3 ms·
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
by 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 agoI 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 agoOh 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.