Wind Energy Is One of the Cheapest, and It's Getting Cheaper

Re:Wind Energy Is One of the Cheapest, and It's Getting Cheaper by chefkoch on Monday September 04, 2017 @04:27PM (#15170662)

So intentional circumventing of safety measures and (cost) cutting corners is not possible sich the new tech?

Almost in every industry i can think of there are countless examples of how profit is traded for safety. Why should this be any different?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Wind Energy Is One of the Cheapest, and It's Getting Cheaper by guscost on Monday September 04, 2017 @06:53PM (#15171333)

Safety measures which cannot be intentionally circumvented (except by planting a bomb, I suppose) predate Chernobyl by many years. The RBMK was a horrible design which threw away passive safety[0] for convenience and cost savings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Wind Energy Is One of the Cheapest, and It's Getting Cheaper by dsfyu404ed on Tuesday September 05, 2017 @11:03AM (#15175881)

x2.

Modern designs for things that can fail dangerously incorporate features that cause the system to go down a branch that ends in a safe failure mode high up the tree rather than allowing the possibility of a less safe failure many more steps down the tree.

It's like how Uhaul overbuilds the living crap out of it's trailers then puts relatively (compared to the rest of the system) light duty tires on them. Better to have idiots blow out tires than other less safe failure modes.

[ Parent | on HN ]