Re: [tlug] silicon cash eater

[Benjamin Kowarsch <trijezdci@example.com>]

> On Jun 29, 2017, at 21:10, Curt Sampson <cjs@example.com> wrote:
> 
>> The only way to make energy from nuclear fission economically viable
>> is to cut down on safety.
> 
> Nope. See above.

Your "see above" is nothing more than nuclear power industry propaganda.

Without government subsidies nuclear energy would be too expensive to sell. That's fact.

The cost of decommissioning the plants also hasn't been addressed at all. The public will have to pick up the bill a second time. The European power industry is incapable of covering the costs which is one of the primary reasons why many plants keep operating well past their initial expiry date.

And Fukushima is a good example of cost cutting without any concern for safety whatsoever.

Which f***ing idiot would have been so f***ing stupid to put a backup diesel generator for emergency cooling on the ground between the beach and the plant?

Not the dumbest idiot on the planet would be that dumb.

And how much money would it have cost to lift those generators up and install them on the roof?

Let's say that might have cost 25.000 USD per generator. If they had two backups that would then have been 50.000 USD for a whole lot of extra safety. Double the amount for good measure, just in case.

Very evidently, they were more concerned about saving 50.000 to 100.000 USD and not concerned with safety at all. It was blatantly obvious that any flooding from the beach would flood the generators where they were and thus provided no backup at all for any emergency involving a flooding scenario.

Cost cutting, not oversight. Cost cutting, not stupidity.


> It's not really clear to me that's the case. There were good reasons
> for sticking with Uranium as well. And certainly there are
> considerably safer Uranium reactors out there than the types we
> currently use, pebble bed reactors for example. A lot of what we have
> is indeed an accident of history: our current power reactors are what
> they are in part because of how reactors were designed for nuclear
> submarines, a very different purpose.

Well spoken nuclear power industry propaganda again.