3 ms·

Well they're not building an RBMK reactor so Chernobyl is not really relevant since they are totally different type of NPP

dTal 6y ago
In any case, an RBMK would still be very safe. They're well tested and we know not to do the thing that makes them explode. Additionally, you could just not skip the containment dome like the builders of Chernobyl did.
- pulse7 6y ago
  "we know not to do the thing that makes them explode" This is not the core problem. The core problem is that explosion can still happen - even if we "know not to do the thing that makes them explode". It can happen because of a natural disaster, because of war and because of other unpredictable reason. To avoid the possible explosion and consequences altogether it is better to not have them in the first place!
  - wrkronmiller 6y ago
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the way to avoid an explosion: "don't pull the control rods all the way out" It would take a very specific kind of war or natural disaster to pull out the control rods from a nuclear reactor, methinks.
    - drran 6y ago
      Don't steer a civil plane into a tower, please, because the tower will collapse.
  - riquito 6y ago
    Any technology will have deaths, that's inevitable. Without advocating for one versus the other, we should consider what will be number of deaths/diseases/etc versus costs/climate impact/energy produced over the lifetime of a solution
- m-p-3 6y ago
  > we know not to do the thing that makes them explode. We collectively know a lot of thing, but as soon as you leave the opportunity to a human an accident will happen sooner or later. We know not to start heavy machinery while there is a maintenance technician inside it, but it still happens. This is why we have safety lockout systems, to avoid an accident even if we know better.
  - bluGill 6y ago
    Which is why nuclear reactors in the west all have safety confinement domes.
- kayfox 6y ago
  The RBMK has a lot of issues that make it really unsuitable for further development: 1. Because of the size of the core, it develops uneven reactivity during operation and requires attention to be paid to this. 2. The measures put in place do not entirely eliminate the chance of a power excursion. 3. The cost of a suitable containment building would make RBMK more expensive than an equivalent VVER installation. Also as far as I can tell no such containment building has ever been designed. 4. No international agency or government would allow the construction of a new RBMK. Edit: to be clear, this is not only because of the safety issues, but also because of the nuclear weapon proliferation issues associated with the design. Overall, the cost savings of a RBMK depend on not having a large containment structure and the RBMK was on its way out as a design by time the Chernobyl accident happened. The large number of RBMKs under construction at the time was largely because of initiatives to increase the installed nuclear capacity in the Soviet Union during the mid 80s, existing RBMK sites would receive additional reactors and all but one of the new sites were to receive VVER reactors.

dTal 6y ago

In any case, an RBMK would still be very safe. They're well tested and we know not to do the thing that makes them explode. Additionally, you could just not skip the containment dome like the builders of Chernobyl did.

pulse7 6y ago
"we know not to do the thing that makes them explode" This is not the core problem. The core problem is that explosion can still happen - even if we "know not to do the thing that makes them explode". It can happen because of a natural disaster, because of war and because of other unpredictable reason. To avoid the possible explosion and consequences altogether it is better to not have them in the first place!
- wrkronmiller 6y ago
  Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the way to avoid an explosion: "don't pull the control rods all the way out" It would take a very specific kind of war or natural disaster to pull out the control rods from a nuclear reactor, methinks.
  - drran 6y ago
    Don't steer a civil plane into a tower, please, because the tower will collapse.
- riquito 6y ago
  Any technology will have deaths, that's inevitable. Without advocating for one versus the other, we should consider what will be number of deaths/diseases/etc versus costs/climate impact/energy produced over the lifetime of a solution
m-p-3 6y ago
> we know not to do the thing that makes them explode. We collectively know a lot of thing, but as soon as you leave the opportunity to a human an accident will happen sooner or later. We know not to start heavy machinery while there is a maintenance technician inside it, but it still happens. This is why we have safety lockout systems, to avoid an accident even if we know better.
- bluGill 6y ago
  Which is why nuclear reactors in the west all have safety confinement domes.
kayfox 6y ago
The RBMK has a lot of issues that make it really unsuitable for further development: 1. Because of the size of the core, it develops uneven reactivity during operation and requires attention to be paid to this. 2. The measures put in place do not entirely eliminate the chance of a power excursion. 3. The cost of a suitable containment building would make RBMK more expensive than an equivalent VVER installation. Also as far as I can tell no such containment building has ever been designed. 4. No international agency or government would allow the construction of a new RBMK. Edit: to be clear, this is not only because of the safety issues, but also because of the nuclear weapon proliferation issues associated with the design. Overall, the cost savings of a RBMK depend on not having a large containment structure and the RBMK was on its way out as a design by time the Chernobyl accident happened. The large number of RBMKs under construction at the time was largely because of initiatives to increase the installed nuclear capacity in the Soviet Union during the mid 80s, existing RBMK sites would receive additional reactors and all but one of the new sites were to receive VVER reactors.