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 a

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