“We asked him – do you know anything about nuclear issues? And he said no, I majored in economics.”
My latest blogpost: Quote of the DayTweet this!
And MW, you still think nuclear (fission) is the best option!?
Pablo. I have a client who is an nuclear engineer. He explained it all to me. Essentially the design was OK for (say) a 1:10,000 year event. This was a (sa) 1:100,000 year event.The phrase 'witch' and 'hunt' occur.
P, that's way off topic, but having looked at facts and figures, nuclear generated electricity is the least worst option, assuming you build them to a sensible design and in the right place.L, they built it in the wrong place and with the wrong design, that much is clear. Nonetheless, it wasn't as catastrophic as it might have been. it wasn't Chernobyl or anything (which was also caused by gross recklessness).
MW According to my 'expert' it was not in the wrong place, and it was to an old design. But essentially the design was OK for the event frequency and severity they were required to design to. Trouble is the event was more severe than the design requirement. There were poor bits of design. The overtopping of the anti Tsunami wall flooded the back up generators. They could have been better positioned.
Problem is Hinkley Point and Bristol Channel was hit by a tsunami ( it looks like) in 1607. If our experts are not nuclear physicists ,or whatever, they are certainly not historians!
L, DBC, the obvious lesson is, don't build nuclear power stations (or anything, for that matter) in a possible tsunami or flood zone, or on a cliff which is crumbling etc. We did this topic a while ago.You might as well say "Some houses were flooded last year. So houses are inherently unsafe."
Post a Comment