13 ms·
>Just because it's better than other solutions doesn't mean it's -inherently safe-. I re-read the parent to your comment looking for the words "inherently safe
by ziddoap 7y ago
>Just because it's better than other solutions doesn't mean it's -inherently safe-.
I re-read the parent to your comment looking for the words "inherently safe" in vain. I don't think they are claiming it is inherently safe.
My 2c on it is that yes, it is important to recognize the failures and lessons learned when moving forward. However, we don't bring up the Model T when discussing road safety today. This is similar in the sense that design, oversight, and general knowledge of nuclear is much more advanced today than when Chernobyl was built. So, yes we need to think about Chernobyl. No, it isn't fair to directly compare Chernobyl to Gen IV plants.
- v_lisivka 7y agoModern car is much safer than Model T, but it also is much faster, and number of cars is so huge, so number of deaths due to incidents rose to 1.25M per year + 20-50M injured or disabled. Yep, modern reactor is much safer than Chornobyl, but we have much more reactors now, so if we have 100x safer reactor but 400x more reactors, net safety is decreased by 4x.
- opo 7y ago>...This is similar in the sense that design, oversight, and general knowledge of nuclear is much more advanced today than when Chernobyl was built. That is true, but even when Chernobyl was built, no western country would have licensed a commercial reactor without a containment dome. That combined with the RBMK reactor positive void coefficient meant Chernobyl was basically a disaster waiting to happen.