2 ms·
Needs a 2008. It's pretty ironic how this article talks about how new designs are unsafe and yet commentators here are saying how much safer new designs are:
by nl 3y ago
Needs a 2008.
It's pretty ironic how this article talks about how new designs are unsafe and yet commentators here are saying how much safer new designs are:
> The Europeans at the WNA Symposium were talking proudly of how their latest reactor design, with its core catcher and superior leak-tight containment, is safer than the current plants’ designs. This is wrong in concept. Adding provisions to solve a nonproblem merely provides additional potential paths to failure.
- Prickle 3y agoBoth Chernobyl and Fukushima were caused by human idiocy. There are still a few reactors of the same design as Chernobyl, generating power today. These reactors have not exploded. Simply because they follow strict procedure. Fukushima was a consequence of continuous cost cutting by management. It was fully preventable, and construction of improvements even started! They were cancelled due to "cost". Onagawa Nuclear Powerplant survived the same earthquake and tsunami, despite being closer to the epicenter. An analogy: All planes are dangerous because a human can push a red button, or cut costs and crash the airplane. Nuclear Power has the same issue stemming from human idiocy and incompetence. This can be fixed, if only politics and MBAs got out of the way.
- nl 3y agoI think you summarise it really well. Putting that much at risk to a single piece of human idiocy is really risky.