3 ms·
We have never had a significant disaster of any gen >=3 reactor. TMI, Fukushima, Chernobyl were all gen 2, and gen 1 is all prototypes. Anything built after 19
by kortex 5y ago
We have never had a significant disaster of any gen >=3 reactor. TMI, Fukushima, Chernobyl were all gen 2, and gen 1 is all prototypes.
Anything built after 1972 has not had anywhere near this level of incidents.
Also Chernobyl had severe safety flaws due to its origin as an early model breeder reactor (and my head canon is that the test that caused the disaster was in some way related to surreptitious fuel changing to run breeding experiments. The RBMK reactors were designed for rapid fuel shuffling.... In other words, safety was compromised to keep the door open to the possibility of sneaky weapons grade material production).
Also also, Chernobyl had some other bone-headed flaws, such as a positive void coefficient and positive scram coefficient (read: trying to rapid shutdown during an emergency made the reaction increase). Humanity has learned a ton since then.
- Zigurd 5y ago80%+ of nuclear power comes from gen 2 reactors. There are still 8 RBMK reactors in operation, all capable of failing the same way Chernobyl failed, with the same widespread contamination. IF new generation reactors can prove to be safe and not create waste and decommissioning problems, and if they can be built economically, then they are worthy of consideration. But power is fungible. If the cheapest next watt-hour is solar or wind, then why spend on anything else?
- garaetjjte 5y ago>all capable of failing the same way Chernobyl failed Not exactly, changes were made to RBMK design after the accident: https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/appendices/rbmk-reactors.aspx#ECSArticleLink2 https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fu...
- Zigurd 5y agoWhat they cannot change is the lack of a containment structure.