http://insights.globalspec.com/article/430/swiss-nuclear-power-plant-retrofit-for-hydrogen-control

 

While I am certainly not opposed in any way to nuclear safety, I am puzzled by the responses of the Swiss to the Fukushima incident. To begin with, the proximate cause of the notorious meltdown was the drowning of the auxiliary cooling system's diesel engines by the tsunami. Fukushima was the only such installation affected by said tsunami, the others have been restored to service, and the historical record of tsunamis affecting Switzerland is nil, leading one to conclude that the threat of such Alpine tsunamis is remote.

http://insights.globalspec.com/article/430/swiss-nuclear-power-plant-retrofit-for-hydrogen-control

 

While I am certainly not opposed in any way to nuclear safety, I am puzzled by the responses of the Swiss to the Fukushima incident. To begin with, the proximate cause of the notorious meltdown was the drowning of the auxiliary cooling system's diesel engines by the tsunami. Fukushima was the only such installation affected by said tsunami, the others have been restored to service, and the historical record of tsunamis affecting Switzerland is nil, leading one to conclude that the threat of such Alpine tsunamis is remote.

The message I get from that article is the Swiss government is just looking for any reason to abandon nuclear power; extremely remote negative scenarios are sufficient 'justification'. Maybe they envisage all their snow melting instantaneously somehow.

Edited January 31, 201510 yr by StringJunky

Agreed, it is reasonable to assume avalanche risks were considered during the site selection process before ground was ever broken. The potential threat of glaciers should be negligible even when the climate changes for the colder, as it most inevitably will, you can spot a glacier coming from quite a long way off.

Edited January 31, 201510 yr by Harold Squared