Re:Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radi...
by littlestymaar on Monday September 28, 2020 @10:30AM
(#24616967)
> But this scenario is much easier to handle than an open core meltdown.
It's still not handled in Fukushima yet… And because of that, Fukushima is higher than Chernobyl in terms of radioactive material released in the environment…
> The Seine supplies drinking water upstream from Nogent.
What?
> These worst case scenarios have already been gamed through during the plant planning process.
This is probably why some people won't ever trust nuclear: the feeling of invulnerability conveyed by some nuclear enthusiasts, is just scary.
I'm long on nuclear, I moved from Paris to the middle of nowhere because my wife is working at the local powerplant, I studied nuclear engineering myself in engineering school and even considered it as a career (but I eventually chose software engineering instead). And let me tell you: this argument “These worst case scenarios have already been gamed through during the plant planning process” is bullshit. The plant was designed, then after some bad experience (France and worldwide) security was improved, then computer simulation improved and they discovered other failure possibilities and improved the security again. Then, Fukushima happened, and they discovered huge holes in security (especially when you lose all power supply AND all water supply, which wasn't a scenario deemed plausible before) and they improved security yet again (they created the FARN to have a dedicated emergency response agency, in case everybody else is busy as hell with other issues, and they added new bunkerized and elevated diesel generators to ensure the power is never fully lost).
But we cannot be 100% sure we have everything covered now, and I absolutely wouldn't be surprised if another catastrophic event occurred in the next twenty years somewhere in the world. (And if it happens in France, I'm ready to bet this will be caused by fire, because French safety standards regarding fires are waaay behind UK ones.
It's still not handled in Fukushima yet… And because of that, Fukushima is higher than Chernobyl in terms of radioactive material released in the environment…
> The Seine supplies drinking water upstream from Nogent.
What?
> These worst case scenarios have already been gamed through during the plant planning process.
This is probably why some people won't ever trust nuclear: the feeling of invulnerability conveyed by some nuclear enthusiasts, is just scary.
I'm long on nuclear, I moved from Paris to the middle of nowhere because my wife is working at the local powerplant, I studied nuclear engineering myself in engineering school and even considered it as a career (but I eventually chose software engineering instead). And let me tell you: this argument “These worst case scenarios have already been gamed through during the plant planning process” is bullshit. The plant was designed, then after some bad experience (France and worldwide) security was improved, then computer simulation improved and they discovered other failure possibilities and improved the security again. Then, Fukushima happened, and they discovered huge holes in security (especially when you lose all power supply AND all water supply, which wasn't a scenario deemed plausible before) and they improved security yet again (they created the FARN to have a dedicated emergency response agency, in case everybody else is busy as hell with other issues, and they added new bunkerized and elevated diesel generators to ensure the power is never fully lost).
But we cannot be 100% sure we have everything covered now, and I absolutely wouldn't be surprised if another catastrophic event occurred in the next twenty years somewhere in the world. (And if it happens in France, I'm ready to bet this will be caused by fire, because French safety standards regarding fires are waaay behind UK ones.