Germany is sill at 274 g per kWh due to the 2nd largest contribution which is coal. France, not using coal fired power plants at all, has an average of 53 g per kWh. 93% low-carbon production. Even UK which does better than Germany (201 g / kWh).
Yes, Germany wants to phase out coal, but it has not answered its question of base load. For France, it is nuclear. For Norway, it is hydro. For Sweden, it is both. Much more hydro power will not happen in Germany, and I don't see nuclear ever being revived. So what about base load in Germany? A miracle occurs? This is not sound energy politics.
Conclusion: We need nuclear power, at least until fusion is a commercial reality. There is no such thing as absolute safety, but with new safety systems installed, a meltdown in a new plant will not be anywhere near the magnitude of a disaster as Fukushima or even Chernobyl. For saving the climate, there is no better solution for electrical base load.
My advice therefore: Support nuclear new build, but be critical of plants more than approx. 40 years old unless they have performed a lot of refitting of modern safety systems.