4 ms·
Its proponents seem to think that it would be significantly cheaper and safer [citation needed], which sounds worthwhile. Could briefly expound upon your reaso
by pstuart 14y ago
Its proponents seem to think that it would be significantly cheaper and safer [citation needed], which sounds worthwhile.
Could briefly expound upon your reasoning?
- ars 14y agoI agree - it probably would be significantly cheaper and safer. But it will also cost a lot of money to develop, and even though it's safer, it's still nuclear, i.e. opposition to it will be unchanged. The worst is some people are demanding that they be installed with full containment domes, which wipes out any cost savings. Anyone who wants to actually install one will probably be stymied, so no one wants to spend the money to develop something they can't use. And especially not if it costs the same as a regular reactor. Instead people just stick with the tried and true since it minimizes risk of failure.