There are more than 3 nuclear designs that are passively safe, 2 of which are now trying to get NRC approval. The reactor in Japan isn't designed to be passively safe and so we have these headlines. I understand why the anti-nukes will be using this "Great Earthquake" (an 8 or higher on the richter scale -- the highest possible) to further their religion of "nukez iz baddd!" but the takeaway should instead be that we need to accelerate a program to build far more of the newer reactors to provide for future power requirements and to replace the older reactors so we don't have this problem in the future.
From what I can garner from news reports (after you weed through the anti-nuke bent and fear mongering) is that the reactor building interior pressure began to rise due to steam buildup and eventually failed, releasing the steam into the atmosphere. The root of the problem is the reactor design: it needs a constant flow of cooling water to moderate the reactor temperature. The japanese reactor has a triple backup system: first the grid, then a diesel generator (which was damaged by the earthquake and the ensuing tsunami), and lastly a bank of huge batteries. In this disaster, they all must have had to fail. It is a problem with the design. Passively safe reactors would not have had this issue.
Had this reactor been a Pebble Bed Modular Reactor this would not have happened. Likewise the new Westinghouse AP-1000. Ditto the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor. And all of the SMR reactors (built to be of smaller size and designed to be self-contained) would have no issues during this type of natural disaster.
There are no easy answers
as you can plainly see from the google images of burning refineries, burning neighborhoods, burning buildings, trains strewn all over the ground, etc.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
