[dctoedt]

> Newer reactor designs with entirely passive safety features remove the need for operators to take particular actions in the event of a problem, so "loss of brain accidents" are no longer possible.

That would be excellent — although color me doubtful; people always seem to find new and innovative ways to f[oul] up ....

[pdonis]

> people always seem to find new and innovative ways to f[oul] up

That's why the passive safety features I referred to don't depend on people at all; they depend on the laws of physics, which are certainly more reliable than people. :-)

[bluejekyll]

I assume people are still building [those things](edit: these new reactors), and I also bet they require some regular amount of maintenance.

[pdonis]

> I assume people are still building those things

If you mean older reactor designs without the passive safety features I mentioned, I don't think the US is building much of anything.

> and I also bet they require some regular amount of maintenance.

Nuclear reactors of course require regular maintenance, like any large industrial plant, but those costs alone are not a significant impact. To the extent there are increased maintenance costs for nuclear, they are more than offset by lower fuel costs.

Operating costs in general for nuclear reactors are a significantly smaller fraction of total life cycle costs than for fossil fuels. The largest ongoing cost for a nuclear plant is usually the amortization of the initial capital investment, which is larger for nuclear because the plant has extra requirements like secondary containment and radiation shielding that aren't present in fossil fuel plants.

[bluejekyll]

>> I assume people are still building those things

> If you mean older reactor designs without the passive safety features I mentioned, I don't think the US is building much of anything.

No, I mean the new ones you mention, people will make mistakes building the new ones, including the failsafes, regardless of the physics.

> Nuclear reactors of course require regular maintenance, like any large industrial plant, but those costs alone are not a significant impact.

It's not the cost I'm responding to, but more the idea that human error will be entirely removed. People will be responsible for that maintenance, they will screw it up.

[pdonis]

> people will make mistakes building the new ones, including the failsafes

Mistakes during building can be caught and corrected by appropriate quality assurance procedures before the plant is put into operation. That is standard procedure on any construction job. That's very different from human error during the actual operation of the plant.

> People will be responsible for that maintenance, they will screw it up.

And such mistakes can also be caught and corrected by appropriate checking procedures before they cause a problem in actual operation. That is standard procedure for maintenance on any industrial plant.

> the idea that human error will be entirely removed

Nobody is claiming that human error can be entirely removed. But it is certainly possible to design systems so that the unavoidable human errors can be caught and corrected before they cause more serious problems.