3 ms·
Maybe if it were designed today they wouldn't stop at 'good enough' and actually commercialize a design that is fail safe. Current reactors around the world on
by bottlepalm 4y ago
Maybe if it were designed today they wouldn't stop at 'good enough' and actually commercialize a design that is fail safe.
Current reactors around the world only have a limited amount of backup time, days/weeks, before the spent fuel pool boils off and the fuel burns resulting in a massive disaster spreading radioactive ash across wide swaths of land.
- eddyg 4y agoPassive “fail safe” designs have been around for quite a while, like the GE ESBWR, which is a Gen III reactor. This[1] data sheet is from 2011. Newer reactors, like the pool-type, metal-fueled, small modular Sodium Fast Reactor [2] are significantly more efficient, are air-cooled, automatically shutdown without human, electronic or mechanical intervention, and by using electro-metallurgical separation, can recycle up to 96 percent of the fissionable material. [1] https://nuclear.gepower.com/content/dam/gepower-nuclear/global/en_US/documents/product-fact-sheets/ESBWR%20Passive%20Safety%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf https://nuclear.gepower.com/content/dam/gepower-nuclear/glob... [2] https://nuclear.gepower.com/build-a-plant/products/nuclear-power-plants-overview/prism1 https://nuclear.gepower.com/build-a-plant/products/nuclear-p...
- bottlepalm 4y agoFail safe designs have been around for decades, but they never built them. At this point it doesn't matter. We have 400 non-fail-safe reactors out there. Either shut them down, or replace them with fail safe ones. The fact fail safe designs 'exist' isn't an argument for continuing to operate the ones we have. Or building more of those non-fail-safe designs which is what's currently happening around the world right now.