4 ms·

I would like to hear more about "nuclear meltdowns not even possible." You mean on designs that people are actually talking about implenting, or just the state-

I would like to hear more about "nuclear meltdowns not even possible." You mean on designs that people are actually talking about implenting, or just the state-of-the-art stuff that we are nowhere close to implementing, especially in poorer nations?

imtringued 6y ago
I'm also thinking what happens after you built the new thing. Ok, now we have this super advanced nuclear power plant it's super safe. So safe that it would be irresponsible to operate anything else. You know what happens? Old plants can still melt down. Fukushima was one of them and it was older than the Chernobyl plant. It is entirely possible that a new design won't increase safety because the unsafe models keep running.
- Natsu 6y ago
  You're supposed to decommission them once you have replacement power.
nl 6y ago
There's a claim that molten salt reactors are meltdown free. It's not entirely true (they meltdown, but have a drainage tank which is supposed to provide containment). They remain experimental. https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Molten_salt_reactor#Benefits_and_Drawbacks https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Molten_salt_reactor#...
- shaftway 6y ago
  The use of the term "meltdown" seems disingenuous when discussing a molten reactor. If most of the fuel is already molten, and the shutdown procedure is to cut power (matching a power loss scenario) which means a plug melts to allow the fuel to flow into a safe storage container, then the thing is meant to "meltdown" fairly often. "Core damage incident" instead of "meltdown"?
  - Natsu 6y ago
    I think passive safety is really where the good designs are, but what most people are worried about is a core that can't have any kind of criticality incident.
    - shaftway 6y ago
      Oh yeah, totally. I'm just objecting to using the term "meltdown" to describe the typical power-down procedure because of the negative connotations of the term. I'm good with "criticality incident", "core damage incident", or any other descriptive term that makes it clear that it's a deviation from normal behavior. Using a negative term for a non-critical incident is just stacking the deck against the technology.
Natsu 6y ago
See - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety

imtringued 6y ago

I'm also thinking what happens after you built the new thing. Ok, now we have this super advanced nuclear power plant it's super safe. So safe that it would be irresponsible to operate anything else. You know what happens? Old plants can still melt down. Fukushima was one of them and it was older than the Chernobyl plant. It is entirely possible that a new design won't increase safety because the unsafe models keep running.

Natsu 6y ago
You're supposed to decommission them once you have replacement power.

nl 6y ago

There's a claim that molten salt reactors are meltdown free. It's not entirely true (they meltdown, but have a drainage tank which is supposed to provide containment). They remain experimental. https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Molten_salt_reactor#Benefits_and_Drawbacks https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Molten_salt_reactor#...

shaftway 6y ago
The use of the term "meltdown" seems disingenuous when discussing a molten reactor. If most of the fuel is already molten, and the shutdown procedure is to cut power (matching a power loss scenario) which means a plug melts to allow the fuel to flow into a safe storage container, then the thing is meant to "meltdown" fairly often. "Core damage incident" instead of "meltdown"?
- Natsu 6y ago
  I think passive safety is really where the good designs are, but what most people are worried about is a core that can't have any kind of criticality incident.
  - shaftway 6y ago
    Oh yeah, totally. I'm just objecting to using the term "meltdown" to describe the typical power-down procedure because of the negative connotations of the term. I'm good with "criticality incident", "core damage incident", or any other descriptive term that makes it clear that it's a deviation from normal behavior. Using a negative term for a non-critical incident is just stacking the deck against the technology.

Natsu 6y ago

See - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety