Just how safe are molten salt and pebble bed reactors?

  • Thread starter Thread starter greswd
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Salt
AI Thread Summary
Recent discussions highlight that two specific reactor designs are deemed incapable of causing disasters like Chernobyl or Fukushima, which is seen as positive news for nuclear energy's future. Despite the fear surrounding nuclear accidents, proponents argue that nuclear energy has resulted in significantly fewer deaths compared to other energy sources when considering deaths per unit of energy produced. The conversation also touches on the complexities of energy safety and the overlooked dangers of alternative energy sources, such as solar and hydropower. While the potential risks of nuclear energy are acknowledged, the overall safety record of nuclear power is presented as favorable. The thread ultimately concludes that the initial question regarding reactor safety has been sufficiently answered.
greswd
Messages
764
Reaction score
20
According to popular news, these two kinds of reactor designs can never cause another Chernobyl or Fukushima, the polluting of a vast area of land and rendering it uninhabitable for a vast length of time.

I just want to know how true this is. If so, it is really good news, and the world can certainly have more of such reactors.

Even an extremely minuscule risk of another Fukushima spooks the bejesus out of people, because the consequences are so immediate and devastating. Furthermore, tiny nations can be eradicated by such disasters, as their population is forced to relocate.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Nuclear plant safety is much too complicated for a one paragraph flip answer.You're getting deep into hyperbole in the following.
greswd said:
Even an extremely minuscule risk of another Fukushima spooks the bejesus out of people, because the consequences are so immediate and devastating. Furthermore, tiny nations can be eradicated by such disasters, as their population is forced to relocate.
 
anorlunda said:
Nuclear plant safety is much too complicated for a one paragraph flip answer.

As a comment about the details of the subject, this is of course true. However, I think there is a simple answer to the key question the OP poses:

greswd said:
According to popular news, these two kinds of reactor designs can never cause another Chernobyl or Fukushima, the polluting of a vast area of land and rendering it uninhabitable for a vast length of time.

I just want to know how true this is.

It's true.

That said, your post contains a hidden assumption that should be brought out: that people being "spooked" by the possibility of another Chernobyl or Fukushima is sufficient reason for them to be unwilling to accept nuclear energy. The problem with that assumption is that, even taking Chernobyl and Fukushima into account, nuclear energy has still caused much less harm than any other energy source--many more people have been killed by other energy sources as compared to nuclear. If you compare deaths per unit of energy produced, the disparity is even greater. But the harms from other energy sources are not as concentrated, so it's easier to ignore them.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba and essenmein
PeterDonis said:
As a comment about the details of the subject, this is of course true. However, I think there is a simple answer to the key question the OP poses:
It's true.

That said, your post contains a hidden assumption that should be brought out: that people being "spooked" by the possibility of another Chernobyl or Fukushima is sufficient reason for them to be unwilling to accept nuclear energy. The problem with that assumption is that, even taking Chernobyl and Fukushima into account, nuclear energy has still caused much less harm than any other energy source--many more people have been killed by other energy sources as compared to nuclear. If you compare deaths per unit of energy produced, the disparity is even greater. But the harms from other energy sources are not as concentrated, so it's easier to ignore them.

Oh, nah, I'm not trying to raise any points about whether its a sufficient reason or not. But yeah, people aren't always so logical and rational.

Anyway, that's great news, such plants could serve us well for low-emissions in the intermediate time it takes for fusion to become viable.
 
Lots of text snipped.
PeterDonis said:
But the harms from other energy sources are not as concentrated, so it's easier to ignore them.

It's not always less concentrated for other forms of power. A series of dam failures in China in 1975 may have caused as many as 230,000 deaths, about 26,000 directly and the rest as a result of injuries or destruction of infrastructure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam
Do you know whether you live downstream from a significant dam? Do hurricanes ever come to your area?
 
aaa4be44-7ad0-11e3-9b30-12313d1c2285-original.jpg
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes jackwhirl, artis, Nik_2213 and 1 other person
BillTre said:
View attachment 249324
How many of these solar energy spills happen at night when we need power?
 
This thread drifted far away from the OP topic. In post #4, the OP said the question was answered.

Thread closed.
 

Similar threads

Transatomic - Molten Salt Reactor (from Question about LFTR?)
Replies
12
Views
4K
Why can’t decay heat be harnessed to safely shutdown a nuclear reactor?
Replies
14
Views
10K
News Should the US intervene in world problems?
Replies
29
Views
10K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top