"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 18-Dec-16 9:48 AM, Rod Speed wrote:


"harry" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 17 December 2016 18:43:47 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
harry wrote
Rod Speed wrote
harry wrote


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...-idUSKBN13Y047

Nuclear is NOT safe or cheap option.

Perfectly safe if you dont do really stupid stuff
like siting it where a tsunami can be a problem.

That's exactly where Hinkley Point is sited.

Dont get tsunamis there, stupid.


You really are a thicko aren't you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristo...l_floods,_1607

That's not a tsunami, stupid.

Trivial to make it immune to floods like that.

They did, in fact, take account of that event in their flood planning.
IIRC, the outer defences will withstand 50% higher water and the critical
systems have their own independent and better defences.

Yeah, they just stuffed up a bit of the detail and it would have been
completely trivial to make Fukushima completely immune to that
tsunami so they could have just yawned when it happened.