I always associated the concept of a passive failsafe with thorium reactors. But from discussions in this sub, I learned that existing plant designs already have other types of passive safety mechanisms.
What other types of passive failsafes exist? And what percentage of plants have them in the United States?
Yes, is safe to live near Nuclear Power Plant.. The fact is, cancer rates and risks in general are lower around NPP. That has nothing to do with the plant itself, but instead with the higher standard of living of the people who live and work there.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 62%. (I'm a bot)
> France's nuclear regulator said Thursday that a possible safety problem had been identified at a third nuclear plant, increasing concerns about the country's power capacity at the height of winter.
> Cracks found near welds on a safety cooling system for two reactors at the Civaux plant in central France were discovered in December during routine safety checks by state-controlled power firm EDF. EDF decided to shut down another two reactors at its Chooz plant in the eastern Ardennes region as a precaution because they are built to the same design and may also be affected.
> "The defects that were identified on the last-generation reactors have been found on another reactor" at Penly in northern France, Karine Herviou, deputy chief executive of the French nuclear safety regulator IRSN, said on Thursday.
> Ten nuclear reactors out of France's 56-strong fleet are currently out of service for various reasons, accounting for about 20% of the country's nuclear capacity.
> Repairing the defective pipes could lead to lengthy shutdowns at the affected plants and spell more financial pain for heavily-indebted EDF. Many French nuclear power stations are coming to the end of their expected lifespans of 40 years, but EDF is struggling to bring new reactors on stream.
> The group announced extra delays and cost overruns for its troubled new-generation nuclear plant in Flamanville in northern France on Wednesday.
Summary Source | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: nuclear^#1 plant^#2 reactor^#3 France^#4 EDF^#5
Post found in /r/collapse and /r/worldnews.
NOTICE: This thread is for discussing the submission topic. Please do not discuss the concept of the [autotldr](htt
... keep reading on reddit ➡We the ministry of Nuclear Safety wish you all a great New Year. Let's hope to reduce the amount of nuclear Meltdown this Year.
Hello,
Recently a report (in Dutch only) was released where I live (Belgium) by a federal health council, against the background of a looming nuclear exit (by 2025), where they advised against a role of nuclear power in the Belgian energy sector. Their main objections seemed to be concerning safety, waste and proliferation.
Regardless of where you stand on its role in climate change, certainly the kind of dialectical approach is what breeds better technology. And often I think objections are set aside a bit easily, even if nuclear has a good track record of health effects per unit of energy output. Attacking "the greens" or fuming over "regulations" will not do.
People point to LNT being untenable, however, even if that would be true, that debate is already too late into the process of disaster. If these three points could be addressed more fundamentally, I'm sure that would go a long way in public acceptance.
For safety, for example, how would you prevent radioactive particles from becoming airborne and spreading, even in a worst case scenario? I read up briefly on molten salt reactors, and their solution is very attractive (apparently, the fissile material hardens in place when it comes into contact with the outside air). On the other hand, the union of concerned scientists report isn't satisfied with that, and asserts the corrosive properties of the salt make it very unsafe (it gets 3 minuses in the report). Also, it begs the question on what non-molten salt designs propose to fundamentally protect the unsuspecting population from harm, even in the worst case scenario of military or terrorist attacks, for example.
As for proliferation, seemingly civilian nuclear power is a less attractive option than specialized reprocessing. But, again, in a worst case scenario of, say, a group of rogue actors, how would the new designs protect against proliferation? How would breeder reactors be guarded from making bombs more easily?
As for waste, the common objection is storage capacity needed for tens of thousands of years. Others, however, say this could be reduced to a few hundred years. Is this true for every design?
I sincerely appreciate any answers. I would also like to be pointed towards any resources for the layman, such as books or w
... keep reading on reddit ➡