4 ms·
> There's no way anyone would allow this in America because of the potential for catastrophic failures outweigh the benefits. The perception of the potential f
by sitharus 9y ago
> There's no way anyone would allow this in America because of the potential for catastrophic failures outweigh the benefits.
The perception of the potential for catastrophic failure outweighs the benefits.
Given it’s an unpressurised rector that doesn’t boil the working fluid the potential for a serious accident is very low compared to a high pressure reactor. It can easily be passively cooled and shutdown heat decay can be handled without much fuss. That’s why most research reactors are of this type.
The problem with nuclear power, and in this case heating, is humans are extraordinarily bad at estimating risk.
- pwaai 9y ago> That’s why most research reactors are of this type. but how many nuclear accidents have we had because of this "safe" design?
- sitharus 9y agoBecause of the design? None. In fact the Canadian-designed SLOWPOKE reactor (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLOWPOKE_reactor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLOWPOKE_reactor) is licensed to run unattended overnight - it is only passively cooled and increased temperature results in a negative feedback loop. An unpressurised light water reactor is an inherently safe design. The rate of reaction depends on liquid water being present, steam will stop the reaction. Nuclear power doesn't have to be dangerous, and even now more people die due to coal power (including mining and pollution effects) each year than ever have due to nuclear power.