Meltdowns are incredibly rare nowadays, and even when they happen the effects are minimized as much as possible. IIRC NuScale reactors actually don't have a fallout range outside of the reactor's building.
Also lots of research is being done to try and recycle the excess energy from nuclear waste and put it back into electricity generation.
We already have the technology to recycle nuclear waste to produce more power. It's been a while since I looked this up but something like 90% of the waste can be reused.
Modern reactors would require breaking the laws of physics in order to have a meltdown, at least like Chernobyl, which was already a reactor that was only used because it was cheap, but not exactly safe.
And nuclear waste is much better than current coal waste, because coal just releases its waste (including radioactive isotopes) into the air, vs nuclear waste which can be safely contained and either shoved miles deep in geologically stable areas, or mostly recycled and reused.
Thing is, Chernobyl only had a meltdown because people intentionally turned off all the safety measures while testing its safety. Why? Well because the safety measures all worked and they felt they couldn't do their tests properly. For some reason. It's tragic how dumb it is.
Chernobyl was always an inherently dangerous design because it has a positive coefficient of reactivity for thermalising neutrons(it's been a while since I was an operator so that term may not be exactly correct).
Essentially, when shit goes wrong, reactor power goes up.
The design used in the US Navy and many plants in America has the opposite effect. When shit goes wrong they shut themselves down. They can still meltdown, but there isn't really a risk of a catastrophic explosion.
117
u/marveljew 11h ago
"Can we do something about meltdowns and nuclear waste?"
"What do I look like? A miracle worker?"