Fair comment.In theory that can happen, but you've got to look at what usually happens in reality. The reality of running any business is one of corner cutting, lobbying for laxer regulations, and refusal to spend money on safety. Governments are frequently more concerned with remaining in power than anything else and, as we saw in Chernobyl or most recently in Wuhan, will downplay or outright deny failings if it's going to give the impression of incompetence even at the expense of thousands of lives.
People blame Fukushima on a natural disaster (as if a tsunami off the coast of Japan is an unexpected thing) but in reality there were a catalogue of errors that contributed to the disaster. In 1991, there was a flood in one of the generators caused by a burst pipe, after which an engineer warned against the possibility of a tsunami causing similar flooding. In 2000, a study commissioned by the plant owners recommended improved sea defences to protect the plant in case of a tsunami. In 2008 a study yet again recommended improving sea defences, and was ignored as an unrealistic threat. In 2011, a tsunami happened, flooded the reactor and caused a meltdown. This is the reality of a profit-motivated company being put in charge of anything. And if one of those things is something that can potentially make an area unlivable for thousands of years, then you need extremely strict regulations.
They wanted it next to the Pacific so they could flood it easily in an emergency I think.Fair comment.
I did wonder why a reactor was green lit at fukushima. I know japan as a whole doesnt have the best reputation with natural disasters, but there mustve been somewhere a bit more secure and maybe not on the pacific coast.
That makes a bit of sense i suppose. As far as i can remember one of the failsafes in a nuclear reactor is flood the core isnt it?They wanted it next to the Pacific so they could flood it easily in an emergency I think.
Yep.That makes a bit of sense i suppose. As far as i can remember one of the failsafes in a nuclear reactor is flood the core isnt it?
Not in your lifetimeWonder how far we are away from fusion energy.
Well in Japan’s case they’re a series of islands and so the amount of wave power/wind power they could harvest would be quite a good start. Their climate is decent and so solar is another. Maybe it’s time we developed smarter appliances which use less power? Maybe we could convert every home to be off-grid? The costs would be huge but you’ve seen how much we’ve spent on COVID-19 related issues? I’d hazard a guess that in say 500 years humans will be pissing their sides over how we used to power the world and the effort and costs it involved.6% is not enough. What is your alternative solution?
The problem nuclear power has is the stigma surrounding it, not the process, efficiency, cleanliness of the energy. Let's have a look at the major nuclear disasters:
3 Mile Island - human error
Chernobyl - human error
Fukushima - earthquake
Given sufficient training, you can absolutely minimise any risk of human error, and good luck trying to protect against acts of god.
Burning coal, oil, and gas is worse for the environment by orders of magnitude, and renewable sources aren't currently scalable enough to power everything. Nuclear is for me the sensible option.
Not in your lifetime
500 years is a long old fuckin time big boy. Remember where we were 500 years back? Technologies are advancing quicker than you can imagine so i think youre over egging it tbh.Well in Japan’s case they’re a series of islands and so the amount of wave power/wind power they could harvest would be quite a good start. Their climate is decent and so solar is another. Maybe it’s time we developed smarter appliances which use less power? Maybe we could convert every home to be off-grid? The costs would be huge but you’ve seen how much we’ve spent on COVID-19 related issues? I’d hazard a guess that in say 500 years humans will be pissing their sides over how we used to power the world and the effort and costs it involved.