3 ms·

1. Is not a real problem because it doesn't take up much space. 2. The total death toll from the Fukushima incident is 1 (so far). For comparision, the tsunami

1. Is not a real problem because it doesn't take up much space. 2. The total death toll from the Fukushima incident is 1 (so far). For comparision, the tsunami & earthquake that caused Fukushima to meltdown killed 20000 and injured 6000 more. And Chernobyl doesn't really count, as no reactor worldwide is capable of Chernobyling, and hasn't been for the past 25 years at least. Chernobyl is a horror story that can be told to childen about Soviet/Russian incompetence, not as a valid example about the dangers of nuclear energy. Likewise, Fukushima can be used as an example about how safe a worst case scenario actually is.

clnq 4y ago
Looking at Wikipedia, there are still a few RBMK reactors in Russia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK#List_of_RBMK_reactors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK#List_of_RBMK_reactors. Some of the design flaws of RBMK were retroactively addressed in existing reactors post-Chornobyl. In particular, the flawed control rod mechanism was addressed. It would cause power excursions/criticality when the rods were inserted. However, neither the high positive void coefficient nor the lack of containment buildings was addressed in RBMK. These unsafe features of the reactors led to the shutdown of the only two RBMKs that were ever in the EU (in Ignalina NPP). While it is difficult to argue the idea that no reactor is capable of "Chernobyling", as "Chernobyling" is a very particular scenario, RBMKs are generally considered unsafe. The lack of containment buildings is particularly concerning because, without containment failure, we would not have had either the Chornobyl or the Fukushima Daiichi disaster. While RBMKs are not built anymore, and the new Russian VVER reactors are much safer, they still don't meet EU safety requirements. A future evolution of VVER-1200 called MIR-1200 should, although it is difficult to find much information about this. Overall, I am saying that "Chernobyling" can mean different things as several design and operation faults needed to align for that disaster to happen. Some design faults in Russian NPP reactors have been addressed, some not. Overall, VVERs look very safe as they address all major RBMK design faults, but for some reason still don't meet EU safety requirements. So I wonder what design faults persist. I do agree that Gen 3+ reactor designs look very safe.
- m4rtink 4y ago
  I wonder if RBMK with a containment would help - the power spike they managed to trigger in Chernobyl was couple orders of magnitude over the design specifications so I wonder if any realistic containment building would be able to handle that withou still bursting in the end.
  - the8472 4y ago
    Why stop at a containment building? It's economical to build underground mines to extract coal and minerals. Might as well build mines to house nuclear reactors in stable geologic structures. If it goes wrong seal it and return a hundred years later to scoop out the corium and burn it in a breeder reactor.
    - panick21_ 4y ago
      Much to costly to do that. And mostly unnecessary. If you are willing to spend that much money, just built a huge water tank above the plant, problem solved. Or even smarter, design a passive save nuclear plant with that money.
    - m4rtink 4y ago
      IIRC there was such an underground reactor project in a Nordic country. They hit a relatively minor problem, which due to the limited accessibility of the underground site could not be addressed quickly, resulting in reactor being damaged. Not saying its a bad idea overall, just noting an example. Other issues could be getting enough cooling in and out & avoiding ground water/aquifer contamination if it does indeed melt down.
wkat4242 4y ago
> The total death toll from the Fukushima incident is 1 (so far), and Chernobyl doesn't really count, as no reactor worldwide is capable of Chernobyling, and hasn't been for the past 25 years at least. Except the 8 RBMKs still in service perhaps? Their problems were only partially fixed.

clnq 4y ago

Looking at Wikipedia, there are still a few RBMK reactors in Russia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK#List_of_RBMK_reactors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK#List_of_RBMK_reactors. Some of the design flaws of RBMK were retroactively addressed in existing reactors post-Chornobyl. In particular, the flawed control rod mechanism was addressed. It would cause power excursions/criticality when the rods were inserted. However, neither the high positive void coefficient nor the lack of containment buildings was addressed in RBMK. These unsafe features of the reactors led to the shutdown of the only two RBMKs that were ever in the EU (in Ignalina NPP). While it is difficult to argue the idea that no reactor is capable of "Chernobyling", as "Chernobyling" is a very particular scenario, RBMKs are generally considered unsafe. The lack of containment buildings is particularly concerning because, without containment failure, we would not have had either the Chornobyl or the Fukushima Daiichi disaster. While RBMKs are not built anymore, and the new Russian VVER reactors are much safer, they still don't meet EU safety requirements. A future evolution of VVER-1200 called MIR-1200 should, although it is difficult to find much information about this. Overall, I am saying that "Chernobyling" can mean different things as several design and operation faults needed to align for that disaster to happen. Some design faults in Russian NPP reactors have been addressed, some not. Overall, VVERs look very safe as they address all major RBMK design faults, but for some reason still don't meet EU safety requirements. So I wonder what design faults persist. I do agree that Gen 3+ reactor designs look very safe.

m4rtink 4y ago
I wonder if RBMK with a containment would help - the power spike they managed to trigger in Chernobyl was couple orders of magnitude over the design specifications so I wonder if any realistic containment building would be able to handle that withou still bursting in the end.
- the8472 4y ago
  Why stop at a containment building? It's economical to build underground mines to extract coal and minerals. Might as well build mines to house nuclear reactors in stable geologic structures. If it goes wrong seal it and return a hundred years later to scoop out the corium and burn it in a breeder reactor.
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    Much to costly to do that. And mostly unnecessary. If you are willing to spend that much money, just built a huge water tank above the plant, problem solved. Or even smarter, design a passive save nuclear plant with that money.
  - m4rtink 4y ago
    IIRC there was such an underground reactor project in a Nordic country. They hit a relatively minor problem, which due to the limited accessibility of the underground site could not be addressed quickly, resulting in reactor being damaged. Not saying its a bad idea overall, just noting an example. Other issues could be getting enough cooling in and out & avoiding ground water/aquifer contamination if it does indeed melt down.

wkat4242 4y ago

> The total death toll from the Fukushima incident is 1 (so far), and Chernobyl doesn't really count, as no reactor worldwide is capable of Chernobyling, and hasn't been for the past 25 years at least. Except the 8 RBMKs still in service perhaps? Their problems were only partially fixed.