3 ms·
> Some of the recently-touted small reactor designs try to omit a containment vessel on the grounds that their design couldn't possibly melt down. That's probab
by AdamJacobMuller 9y ago
> Some of the recently-touted small reactor designs try to omit a containment vessel on the grounds that their design couldn't possibly melt down. That's probably not a good approach.
Agreed, but, fail-safe and walkaway-safe designs coupled with moderate containment vessels seem like a good medium. It is all about mitigating risk. I don't think we should ever accept that a design has actual 0 risk for meltdown, but, if you design with a goal of having 0 risk of uncontained failures and then design containment for a moderate level of failure, that seems like you have a robust overall solution.
- rtx 9y agoEven if there is a meltdown it will have localized environmental impact. Which will self correct in few centuries. Greenhouse gases are affecting the whole planet, same with minerals for batteries.
- contravariant 9y ago>design containment for a moderate level of failure What on earth does this mean? When would an (as of yet) uncontained failure be considered moderate?
- godelski 9y agoIn a nuclear disaster case, it isn't nothing or Chernobyl. Like all things in life, there is stuff between the extremes.