| > > Moreover the dust escaping from a nuclear plant may be ...
> > What sort of dust is this?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radionuclide So this not dust escaping during normal operation. This is an important qualification to your original statement. > Moreover quite different hypothesis are more and more widespread I would expect the presence of strong data to reduce the number of viable hypotheses. Chris Busby was very creative coming up with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Busby#Second_event... but it looks like overfitting to scant data. > If all the reactors in the fleet were N4, they would all have been shut down! If they were all N4 they would have been kept running and had a rolling program of repairs. So I do not agree with your desire to have a heterogeneous fleet of reactors. > nobody dies due to the lack of electricity we estimate that the energy-saving campaigns could have led to nearly 7,710
premature deaths annually in Japanhttps://epic.uchicago.cn/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/01/... Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Iberian_Peninsula_blackou... |
Indeed, however past accidents now forbid to claim that "this dust will never wander around, everything is under control".
> If they were all N4 they would have been kept running and had a rolling program of repairs.
Nope, as the defect was considered (by EDF itself, the company owning and operating it, chief of the nuclear industry in France, and AFAIK experts agreed) as too dangerous for the reactor to continue to operate.
> your desire to have a heterogeneous fleet of reactors
I don't desire any reactor. I'm only pointing out a major dilemma intrinsic to the "nuclear" approach.
> nobody dies due to the lack of electricity
I explained why a mix of renewables cannot lead to such ordeal, which was induced in Japan by the decision to produce electricity thanks to nuclear reactors and the decision to shut them off after the Fukushima accident.
Iberian blackout: nobody knows the cause for sure, experts are analyzing the event.