• assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t think it’s molten salt reactors. I learned it as small modular reactors (SMR) which naturally cooled to safe temperatures if they lost power and water.

        • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sure, but we shouldn’t be using only one type of nuclear reactor anyway – we can deploy the SMR design for more populated areas where safety is paramount, and then run breeder reactors in uninhabited areas to convert the SMR waste back into fuel.

    • tycho@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes, but afaik corrosion is still a big issue in these designs so they are not ready for commercial use.

    • dbilitated@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m pretty sure the only reactors that have ever failed have been designed in the 60s and early 70s (or earlier)

      I’m trying to confirm it but I’m pretty sure no reactor designed later than that has had a meltdown and there have been significantly safer designs released in the last couple of decades.

      I can look it up later if you’re curious but I recall reading some interesting articles about it.

      • Pfnic@feddit.ch
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re confusing “Fusion” with “Fission”. Fission is what all nuclear power plants to date are based on.

    • uis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      23
      ·
      1 year ago

      Still meltable. They are “safe” in a way current nuclear super-powers are safe at being superpowers. Safe for status-quo.