View Single Post
  #7  
Old 03-16-2011
randolph's Avatar
randolph randolph is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: S. Calif.
Posts: 2,502
randolph is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Conquistador
Quote:
But again, in an area of the world with such active seismic activity, it seems like it would have been alot safer to put the reactor farther inland with reserve cisterns available for cooling. Placed right on the coast, it just screams like it's begging for trouble. Kinda like our San Onofre facility AKA The 2 Giant Titties...
Hopefully, all of the Mark 1s have been upgraded.
1-The mark 1 was "popular" because it was cheaper to build.
2- It is cheaper to build next to the ocean for cooling and accessibility.

Cost vs safety levels is where decisions are made. A traditional steam plant has minimal public risk. A nuclear plant has extreme public risk. Are nuclear plants worth the risk? If nuclear plants are designed and built to be virtually risk free to the public, the cost would be prohibitive. They would probably need to be buried deep in solid rock mountains.
So we build nuclear plants and take a risk with public lives.
__________________
"Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary." R.N.
Reply With Quote