- Messages
- 2,865
- Reactions
- 8,283
I realize I'm bringing facts to a feelings fight here, buuuuut...
You missed this part of @Crohnos01 's post:
"...The current designs take advantage of natural convection to circulate the coolant water so that even if power is lost and/or pumps fail, enough water is circulated to prevent a disaster."
Current designs don't need external or even internal electricity for either the moderator or cooling to function; they have been designed to be physically incapable of melting-down, so that even someone at the reactor's controls couldn't make it happen if they tried; some designs cannot have a steam explosion, like at Fukushima, because they don't use water as moderator or coolant, or they're designed to cool and condense any steam and send it back into the reactor to cool it, without internal or external electricity. Beyond the safety of the reactor itself, there are even designs now that "burn" nuclear waste – their own or that from other reactors – so that issue has also been solved. Or it would be, if the public's fear of nuclear energy didn't prevent the new designs from being made.
Judging the safety of nuclear energy, in its entirety, based on catastrophes with first- and second-generation reactor designs (Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima), is like judging the safety of all cars based on the Model-T, Corvair, and Pinto. How many of you are scared of cars?
Whenever someone expresses concern or opposition to nuclear energy, it seems to be based on fear and misinformation, driven by hysterical media coverage and the person's choice not to educate themself (Don't believe stupid crap you read on the internet!). If this sounds like I'm describing anti-gun people, you're right; the phenomena are the same, differing only in subject.
No, I read that part. I'm not disagreeing that the new reactors are less/as safe than the older generation reactors. Of course they are safer. We use advancing technology and lessons learned to make better choices and equipment.
What I disagree with is that they are 100% safe. Read @Patriot1668 post. It's all circumstantial and they are subject to unknown circumstances that are beyond our control.
What happens if a large meteorite, like the one that fell in the Russian city of Chelyabinsk a few years back, causes one to implode on impact? Not much time for it to eat itself then.