Nuclear power plants were designed with this in mind. It would take a substantially larger earthquake to damage a nuclear power plant and cause it to leak than a commercial pool. Such a comparison is in bad faith and disingenuous.
People are fallible on the best days, assuming everyone did their very best from nuclear physicists to construction workers, mistakes are made. You take steps to reduce the risk. Research gets review. Engineering schematics get review. Construction gets inspection. Still some mistakes will get through.
And people always act their very best all the time right?
You can even have a perfect design, perfect construction, that is mismanaged years after it's built, after the original engineers and bureaucrats lose control.
The same people problems apply to basically every human endeavor, but nuclear's capability to cause accidents that have a lasting impact is pretty scary. You don't feel even a twinge of existential dread when you think about? If you don't, then I don't think I want you working on a reactor.
A sufficiently large pool can be built, that any plausible leak will take many days. Think about it: a million liters of water take a long time to dissapear, after all lakes stay there for a long time without rainfall. Weve built many many ponds, it's not hard.
The water in a glass can take a long time to evaporate, but if you put your fist inside the glass and press you will have a sudden loss of 2/3 of the water in seconds.
There are pools and pools and there are leaks and leaks. Anybody that has built an aquarium knows that a 80cm high design is much more complicated to made leak-proof than a 40cm high design holding the same water.
A shallow pool would not be enough to contain a small nuclear plant, so you need a non standard bigger pool. Higher the pool, higher the weight of water column, the force pressure against the walls will increase, and the leak will be much faster because the water weight in the upper level of the pool will force the water in the low levels to go out. If your leak is in the upper side of the pool will be a small self contained problem but if the bottom leaks is a different thing. As the bottom needs to support much more force against it and there is a weak area when walls meet bottom, is more probable to fail first.
Our largest manmade lakes are created by dams, and you can find plenty of example of dams failing in ways that don't take many days.
If our smallest manmade lakes (swimming pools) can leak a lot, and our largest manmade lakes (dams) can also leak a lot the idea there's an in-between size that doesn't leak might need a bit of elaboration.
There's a big difference between a dam and a pool; the pool is supported by the ground, and even if you bash holes in it, the water still has to find somewhere to go. Also, pools are not typically built from concrete and stainless steel.
The safety requirement here is not "doesn't leak", it's "holds most of the water for 30 days (after which water is not required)". You would have to get an implausibly-large leak, during a situation where nobody can add more water for a month.
I don't lack imagination; my imagination just has enough structure to distinguish between realistic and unrealistic scenarios.
We should be orders of magnitude more worried about all the carbon dioxide we're dumping into the atmosphere, than the failure modes of an engineered hole in the ground.
Thinking that nuclear safety just comes down to digging a big hole and filling it with water is such a gross over simplification that I honestly can't believe you are arguing in good faith.
Maybe a particular reactor design could use such a mechanism as one failsafe, but that alone is not enough, and no design is perfect, and the people operating it are not perfect.
I think some of the risks of nuclear are acceptable, I am actually very pro nuclear, but we should acknowledge them instead of pretending they don't exist. The only way risk can be properly managed is if it's acknowledged.
They didn't just drop a reactor in a pool; they also eliminated a bunch of pumps and other failure-prone components from the system.
I would prefer to see inherently safe designs like LFTR gain traction, but NuScale has one of the few designs likely to be built in the near term, where you could SCRAM and take a vacation without causing a meltdown. That is a major advancement in safety; let's not let perfect be the enemy of good.
I was actually going to reply with something similar, but I don't think this stacks up to the damage that can be unleashed in a nuclear accident. Building this took a few lifetimes. Nuclear accidents can have effects that are orders of magnitude larger and longer.
Cool it (pun intended) with the accusations of bad faith. Unless you have enough data to prove it, don't accuse it.
"Substantially larger" is not the same as "impossible". And, given substantially larger consequences if a reactor pool breaks (compared to a swimming pool breaking), I don't think the question is out of line.
We learned from Fukushima that natural disasters don't always follow the parameters that we expect them to.
An earthquake that was one of the largest ever recorded and resulting in one of the largest tsunamis ever as well. So you know, pretty common circumstances.
That the '1000 year tsunami' happened 40 years after commissioning is more suggestive of engineering incompetence than bad luck. And unlike bad luck, incompetence is a lot more prevalent.
You just defined bad luck. They did plan for better than a 100 year earthquake. They met those standards. Problem is sometimes you flip 10 heads in a row (equivalent to 1000 year event), when they could only handle 7.
