Re:Nuclear is back on the table for a green future
by ncmncm on Wednesday June 15, 2022 @04:50PM
(#31759310)
> The solution to Chernobyl style accidents is to not build Chernobyl style nuclear reactors
Or, indeed, any at all. Thus, also no Fukushimas, and no TMIs, and no Santa Susanas.
Re:Nuclear is back on the table for a green future
by kwere on Thursday June 16, 2022 @07:45AM
(#31764852)
you know that "nuclear energy fear" is conceptually equal to "airplane fear" in trasportation?. Both are the most safe by output (kwh vs miles travelled) against deaths in their own categories.
Re:Nuclear is back on the table for a green future
by ncmncm on Thursday June 16, 2022 @09:31AM
(#31765837)
Rendering large areas uninhabitable is plenty of harm. And death is not the only detrimental health impact.
Re:Nuclear is back on the table for a green future
by barfingclouds on Thursday June 16, 2022 @05:01PM
(#31770939)
Santa susana is bad and something I’m even vocal about, but that was nuclear experiments, not nuclear power
This is why they go on and about the "sarcophagus" required to keep it contained. They had to build a proper containment unit after the fact. You want that stuff built BEFORE you have a nuclear reactor. Not wait until after one blows up.
I, very literally, would love to have a nuclear reactor in my backyard if it's off the correct design. A design that depends on physics to be safe, not human operators.
Which is entirely possible. You can build a nuclear reactor in such a way that if the worst possible case happened it would meltdown and dump it's guts into a container. Then just sit there until it cooled to the point were it could be processed correctly.