Europe Is Losing Nuclear Power Just When It Needs Energy

Re:Europe Is Losing Nuclear Power Just When It Needs Energy by ch4s3 on Tuesday February 01, 2022 @09:51AM (#30163193)

Fukushima wasn't that bad. Very little radiation was leaked and the max number of expected cancer cases expected based on conservative modeling is ~100, mostly of the treatable thyroid variety. Most of those people will likely die of other causes.

Chernobyl was just an idiotic design that no one outside of the USSR would have built after about 1954. Graphite piles are death traps, and not building a containment building is insane.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Europe Is Losing Nuclear Power Just When It Needs Energy by vkazanov on Tuesday February 01, 2022 @10:24AM (#30163722)

Fukushima as a plant was also asking for trouble: "the earthquake had also generated a tsunami 14 metres...swept over the plant's seawall" (c) Wikipedia. 14 metres is a joke for a country where 40 metre tsunamis happen.

It is amazing how this could be built not taking high waves into account.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Europe Is Losing Nuclear Power Just When It Needs Energy by sliken on Monday February 07, 2022 @01:24AM (#30241083)

This what happens when politicians control the placement of nuclear plants. The scientist and engineers picked a much better location for the plant, but were overridden, and a political favor moved the location.

The engineers mentioned they needed a large seawall to protect the plant from the frequent tsunamis, and were overridden because it cost too much.

Nuclear can be safe, but you have to keep politics out of it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Europe Is Losing Nuclear Power Just When It Needs Energy by ch4s3 on Tuesday February 01, 2022 @12:21PM (#30165850)

Yeah, and even that would have been fine if backup power in plant one hadn't been in the basement. The other, newer reactors had above ground backup power. Either a taller wall or a generator in a shed would have prevented the accident.

[ Parent | on HN ]