Gen II reactors everywhere are subject to war and sabotage. Places that are currently safe aren't always safe.

Fukushima was a demonstration that these reactors can still melt down. It doesn't take exactly fukushima to cause a meltdown.

The reason to prioritize decommissioning is because the new generations of reactors are completely safe. There can be no meltdown, even if they are explicitly sabotaged. Then the bigger risk becomes not the reactor but the management of waste.

What Gen II reactors are is effectively a landmine in a box. The proposed solution to avoid detonating the landmine is adding more pillows, buffers, and padding, but still keeping the landmine because it'd be expensive to replace.

I think that's just a bad idea. Unexpected things happen. They don't have to (and probably won't) look exactly like a Tsunami hitting the facility. So why not replace the box with a landmine with one that doesn't have the landmine. Yes it cost money to do, but it's simply safer and completely eliminates a whole class of risks.

▲

leonidasrup 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

There are many kinds of Gen IV reactors. Which of the Gen IV reactors would you prefer? Which Gen IV reactor can not melt down, even if explicitly sabotaged?

	▲	cogman10 30 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> Which of the Gen IV reactors would you prefer? TBH, probably the SCWR. They seem like the easiest to build without a lot of new surprises. > Which Gen IV reactor can not melt down, even if explicitly sabotaged? One like the BREST. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BREST_(reactor) . Funnily my preferred reactor, the SCWR, would probably not be immune to some sabotage, specifically explosives around the reactor. But a reactor which uses a metal coolant would be. It just so happens that the nature of a SCWR cooled with water means that the reactor core has to be much beefier anyways, so it's a lot harder to really damage even if that was an explicit goal.

▲

thrownthatway 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Gen II reactors everywhere are subject to war and sabotage.

<eye roll> this is just bullshit.

Which Gen II reactors are subject to war, exactly?

The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, where one employ was killed by a drone strike?

What’s the status of the four new planned(?) reactors at Khmelnitski?

Wikipedia seems to indicate that two new AP1000 reactors are under construction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmelnytskyi_Nuclear_Power_Pla...

A country that is having a hot war with its neighbour Russia(!) is getting the fuck on with it, while the rest of the Western world still thinks windmills are cool.

	▲	cogman10 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> Which Gen II reactors are subject to war, exactly? Potentially any of them. World governments aren't static. Mitt Romney was literally laughed at for talking about the Russian military threat in 2012. > two new AP1000 These are Gen III+ reactors, which thoughout this thread I've been saying we should be building to replace the Gen II reactors. If Ukraine was building new Gen II reactors you might have a point.