[ziddoap]

>Just because it's better than other solutions doesn't mean it's -inherently safe-.

I re-read the parent to your comment looking for the words "inherently safe" in vain. I don't think they are claiming it is inherently safe.

My 2c on it is that yes, it is important to recognize the failures and lessons learned when moving forward. However, we don't bring up the Model T when discussing road safety today. This is similar in the sense that design, oversight, and general knowledge of nuclear is much more advanced today than when Chernobyl was built. So, yes we need to think about Chernobyl. No, it isn't fair to directly compare Chernobyl to Gen IV plants.

[opo]

>...This is similar in the sense that design, oversight, and general knowledge of nuclear is much more advanced today than when Chernobyl was built.

That is true, but even when Chernobyl was built, no western country would have licensed a commercial reactor without a containment dome. That combined with the RBMK reactor positive void coefficient meant Chernobyl was basically a disaster waiting to happen.