How long would society last without electricity?

Eventhorizon said:
I did not hear that but I have to be honest with you, doesnt that sound a bit suspicious to you? After the accident people would and did ask if Japan should have ANY nuclear reactors given that they are so earthquake prone. That if one was taken down so EASILY (even though it was a large quake etc) the rest should be taken off line. So coming up with a story that the reactor WOULD have been ok if operating normally might cause people to not be as concerned.

Maybe Im just speculating but, it seems a little out of place...
Click to expand...

Well there's devices that could have prevented the hydrogen-air explosion which don't depend on electricity. Having those could have averted much of the disaster - there'd still be a melt but it wouldn't have been complicated by the explosions. There might have been significantly less escape of material if they had those.

Also their backup system was flawed from the start and could have been foreseen. Relying on external power for safety and only backup generators was a big mistake - their emergency cooling system was flawed and outdated in that way.

Edit:
Or basically it wasn't the reactors but rather the support and emergency systems for the reactors which were bad. How many places are running reactors like this?

Do we really know how many places could handle a SCRAM and a power outage at the same time? There's ways to catch a melting core, ways to prevent explosions, but they won't help if some places don't have them.
 
Last edited:
Eventhorizon said:
I did not hear that but I have to be honest with you, doesnt that sound a bit suspicious to you? After the accident people would and did ask if Japan should have ANY nuclear reactors given that they are so earthquake prone. That if one was taken down so EASILY (even though it was a large quake etc) the rest should be taken off line. So coming up with a story that the reactor WOULD have been ok if operating normally might cause people to not be as concerned.

Maybe Im just speculating but, it seems a little out of place...
Click to expand...

I think like France, they choose nuclear energy almost out of necessity as they do not have (unlike America) a whole heck of a lot of coal mines or other resources as they are so small geographically. Still, lots of nuclear power plants on probably the most natural disaster prone country on earth. Not just earthquakes, earthquake produced tsunamis and such.
 
I have been thinking about this and you know it made me think about how in the developed world, or anyplace with nuclear plants as mentioned, an Electro-Magnetic Pulse attack or weapon system could be as devastating or more than conventional weapons attacks would have been at one time.
 
I think people would not know what to do with themselves. No texting, internet, tv...people might have to start to really communicate! :D
 
say what said:
I think people would not know what to do with themselves. No texting, internet, tv...people might have to start to really communicate! :D
Click to expand...

My God. like, face to face human interaction? I think I'd hang myself like in The Road.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top