2 ms·

There was a video I saw a while ago, but I don't remember where, explaining that modern nuclear designs use passive safety mechanisms, whereas the original (cur

There was a video I saw a while ago, but I don't remember where, explaining that modern nuclear designs use passive safety mechanisms, whereas the original (currently in use) designs have active safety mechanisms that require ridiculous amounts of fallback and backup systems that make it much more difficult to guarantee safe operation in the event of an anomaly. I think it had something to do with there being a salt plug that would melt if things got to hot, at which point everything would drain into a vessel designed to stop the reaction getting out of hand. So the cooling systems have to actively keep operating temperatures in range otherwise the plug melts and it goes into safe mode. This is in contrast with what you describe where "shut down" is an elaborate process that takes time and correct order of operations in order to occur safely.

godelski 7y ago
You're thinking of liquid reactors, probably gen IV. But I'll say that given the track record of nuclear, it is pretty safe. Only one that beats it out for safety per TW (least deaths per TW) is hydro (even wind and solar are more dangerous). The environmental damage isn't really high either, you should check out radiation maps of Japan. They're pretty much livable expect for inside the daiichi reactor. It definitely was bad, but at the same time it was sensationalized. I can also say that there is a resistance to implementing new reactors and storage methods because they "aren't proven". I'll let you decide the irony to that statement.