Comment 60959

By Huffy (anonymous) | Posted March 15, 2011 at 01:57:54

When I look at the same facts, I draw the exact opposite conclusion. I see a bunch of related design weaknesses and flaws. They all boil down to overly optimistic design that didn't provide enough protection in a severe earthquake. I'm guessing the power company balked at the higher costs of multiple layers of protecting against really bad quakes.

What I see:
Failure to provide for sufficient backup electrical power to provide emergency cooling - specifically failure to provide sufficient fuel for emergency electric generators for cooling in a crisis.
Failure to provide a sufficient reservoir of clean water for emergency cooling.
Failure to provide for a safe vent path for hydrogen generated in this kind of cooling failure emergency.

My natural inclination is and has always been to favor nuclear power. But as I watch this unfold, I'm having real doubts. If the Japanese, great engineers, who know about earthquakes and who know the perils of nuclear exposure, won't put enough emphasis on safety to preclude these kinds of incidents, I doubt I'll trust anyone else to do so. I've never before thought nuclear power was intrinsically too dangerous (or that people wouldn't / couldn't be trusted to build things with multiple and expensive layers of protective systems, but now I'm leaning towards saying no to any nukes, anywhere...

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds