due to design, or operations flaws and one because of a natural disaster.
A natural disaster in addition to design and operations flaws, assuming you mean Fukushima.
Building anything critical below sea level in what is possibly the most known seismically active region on the entire planet [Ring of Fire] where earthquakes, tsunamis, and Godzilla happen regularly enough you know they will happen again is beyond incompetent. It's flat out suicidal.
Natural bodies of water are great sources of coolant as you don't have to transport to site as it's right there.
The stupidity/design and operations flaws were building the sea walls too low despite said feature being criticised and suggested for improvement. It never was.
The natural disaster was the fourth strongest earthquake ever recorded since records began in 1990.
To give an idea of the scale of such an earthquake:
it moved Honshu (the main island of Japan) 2.4 m (8 ft) east
shifted the Earth on its axis by estimates of between 10 cm (4 in) and 25 cm (10 in)
increased earth's rotational speed by 1.8 µs per day
generated infrasound waves detected in perturbations of the low-orbiting Gravity Field and Steady-State Ocean Circulation Explorer satellite
So to summerise: It moved most of Japan closer to the US. The redistribution of mass resulted in an increase of how fast the planet spins. And was detected in space through sheer force of vibrating through vacuum.
So the 14 metre waves from the tsunami that hit the inferior designs of the power plant just fucked the place.
Per megawatt hour of power produced, nuclear has killed fewer people than wind just from the small number of people dying in manufacturing and mining accidents for wind turbines, because of the sheer amount of power nuclear provides.
That's one of the reason I hate the concept of battery farms that the greenists insist must go with wind and solar to be fully successful. So, coal mining = bad, but lithium, nickel, lead, or whatever they are mining up to go sit out in a field in the huge quantities necessary for utility grade service is totally ok? Are we not going to run out of these metals, they aren't "renewable".
That's not completely true - the Salem nuclear plant in New Jersey had to shut down one of its units in 2019 when suspended ice reduced the intake flow for the open loop of the reactor's water cooling system. Extreme cold weather conditions like the ones in Texas may or may not be sufficient to cause the same problem there.
Texas's weather conditions were not extreme in the slightest. They were "just winter" in many other places. Even other places that use wind and solar power on heavy government grants. They were built skimping on a lot of cold weather safeguards that would be 100% mandatory anywhere more north in order to cut costs to make the cost per megawatt-hour approach the concept of "reasonable" compared to alternative energy sources.
Alaska has power. Can you imagine it? A place where Texas' winter is like their summers. But they don't go dark for 6 months of the year because of iced mills and chilled pipes.
Not that I'm not pro-nuclear (I love nuclear) but I saw an unconfirmed report that even one of the reactors was down for maintenance and refueling. Of course that happens and wouldn't be a big deal if there were more than a small handful of reactors in the state. Just this whole mess is a culimnation of things a lot of which would have been avoided or at least made better if instead of building 30GW of wind there'd been some other type of plant built.
But you know can't build scary nukes. Coal is dead too, they are getting shut down all over the place as they get harassed by climate change activists in court. It's an open market here and if there's profit to be had it would get built, but the activists make damn sure to make it so much trouble they don't try.
Nuclear doesn't fail.
Technically speaking, the biggest nuclear disasters we've seen were due to design, or operations flaws and one because of a natural disaster.
But, if you want to convince people, ask them the last time they've heard of one of our many nuclear powered US Navy ships blowing up.
A natural disaster in addition to design and operations flaws, assuming you mean Fukushima.
Building anything critical below sea level in what is possibly the most known seismically active region on the entire planet [Ring of Fire] where earthquakes, tsunamis,
and Godzillahappen regularly enough you know they will happen again is beyond incompetent. It's flat out suicidal.So what was the reason for them building it near there?
Did they literally run out of fucking land or something?
Natural bodies of water are great sources of coolant as you don't have to transport to site as it's right there.
The stupidity/design and operations flaws were building the sea walls too low despite said feature being criticised and suggested for improvement. It never was.
The natural disaster was the fourth strongest earthquake ever recorded since records began in 1990.
To give an idea of the scale of such an earthquake:
So to summerise: It moved most of Japan closer to the US. The redistribution of mass resulted in an increase of how fast the planet spins. And was detected in space through sheer force of vibrating through vacuum.
So the 14 metre waves from the tsunami that hit the inferior designs of the power plant just fucked the place.
In fairness, that could have been an issue in Japan. It's quite small and dense.
And combined they still killed less than your average damn failure.
Per megawatt hour of power produced, nuclear has killed fewer people than wind just from the small number of people dying in manufacturing and mining accidents for wind turbines, because of the sheer amount of power nuclear provides.
That's one of the reason I hate the concept of battery farms that the greenists insist must go with wind and solar to be fully successful. So, coal mining = bad, but lithium, nickel, lead, or whatever they are mining up to go sit out in a field in the huge quantities necessary for utility grade service is totally ok? Are we not going to run out of these metals, they aren't "renewable".
That's not completely true - the Salem nuclear plant in New Jersey had to shut down one of its units in 2019 when suspended ice reduced the intake flow for the open loop of the reactor's water cooling system. Extreme cold weather conditions like the ones in Texas may or may not be sufficient to cause the same problem there.
Texas's weather conditions were not extreme in the slightest. They were "just winter" in many other places. Even other places that use wind and solar power on heavy government grants. They were built skimping on a lot of cold weather safeguards that would be 100% mandatory anywhere more north in order to cut costs to make the cost per megawatt-hour approach the concept of "reasonable" compared to alternative energy sources.
Alaska has power. Can you imagine it? A place where Texas' winter is like their summers. But they don't go dark for 6 months of the year because of iced mills and chilled pipes.
Alaska has entire wind farms that operate through out winter. One of those windfarms is actually on an a small island surrounded by ocean water.
Not that I'm not pro-nuclear (I love nuclear) but I saw an unconfirmed report that even one of the reactors was down for maintenance and refueling. Of course that happens and wouldn't be a big deal if there were more than a small handful of reactors in the state. Just this whole mess is a culimnation of things a lot of which would have been avoided or at least made better if instead of building 30GW of wind there'd been some other type of plant built.
But you know can't build scary nukes. Coal is dead too, they are getting shut down all over the place as they get harassed by climate change activists in court. It's an open market here and if there's profit to be had it would get built, but the activists make damn sure to make it so much trouble they don't try.
It does when you fucked up the maintenance Then people start dying of Leukemia at an alarming rate.