101–110 of 141 posts
Nice to know that there is another country out there that's as irrational as the US. Does Germany have a lot of tsunamis?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
K=1/2*mv^2? My intuition (as a mechanical engineer, desinging military systems as my day job) is that the F16 going supersonic is far worse. Either way, there is no possible way you have enough information to make any of the claims you just made. A better question to ask yourself how safe your highway transportation is, because within an hour of my house we've had 15 people killed in bus accidents in the last 72 hour…
> Either way, there is no possible way you have enough information to make any of the claims you just made. I took out this from this report ( http://www.euronuclear.org/reflections/nuclear-facilities.ht... ), which I think was also mentioned by jgrahamc: > The studies showed that even if knowledgeable insiders could disable key safety equipment, redundant systems would provide backup protection. In scenarios where a…
When this is all done, I am sure that most of the problems at Fukishima will be found to be administrative rather than design.
As an aside, that plant was designed to withstand an 8.4 earthquake. Design requirements and actual strength are two different issues. Even a complete meltdown, such as at Three Mile Island, should be contained.
This strikes me more as a political stunt by Merkel to rally the conservative base in Germany than anything else. Still, it doesn't surprise me that this is such a hot button issue right now. I've long been a supporter of nuclear power, but the events of the past week have made me start to reconsider a lot of my beliefs about its safety.
Which beliefs? That a nuclear power station situated in a major earthquake zone next to the coast could magically survive a 9.0 earthquake and a tsunami? Right now, we don't know how serious this situation is, it could be that this will end with a small amount of radiation leaked and four reactors that have to be decommissioned. Or it could end with a major environmental disaster. We simply don't know yet. I'd cautio…
I did find myself wondering if the impressively engineered AGR site at Torness would survive a 20m tsunami - almost certainly not as I suspect this wasn't part of the requirements.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's because you're mind is clouded by the effects of a mental fallacy (the availability heuristic to be precise) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic
You have the full right to disagree with me; I voiced my post as my personal opinion. But you're very rude to say my mind is clouded. I simply don't like large downside risks.
No matter how you compute statistics, a nuclear meltdown is a big downside risk. It can happen, and if it happens it's extremely destructive. It's an event with a small chance of occurence but with great consequences.
That's qualitatively different from something like traffic accidents. The chances of those happening are much higher, but if they happen, they affect at most a few people, They won't turn your city into a 'wildlife reserve' for years to come.
Even though the total amount of people that die of traffic accidents is higher, to me it's less scary. The risks are more manageable: you have some degree of control over it (drive safely) and the consequences are visible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've done a ridiculous amount of reading the past few days, and I still believe that nuclear power is probably the best source of power that we have available to us. But I didn't realize that keeping a reactor vessel (and fuel storage pools) cool after the reactor has been scrammed is such a challenge. I also didn't know that hydrogen explosions are a normal byproduct of cooling down a reactor core. Yes, I know that…
"I've done a ridiculous amount of reading the past few days, and I still believe that nuclear power is probably the best source of power that we have available to us." The best source of power that we have is to use energy more efficiently.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That a nuclear power station situation in a major earthquake zone next to the coast could magically survive a 9.0 earthquake and a tsunami? The un-posed question is "what happens if a group of terrorists fly an A380 directly into one of these plants"? Someone on reddit was mentioning that a nuclear plant in Texas was built to "withstand a direct hit from an F-16 traveling at supersonic speeds", but I guess an A380…
K=1/2*mv^2? My intuition (as a mechanical engineer, desinging military systems as my day job) is that the F16 going supersonic is far worse. Either way, there is no possible way you have enough information to make any of the claims you just made. A better question to ask yourself how safe your highway transportation is, because within an hour of my house we've had 15 people killed in bus accidents in the last 72 hour…
And no way can the F16 go 10 times as fast as the A380.
So the kinetic energy of the A380 is definitely higher, probably by a considerable amount.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which beliefs? That a nuclear power station situated in a major earthquake zone next to the coast could magically survive a 9.0 earthquake and a tsunami? Right now, we don't know how serious this situation is, it could be that this will end with a small amount of radiation leaked and four reactors that have to be decommissioned. Or it could end with a major environmental disaster. We simply don't know yet. I'd cautio…
I think saying "magically survive" is being uncharitable to bhousel. What it has made me reconsider is the notion that even if we're able to design a system to withstand the problems we do foresee, it still may fail because of the problems we don't foresee or considered too unlikely. I know this is almost a tautology, but when the stakes are as high as a nuclear powerplant, it's important to consider. Nuclear powerpl…
I think in the context of 'major disaster' if the nuclear plant's core stops being usable as a power plant but otherwise has contributes little to the final cleanup, that would suggest to me that its a good strategy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've done a ridiculous amount of reading the past few days, and I still believe that nuclear power is probably the best source of power that we have available to us. But I didn't realize that keeping a reactor vessel (and fuel storage pools) cool after the reactor has been scrammed is such a challenge. I also didn't know that hydrogen explosions are a normal byproduct of cooling down a reactor core. Yes, I know that…
"I've done a ridiculous amount of reading the past few days, and I still believe that nuclear power is probably the best source of power that we have available to us." The best source of power that we have is to use energy more efficiently.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've done a ridiculous amount of reading the past few days, and I still believe that nuclear power is probably the best source of power that we have available to us. But I didn't realize that keeping a reactor vessel (and fuel storage pools) cool after the reactor has been scrammed is such a challenge. I also didn't know that hydrogen explosions are a normal byproduct of cooling down a reactor core. Yes, I know that…
"I've done a ridiculous amount of reading the past few days, and I still believe that nuclear power is probably the best source of power that we have available to us." The best source of power that we have is to use energy more efficiently.
This strikes me more as a political stunt by Merkel to rally the conservative base in Germany than anything else. Still, it doesn't surprise me that this is such a hot button issue right now. I've long been a supporter of nuclear power, but the events of the past week have made me start to reconsider a lot of my beliefs about its safety.
Why? I actually think the events of the past week prove it's safety. Let put it in perspective: a 40 year old nuclear reactor gets hit by a 9 magnitude earthquake, then slammed with 20 ft. tall swell of water, followed by an explosion due to the buildup of hydrogen gas that blows off the roof of the building, and after all that the core was still mostly intact and contained. That seems like an amazingly positive resu…