3 ms·
Kind of agree. There's been 4 catasrpohpic reactor meltdowns and there are ~400 reactors. That's a 1% failure rate. That's really bad. That's the status quo, wh
by hairytrog 7y ago
Kind of agree. There's been 4 catasrpohpic reactor meltdowns and there are ~400 reactors. That's a 1% failure rate. That's really bad. That's the status quo, which does not mandate continued low safety and lack of economic advantage. That's why there is R&D. Today what you say is true - great. Tomorrow, who knows. High energy density and human ingenuity could make genIV a reality.
- kyberias 7y agoWhat were the meltdowns?
- Gibbon1 7y agoFukushima, Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl. Are three.
- dagw 7y agoyea, not sure how to get to 4. Either you stop at 3 or you expand your scope to include contained meltdowns and meltdowns at small scale experimental and military facilities, in which case you end up around 7-20 depending on how serious a meltdown has to be to be included.
- newnewpdro 7y agoThree reactors melted down @ Fukushima Daiichi. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#Units_1,_2,_and_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...
- hairytrog 7y agocorrect
- Gibbon1 7y agoThree mile Island's core also melted by didn't breach containment. That fact hasn't been widely publicized. And there is a tendency to skip over that TMI is on the Susquehanna River which drains into Chesapeake Bay. TMI came within hours of being a monumental disaster.
- nl 7y agoThe International Nuclear Event Scale[1] is probably more useful than "meltdown". Anything at level 5 ("3 Mile Island") and above is pretty serious. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Scale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Sc...