Just how safe are molten salt and pebble bed reactors?

  • Thread starter greswd
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Salt
In summary, the question of whether two types of reactor designs can cause another Chernobyl or Fukushima has been answered. According to popular news, it is believed that these designs are safe and will not result in the same catastrophic events. However, the fear of such disasters can still cause hesitation towards nuclear energy. It is important to note that while the consequences of nuclear disasters may be immediate and devastating, other energy sources have caused more harm in terms of deaths per unit of energy produced. However, the harm from other energy sources is not as concentrated and may be easier to ignore. It is also worth considering the impact of toxic waste and spills from solar energy production.
  • #1
greswd
764
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
  • #2
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.
 
  • #3
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
  • #4
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.
 
  • #5
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?
 
  • #6
aaa4be44-7ad0-11e3-9b30-12313d1c2285-original.jpg
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes jackwhirl, artis, Nik_2213 and 1 other person
  • #8
BillTre said:
How many of these solar energy spills happen at night when we need power?
 
  • #9
This thread drifted far away from the OP topic. In post #4, the OP said the question was answered.

Thread closed.
 

1. What is a molten salt reactor?

A molten salt reactor is a type of nuclear reactor that uses liquid fuel in the form of molten salt instead of solid fuel rods. The fuel is a mixture of uranium and thorium salts, which are heated to high temperatures to produce energy.

2. How does a pebble bed reactor work?

A pebble bed reactor is a type of nuclear reactor that uses small, spherical fuel elements called pebbles. These pebbles are made of a mixture of uranium and graphite and are arranged in a way that allows for efficient heat transfer and control of the nuclear reaction.

3. Are molten salt and pebble bed reactors safe?

Both molten salt and pebble bed reactors have several safety features that make them inherently safer than traditional nuclear reactors. For example, the liquid fuel in molten salt reactors can expand and slow down the nuclear reaction in the event of a malfunction. Pebble bed reactors also have passive safety features that can shut down the reactor in case of an emergency.

4. What are the potential risks associated with these types of reactors?

One potential risk of molten salt and pebble bed reactors is the release of radioactive materials in the event of a severe accident. However, these reactors have been designed with multiple layers of containment and other safety features to prevent such accidents from occurring. Additionally, the liquid fuel in molten salt reactors is less prone to explosions compared to solid fuel rods in traditional reactors.

5. How do these reactors compare to traditional nuclear reactors in terms of safety?

Molten salt and pebble bed reactors are generally considered to be safer than traditional nuclear reactors. They have fewer risks of meltdowns and do not produce as much long-lived nuclear waste. However, more research and development is needed to fully understand and mitigate any potential risks associated with these newer reactor designs.

Similar threads

Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
14
Views
8K
  • General Discussion
Replies
29
Views
9K
Back
Top