kootchman
Indeed.. but Hanford was a plutonium manufacturing facility, for WW2…and the nuclear arsenal to follow. we had no idea then what to do with waste. And after you have destroyed thousands of square miles of natural habitat with bird choppers your descendants can have the sublime pleasure of wondering what we were thinking of. We trend to design caution with nuclear … even our worst accident, operator error and all… Three Mile Island… was a non event other than to galvanize anti-nuclear hysteria. The net effet? No damage to life or property… and even greater safety regulations. The Three Mile Island “disaster”.. just what were the “disasterous” consequences… ? I would rather see the vast stockpiles of waste (depleted uranium) reduced in volume, consumed, and rendered less toxic. Which is greener? Have hundreds of upgraded Hanford storages… as we do now.. or complete the extraction cycle? The cost of maintaining waste stockpiles is never going to get cheaper.. Reuse, recycle. Seismic upgrades? That’s ongoing, we have been doing it for years… schools, public buildings… it’s still cheaper than wind.
and your link link is at odds with your post I see.
Here’s your post
Last year the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission identified 27 US reactors that should be upgraded in order to “better withstand” earthquakes.
Here’s what the link ACTUALLY said
The 27 nuclear reactors identified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as possibly needing upgrades to better withstand earthquakes
Needed or possibly needed… are two different animals.. and upgrade may be as simple as more redundency in the “scram” procedures, or better digital controls… they may be structurally fine.