lol
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
Comments (41)
sorted by:
Fukushima was a "everything that could go wrong, did go wrong " event. An aging power plant that was denied modernisation because anti-nuclear activists wanted no more funds no matter the reason to go to nuclear. An earthquake then a tsunami hitting it and the back up generators being in a basement level that got flooded.
The lesson here isn't nuclear is too dangerous to use, just like Chernobyl was an example of poor design and corrupt, inexperienced staff and then a culture of misinformation to save face, Fukushima is an example of what happens when you let political activists dictate where funds are allocated based on ideology rather than a reasoned argument.
I'd like to emphesize the earthquake a bit. It was one of the strongest to hit Japan. Japan gets hit constantly by earthquakes, it's a common occurance there so everything is build to withstand until a certain magnitude(I think it should be 8), Fukushima earthquake was a 9.1. I don't know how feasible it is to even build against that. They probably have to build one of those ones that just can't melt down.
It is just not safe to build NPPs in those areas, Turkey is planning to build one...
Structures are not build to withstand a single big shake, Crete had a 6R one 4 years ago and 300 of over 4R till then. In some areas the ground has risen by 3 or more meters and it still rises.
So in a good and just world nuclear is mostly fine barring freak accidents. Except we don't live in that world and freak accidents also need to be accounted for. Not accounting for people being retarded is a design flaw.
Nuclear power should be reserved for geologically stable and desolate areas, and space.
That's true for pretty much ANYTHING, the amount of fuel storage that have blown up easily surpasses nuclear incidents, the fact that there's only been 3 notable ones is quite the achievement.
And as many have said the plant itself was very out dated but anti-nuclear activists kept blocking funds for modernisation, it's the equivalent of being against all conflict but blocking modernisation to smart accurate guided bombs so we keep having to use napalm and carpet bombing.
If bill gates decided to build a nuclear plant in texas would you be ok with that? Even though he is hostile to human life and deliberately engineering a reactor failure would align with his stated goals.
As for your shitty analogy, it's more like being against the use of nukes in warfare. Or opposing insane governments getting nukes.
The people who built Fukushima reactor didn't predict funding and upgrades being prevented by acts of government stupidity. You're saying " if people just don't act retarded it will be fine". You have to account for people being retarded to the point of self destruction, because people will never stop being retarded.
A nuclear reactor is dangerous on a scale vastly eclipsing conventional fuel explosions. Don't be a retard.
Well no, that first analogy doesn't work, you have proven malice in his intent, it's like letting a fox who's been stealing your chickens then guard said chickens.
And instead of kneecapping ourselves because we listen to the retarded, why not do what we used to do, don't listen to them and put them in arrow fodder positions
Because retards and those who manipulate them always win in the end. There is no incorruptible society. Governments always fall. If anything it's so incredibly common that the intelligent analysis assumes government defaults to incompetent evil.
A nuclear reactor will eventually fail in the same way that rain will eventually fall. "Why not just not ever let bad things happen though?" This is you right now. Do you realize what website you're on?
Ok let's stop all dam construction because they'll likely not be built properly and fail horrifically, space travel nah be constant challenger accidents, should we try cybernetics nah it'll probably turn into Upgrade, let's just stay at our current level always because retards will always screw it up
Your argument is like the classic blackpill mentality, why even try someone will ruin it anyway, may as well just give in and not attempt to put effort in to stop them.
You're just illiterate. It's called a cost benefit analysis. The challenger explosion cost 7 lives. Space development is worth exponentially more than that. Dams have massively more utility than risk.
Nuclear reactor failures are EXPONENTIALLY more devastating than anything you just listed, comparing a mountain to a molehill.
If you were capable of following a conversation you'd see I said there are acceptable places for nuclear development. You especially wouldn't have tried the "u no into space" shit because I said nuclear energy should absolutely be used in space. Go read the end of my first post.
Were you an adult during the Fukushima incident? I doubt it given your brainlet take on the potential consequences of putting a nuclear reactor somewhere prone to natural disasters.
Are you German
Nein, just slightly more informed on logistics and safety than the "just nuclear everything" technophiles.
I'm gonna guess prob'ly not.
Given that I actually have a more nuanced understanding beyond "nuclear gud!!111!" You'd guess wrong.
There are also types of power plants that would not have that vulnerability. I had to look up the article and was pleased to see that the proposal also calls for new designs to be included. (along with tried and tested ones) Fukushima was already very old.
The only thing they had to do to prevent the problem was to not put the generators in the fucking basement where they would get flooded. If they just put the generators on an upper floor, absolutely nothing would have went wrong.
Isn't there an area in Japan where tsuanamis dont reach and earthquakes are rare? Why not just build there?
There is no place where earthquakes are rare except Okinawa which is too far from the rest of the country to be useful. Building on higher land is definitely a good idea.
It makes sense. Not only is it substantially more reliable than wind or solar, those both require a ton of land to use. Something Japan has never been known for having a lot of. That land would also be better used for things like agriculture too.
Yep. Japan has not much land. Its mostly mountain. And putting stuff in the sea = monsoon and rust.
Resource wise, they have no gas or coal. They dont even have fissile materials for nuclear. But its probably more feasible and "clean" to import fissile stuff. The Only thing they have is probably geothermal that can be renewable and last for tens of thousands if not millions of years. Ring of fire.
If you have a coast, you have uranium. There's a lot of it dissolved in the sea-water. The plant for seperating it out is pretty resource intensive, but the source is effectively endless.
Uranium has a lot more energy per kilo, so you can afford to ship it from further away since you don't need a constant convoy ferrying it to your power plant.
can't control people if there's basically limitless energy
Hence why certain Congress critters killed orbital solar and ocean geothermal in 1972... just before the oil crisis.
A situation literally solved by "build the wall, and make it ten feet higher!"
Clean, cheap energy freely available to the poor? No wonder the left hates it.
Gott Strafe Deutschland!
Not sure nuclear power would be shunned in japan. Its not like fukushima was caused by neglegience or deliberate. It was literally an act of god. Learn from it and make it safer. Higher walls. Backup generators on high ground. Multiple back up generators at different places.
Tech gets better and safer as time goes on.
What's to learn? Only 1 reactor went down, it didn't suffer a full meltdown, nobody died of radiation--all the dead people in the city died of the tsunami and earthquake. The only thing they could have done better was to put the Generators on the roof.
Nuclear Power isn't really an environmental issue.
It's a strategic issue. Convincing opposing countries not to have independent and self sufficient energy supplies is a major aspect of enemy strategy. Globalists don't want individual states to be independent of their governance, and Chinese Communists want Japan to remain as weak as possible.
Well look at that, when the reality of energy demands manifest, you have no choice.
Japanese dude looks like Hiroyuki Sanada
test us, and we will all burn together