How to make a nuclear reactor that can't have a meltdown

[Avatard]

...Or, "How Trip might sleep better":

http://dvice.com/archives/2011/03/how-to-make-a-n.php

[derf]

The lates generation of nuke reactors don't require any outside power to maintain the core temperature, the only reason this is an issue is because these 20 year old design reactors were hit with a natural disaster far beyond what anyone though could have been possible. Other than this incident, there was TMI, and Chernobyl. Chernobyl doesnt count because it was a bad russian design that was broken by human error and stupid tests ,and their shit was crap to begin with. TMI was an accident, but how many people actually got hurt? 0. There have been a bunch of other minor incidents, mostly dealing with leaky pipes and electrical issues.Also, how many people have actually died from problems with reactors? I bet the number is far less than those that have died mining coal for coal plants or from busting dams.

Anyway, cool link

[Avatard]

I think passive is the only way to go. Any active system WILL fail, simply because it can.

[derf]

Originally Posted by Avatard

I think passive is the only way to go. Any active system WILL fail, simply because it can.

Cant have a passive system, we need an active system to create jobs (I'm just looking for a reason to argue)

[Corey]

It's PBR. How good could it be?

[Avatard]

Personally, I think that solar and geothermal are the way to go. We just need to get solar more efficient (I understand wildly more efficient panels are already "in the channel").

PBR is clearly not terribly efficient, but I think PBR is, nonetheless, perhaps a good alternative to offer countries that insist on having nuclear power, whom we don't want having any nuke weapons, as extracting weapons grade materials from the pellets is not practical.

[Trip]

Any system is open to failure. The one in germany they tried clearly had issues with us maintaining it.

That's the issue, humans still have to maintain and design it.

[Particle Man]

Originally Posted by derf

The lates generation of nuke reactors don't require any outside power to maintain the core temperature, the only reason this is an issue is because these 20 year old design reactors were hit with a natural disaster far beyond what anyone though could have been possible. Other than this incident, there was TMI, and Chernobyl. Chernobyl doesnt count because it was a bad russian design that was broken by human error and stupid tests ,and their shit was crap to begin with. TMI was an accident, but how many people actually got hurt? 0. There have been a bunch of other minor incidents, mostly dealing with leaky pipes and electrical issues.Also, how many people have actually died from problems with reactors? I bet the number is far less than those that have died mining coal for coal plants or from busting dams.

Anyway, cool link

More like 40 year old design...

[anthonyk]

Originally Posted by Corey

It's PBR. How good could it be?

[VatorMan]

Originally Posted by Avatard

Personally, I think that solar and geothermal are the way to go. We just need to get solar more efficient (I understand wildly more efficient panels are already "in the channel").

PBR is clearly not terribly efficient, but I think PBR is, nonetheless, perhaps a good alternative to offer countries that insist on having nuclear power, whom we don't want having any nuke weapons, as extracting weapons grade materials from the pellets is not practical.

In a temperate climate-I agree. Try doing GeoTherm or Solar in Alaska.