On 14/08/2019 13:58, Andy Burns wrote:
whisky-dave wrote:

I doubt a nuclear power station sharing a perimeter fence with
fukashima would still have been up and running anymore than one
sharing a perimeter fence with Chernobyl
ISTR that the three other units at Chernobyl *did* continue operating
after number 4 exploded?

No, I think all were scrammed because of the earthquake and all were
flooded.

Three had core melts. I think the other was offline anyway.

However in the grand scheme of things loss of four reactors was trivial
compared to te damage the Tsunamai caused elsewhere.

You aren't that bothered about a grid blackout 30 feet under te sea.

Of course a tsunai that big in the North sea would take out every single
offshore wind farm there is. But since Fukushima, probably no nukes.

It is of course an argument for having lots of baskets with one to four
eggs in..

Of course diversity is something people are pretty clueless about.

Back in the early days of the Internet, we noticed one day that all IP
packets to the North of England were being routed via I think Norway.

Manchester was a big centre, and it was linked to london by two
different companies and via 8 different 'diverse' routes with 4
different fibre comnpanies.

Unfortunately they all used the same bit of optical fibre bunch up the
M1 that a digger had just taken out

Diversity for its own sake is meaningless. You need to examine how many
single points of failure there are.

With wind, it is the wind itself.
With solar, it is the daylight.
With Hydro, it is the rain
With fossil fuel, it is the fuel supply


There is no single point of failure for nuclear power, except political
interference.

you can stockpile 100 years of fuel easily and with no huge expense.



--
When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over
the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that
authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

Frédéric Bastiat