3 ms·

> Why are you saying "pump the brakes on a Chernobyl comparison"? I say pump the brakes because even Russia has fixed its regulatory program and not had anothe

> Why are you saying "pump the brakes on a Chernobyl comparison"? I say pump the brakes because even Russia has fixed its regulatory program and not had another Chernobyl in decades of operations - or anything even close. Hundreds of reactors operate around the world safely. Another Chernobyl won't happen. Bringing up that this could be Chernobyl is to me at least pushing on fear rather than realizing it's risk as incredibly small. Oil spills occur far more frequently but we still approve oil drilling even though it's incredibly damaging. Just because we want to use different technology doesn't mean we all of a sudden risk a Chernobyl. > All of this was before Three Miles Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. In the commercial US space maybe. But several countries with just as rigorous of technical regulations as the NRC utilize this. Japan, France, Russia etc. NRC, to me, can get there to successfully approve these projects but the government doesn't have the political will to push this. And I'll note that none of these accidents were at a facility like this. Just saying not all nuclear facilities have the same accident possibilities. > That's not because of any technical difficulty. The US is disposing of military nuclear waste at the WIPP facility. Very true - and a WIPP like solution is feasible. But the state of New Mexico has to want that. WIPP (it's in its name) was supposed to be a pilot plant which obviously no longer is. They may not want everything coming to their land. And it hasn't ever supported spent fuel receipts because it wasn't designed for it. That's what Yucca was supposed to do but can't get built. So it's just more political issues to go that way too. But that's not an economic argument - it's a government one. So saying it's cheaper to just burn fresh fuel depends on there being a government solution to disposition. I'm just saying the "cheaper" argument is applying free market theory to something that's obviously heavily intertwined and depends on the government. As it should. > I am personally not that worried about storing the spent fuel on site. It is not a huge amount. Sure for now - but just like other political issues we are just kicking the can down the road and saying "future us will figure it out"!

credit_guy 3y ago
Your argument is circular. Oklo's design is new. It's a fast reactor; out of about 400 reactors in operation worldwide, maybe 5 are fast reactors, all others are thermal reactors, the majority pressurized water reactors. NRC's experience with fast reactors is in consequence much more limited than their experience with PWR. A new Chernobyl type of accident for a radically new design is not at all inconceivable. Even if the NRC did analyzed every single conceivable angle, a Chernobyl episode could still happen, because they are not aware of new angles, which would be discovered after years of operating the new type of design. But one thing is needed: the applicant needs to commit every possible effort to show how the risk can be mitigated. And that's exactly what Oklo did not do. They submitted a 19-page document [1], which the NRC found lacking [2]. The NRC then appropriately gave them a failing grade, and told them to go home and do better next time. What point are you trying to argue? That this design is safe anyway, because another Chernobyl is out of question? [1] https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2127/ML21278B098.pdf https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2127/ML21278B098.pdf [2] https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2130/ML21307A107.pdf https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2130/ML21307A107.pdf

credit_guy 3y ago

Your argument is circular. Oklo's design is new. It's a fast reactor; out of about 400 reactors in operation worldwide, maybe 5 are fast reactors, all others are thermal reactors, the majority pressurized water reactors. NRC's experience with fast reactors is in consequence much more limited than their experience with PWR. A new Chernobyl type of accident for a radically new design is not at all inconceivable. Even if the NRC did analyzed every single conceivable angle, a Chernobyl episode could still happen, because they are not aware of new angles, which would be discovered after years of operating the new type of design. But one thing is needed: the applicant needs to commit every possible effort to show how the risk can be mitigated. And that's exactly what Oklo did not do. They submitted a 19-page document [1], which the NRC found lacking [2]. The NRC then appropriately gave them a failing grade, and told them to go home and do better next time. What point are you trying to argue? That this design is safe anyway, because another Chernobyl is out of question? [1] https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2127/ML21278B098.pdf https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2127/ML21278B098.pdf [2] https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2130/ML21307A107.pdf https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2130/ML21307A107.pdf