Edmunds Had A Lot Of Problems With Its Long-Term Tesla

[billvon 3,121]

>It's pretty sad that nobody judges automobile safety by examining a Model T,
>but we judge nuclear power safety based on 60 year old reactor designs.

Well, we WOULD be judging automotive safety standards by examining Model T's if most of the cars on the road were Model T's.

If we replaced all (or even most) of our reactors with more modern designs (like AP600's) then it would make more sense to evaluate nuclear safety based on newer designs.

[grue 1]

billvon

>It's pretty sad that nobody judges automobile safety by examining a Model T,
>but we judge nuclear power safety based on 60 year old reactor designs.

Well, we WOULD be judging automotive safety standards by examining Model T's if most of the cars on the road were Model T's.

If we replaced all (or even most) of our reactors with more modern designs (like AP600's) then it would make more sense to evaluate nuclear safety based on newer designs.

That's fair, but nobody's looking to build another RBMK, so the freakouts about new construction are a bit silly.

We also need to reprocess our "waste" but trying to explain to people that nuclear "waste" is >90% recyclable is like trying to explain heaven to a bear.

cavete terrae.

[kelpdiver 2]

grue

Quote

If we replaced all (or even most) of our reactors with more modern designs (like AP600's) then it would make more sense to evaluate nuclear safety based on newer designs.

That's fair, but nobody's looking to build another RBMK, so the freakouts about new construction are a bit silly.

You can't effectively evaluate the unproven future on marketing specs and promises.

[jgoose71 0]

billvon

>What does it say about the US when France passed us up?

That we care about different things that France does? "We have to be just like France!" has never been much of a priority for the US.

The point I was trying to make is nuclear power is safe. Other countries are using it just fine.

What's not safe is using reactors that are 40-60 years old and taking the "spent" nuclear material and burying it next to the water table.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[kelpdiver 2]

jgoose71

The point I was trying to make is nuclear power is safe. Other countries are using it just fine.

]

But since your example proof produces substantially less power than we currently we do, it doesn't seem like it supports your point very well.

[kallend 2,156]

Could be worse.

At least it doesn't use Lucas "Prince of Darkness" parts.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Tink1717 2]

Quote

...but we judge nuclear power safety based on 60 year old reactor designs.

Fukushima was a current and modern design. Besides, it's the accidents, not the design.

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

[Tink1717 2]

Quote

And yet France gets 75% of it's energy from nuclear power and is building more reactors.
What does it say about the US when France passed us up?

And Germany is getting the majority of its power from solar. What's your point?

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

[billvon 3,121]

>The point I was trying to make is nuclear power is safe.

It is certainly not safe. "Modern" (existing) nuclear reactors are guaranteed to melt down, for example, merely by disconnecting all their power sources. Which is why there are layers of primary generation, off site power ties, backup generators, batteries etc.

However, it is safer than options like coal, which is why it's a viable power source.

>What's not safe is using reactors that are 40-60 years old and taking the "spent"
>nuclear material and burying it next to the water table.

Well, right now most places are using in situ storage in pools. But eventually it will have to be moved to a storage site, where it will be buried near a water table.

[DanG 1]

Quote

"Modern" (existing) nuclear reactors are guaranteed to melt down, for example, merely by disconnecting all their power sources.

I thought nuclear reactors were designed so that gravity would drop the cooling rods into place in the event of a power failure. Is that not the case?

- Dan G

[billvon 3,121]

>I thought nuclear reactors were designed so that gravity would drop the cooling
>rods into place in the event of a power failure. Is that not the case?

That is the case. But the short-lived radioisotopes remaining in the core generate enough heat (tens of megawatts) to melt the core without active cooling. Some plants have emergency pump systems that run on steam power alone, but they still need electrical controls. For example the Fukushima plants had a high pressure coolant injection pump that ran on core steam, but once the UPS died it failed. It also has the disadvantage that to work as designed it had to vent core steam.

It can take weeks or months for this decay heat to drop to the point where natural convection can keep the fuel cool enough without pumps. (This is called cold shutdown.)