Added: 10 months ago
From: fukushima3000
Views: 2,325
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (8)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • They always say how safe these new plants are, but in ten years time there will be comments like Trinite1985's below saying "terrible design", etc, etc.

  • People are worried because the build quality has proven to be awful. Number of problems with quality of concrete etc.

  • I have no concern over the new reactor. Personally, I am more concerned about the older reactors, which are of a less robust design. But even those are of a better design than the Fukushima reactors (GE's BWRs are a terrible design). So my opinion is we build newer, safer plants (in safer places, not on a tsunami prone coast) to replace the older, more at risk plants. Otherwise, we're just stuck with aging plants and fossil fuels with a small renewable supplement.

  • OL3 is been built with cheapest possible workforce and lowest cost subcontractors. There's also evidence of tax avoidance... Project has had many problems, like low quality concrete, bad quality or missing design documentation and so on... And also conflicts between Areva, TVO and STUK (nuclear safety offiials), which is suprising. STUK usually has very friendly attitude for nuclear power companies and their projects in Finland.

    Many people are worried about the safety of OL3 in Finland.

  • Of course, you should be terrified. There is going to be a seven meter tidal wave in the Baltic.... /facepalm

  • why should i be afraid...i was not afraid in chernobyl...

  • What is there to be worried about? Nothing.

  • I'm not worried

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more