Need to do Expected value calculations on Nuke plants

[Saltheart]

My only point is that we now have a concrete track record that can be used to predict the frequency with which actual accidents happen. Back in 1970 it was all speculative. Just as they use 100 year or 200 year flood plains to predict problems and adjust the cost of insurances , etc, they now have concrete numbers to use when looking at Nukes. Yes all the things at the Japan site were unique and to piggy back one unique event on another it improbable , we now know for sure it has some finite probability and that can be used in thinking about future builds.

People can say new designs or unlikely natural events will or will not hurt or help but we no longer have to totally speculate. We have solid historical evidence that should be used in future calculations. The money side is always used to justify or unjustify certain technology applications such as the high initial investment of solar. I just think we need to do total financial analysis on all the various options going forward.

One other point to make is the environmental impact brought up of oil , solar , nuke coal , wind , etc. Yes they all have an environmental price and they all have a potential cost in lives lost or other significant health issues. Many of the deaths from the nukes will be 20 years in the making before they surface. The same is true for coal and oil fired plants. These long term effects are often discounted while the chance of a plane hitting a windmill tower are often over stated because their results are immediate. I think that while the recent Nuke prolems in Japan may not totally damn future Nuke reactors , if people fairly include these now measurable finite probabilities of disasters at these plants , the case for energy ideas like wind and solar cannot help to be looked at as more inviting options than they were before the recent nuke issues. Not more inviting than nukes specifically , just more inviting overall in light of the recent disasters that show nuke power plants do have finite probabilities of big problems from time to time.

[FishermanTim]

If they didn't before, they will definitely start factoring in "compounding disasters" in the construction of nuclear facilities.

I doubt anyone thought that they would get a 1-2 punch when designing the reactor. Heck, unless you have had prioir experience with similar "domino effect" scenarios, you don't plan for them.
Here in New England, particularly along the coast, we deal with :compounded situations" every year: We get a severe winter storm and high tides to give us heavy snow and coastal flooding.
Although that can't compare to an earthquake and sunami, it gives you an idea of how confounding and complicated Japan's scenaio really is.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Saltheart

People can say new designs or unlikely natural events will or will not hurt or help but we no longer have to totally speculate. We have solid historical evidence that should be used in future calculations. The money side is always used to justify or unjustify certain technology applications such as the high initial investment of solar. I just think we need to do total financial analysis on all the various options going forward.

I think a lot of the arguments against nuclear are more sensationalistic than factual. I don't mean to nitpick, but I would say 3 incidents over 30 years with hundreds of nuclear power plants in 40-plus countries is "solid historical evidence" for how *reliable* and safe nuclear power is compared to other alternatives.

I used this analogy the other day:
When a plane crashes, everyone on the plane dies. However, it's still statistically safer to board a plane and fly across the country than it is to get in your car to go buy milk.

[Saltheart]

If the wind in japan starts blowing south , 20 million people in Tokyo could be in serious danger. A plane crashes and 400 die. 400 hundred is not good by any means but compared to the possible 20 million plus , the nuke single incident has to be considered "big".

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Saltheart

If the wind in japan starts blowing south , 20 million people in Tokyo could be in serious danger. A plane crashes and 400 die. 400 hundred is not good by any means but compared to the possible 20 million plus , the nuke single incident has to be considered "big".

A nuclear incident is absolutely considered big, but like I said, it's still statistically safer than all other options that generate a similar amount of power.