On 05/14/2011 01:14 AM, Axil Axil wrote:
A safer nuclear reactor should be meltdown proof, proliferation safe,
passively air cooled, deployed underground with waste (stable in 1000 years)
shipped off site for centralized underground storage. Such a reactor is
possible to build.
Of course. It will be costlier.
In fact, the Chinese are developing this type of reactor today as their
first homegrown reactor design.
The US loves the light water reactor…and therein rests the problem with
nuclear power worldwide.
Probably because they are relatively simple, easier to build, and cheap.
In the particular case of Fukushima, the reactors were designed to stand
a maximum 7.5 M earthquake, and a tsunami of 5.7 meters.
If all the issues mentioned above are considered, plus resistance to
bigger earthquakes and tsunamis, the cost increases considerably.
The risks were known. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Warnings_and_design_critique
If the cost of conventional nuclear energy increases (and it will) as a
consequence of all the security and safety considerations, that's good
for renewables and alternative forms of energy, because they will be
immediately more competitive.
The same with oil. The end of cheap oil means that other forms of energy
are immediately more attractive.
Regards,
Mauro
