Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Yeah, great, but what about the possibility of something even bigger than a 9.0 earthquake, like a really big typhoon, or one of them Airbus 380s crashing into the plant, or a terrist attack, or a Godzilla attack? What will you do THEN, Mr. Nuclear Power Booster, what will you do THEN???

I can hardly wait to read the articles about how Honda is going to send their walking robot into the plant to dismantle the reactor core, "just like during a regular fuel change." As if during regular fuel changes you have to deal with melted fuel rods...

by asdf on Sun Mar 13th, 2011 at 06:23:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That continues to be the problem with nukes. Nuke can only ever be as good as the worst instantiation - politically, financially, and technically.

Uniquely in engineering, it's a technology that wilfully ignores Murphy, while pretending to itself and everyone that it has Murphy covered.

This isn't a problem for renewables. The worst that can happen is that a mega-storm takes out your entire windfarm. You lose capacity, but you don't get millions of casualties.

With nukes, the worst that can happen is that hundreds of square miles of prime territory become uninhabitable. Is it even possible to put a number on that risk?

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun Mar 13th, 2011 at 06:44:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You mean like this?:

"History has show again and again,
How Nature points out the folly of men


And this is pretty much shear luck:

If a pro nuke whore had been governor, things would be different. But, maybe there would have been a different target for the 9-11 air-jackings:


by nb41 on Mon Mar 14th, 2011 at 11:19:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]