3 ms·
> But I agree that the devastation of huge areas of land is a problem, but let's also keep in mind that the reactors that blew up where early generations reacto
by hannob 8y ago
> But I agree that the devastation of huge areas of land is a problem, but let's also keep in mind that the reactors that blew up where early generations reactors.
With "early generation reactors" you mean all the ones that exist. The whole "next generation reactor" / "generation 4 reactor" thing is at this point nothing more than vague plans for what could be.
- DennisP 8y agoThat's overstating things. Fukushima was built in the 70s. A nearby reactor faced the same challenges but was built a decade later, and it was fine. That's just a GenII, still not as safe as the GenIII+ we're building now. Chernobyl, of course, was a horrific design that didn't even have a containment dome. Nobody builds reactors like that anymore. And GenIV is a little more than vague plans; e.g. Terrestrial Energy's molten salt reactor has already gotten through the hardest part of Canada's licensing process, which puts them on track for a demo reactor by 2025 or so.
- hairytrog 8y agoThey have to secure a few B$ in funding. lol.