why do people suddenly fear nuclear power plants?

[dalek sec]

Why do we fear them? 2 words "lowest bid".

Yeah, that's the biggest reason I'm wary of them here in the US myself and I don't buy all that fear hype bullshit the news has been banging on about lately. I'm just worried that one of those "lowest bid" models is just going to crap out one day, I don't hold much faith for the companies that do those low bid jobs.

 

[AlohaJo]

Nuclear plants can't explode. It's just not possible.

And the reason people are freaking out is because they don't understand how hard it is for a meltdown to occur. On top of that, the media will always jump on a chance to cause fear because it creates more news, which in turn gives them more stories to report. It's a vicious circle, and a rather sickening practice (it's also why I refuse to read, watch, or listen to the news). All these protests will end when people finally pull their heads out of the sand and actually go and attempt to learn about things that they don't fully understand.

That being said, the Japan incident was indeed a close call, bu because of the numerous safeguards, they were able to keep everything under control, and they still do have it under control. There really isn't anything to fear...But let the protesters have their way; they'll find themselves in a quandary when a good 70-80% of the power just doesn't exist anymore.

I would caution the "under control" part.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42066534/ns/world_news-asiapacific/

Yeah, I wouldn't trust anything from an American-based news source ever. They just aren't trustworthy.

 

[Light 086]

*snip

Don't worry about it, I've had my moods as well.

On Topic:
After doing more research into the dangers and effects of nuclear meltdowns, I've been able to successfully prove: wait for it... nothing definitive!!! Yay!!! =P

Though this should be considered fortunate, because not enough meltdowns or serious meltdowns have occurred to get any concrete data. However it is true that nuclear reactors do contain very lethal levels of radiation that can kill organic life easily if all of it was released at once, and would cause long term environmental disasters if a complete meltdown ever were to occur. Though this is speculation on scientists part as due to lack of frequency and severity of reactor meltdowns, but proof of the intense radiation can be seen in Chernobyl where several people died due to radiation burns/poisoning. Apparently they had a power fluctuation that caused the energy in the reactor to spike, causing the reactor to overheat. They tried to shut it down, but it did little good. Though not many people died, because the reactor never did have a complete and total meltdown. It's still the worst in history though compared to what could have happened, it pales in comparison.

Safety features designed in nuclear reactors are built to contain lethal levels of radiation that would be released during such an event. Japan's reactor was compromised due to the earthquake/tsunami that had struck them, which lead to the radiation poisoning of the people I brought up with the news report. Chernobyl on the other hand lacked a lot of the safety features present in nuclear reactors during standards even then, which is what caused the radiation to leak.

Back to my original point:
People fear nuclear reactors due to it's potential danger. Yes it's true, as you said (and I agree); many people's fear is irrational and is born through ignorance and misunderstanding of their operation and design. They hear that people died in Chernobyl because of one, they jump to the conclusion that it's a nuclear bomb. This is untrue because a reactor could never achieve a spontaneous reaction required for it to become one.

Nukes were designed to have that spontaneous chain reaction and it is/was achieved through military grade explosives going off at once created enough heat and energy for the chemical bonds to break apart in an enclosed space (not sure if they still use this method as it's not knowledge available to the public). Since nuclear reactors have no military explosive incorporated into to their design, and the reactor is not enclosed in a sealed area: A total chain reaction is impossible.

I'd also like to point out that through this conversation it may come across that I believe that nuclear reactors are dangerous (well they are, but then again so is a pencil in capable/incapable hands), I am however listing reasons why people fear to answer the OP's question. This is not my opinion of nuclear reactors.

Up next... My Opinion:
I know they are a more efficient power source than coal and fossil fuels, because the power they generate is much greater. True nuclear waste is still pollution, but unlike carbon monoxide and air pollutants it can be treated and contained.

Let me know if I messed anything up, as it's quite lengthy and I might of missed something.

 

[keinechance]

Up next... My Opinion:
I know they are a more efficient power source than coal and fossil fuels, because the power they generate is much greater. True nuclear waste is still pollution, but unlike carbon monoxide and air pollutants it can be treated and contained.

Let me know if I messed anything up, as it's quite lengthy and I might of missed something.

In regards to "efficient power source", the ESTIMATED cost for a nation for one massive failure of an NPP, like in chernobyl, will be 5 - 50 trillion Euro( 5000 - 50.000 billion euro). This is an assessment made for the ministry of economics here in germany, by the Prognos AG in Switzerland.

 

[Razgrizaces]

The same way people fear airplanes and other things. We can make it as safe as we can with our technology, but it's never 100% safe. We can't account for human error, or Mother Nature's disasters. The second something goes wrong and everybody knows about it, people turn against that type of thing. People start to think it isn't safe. And then when it's all cleared up, we include new rules, rebuild everything back and try to help fix what we did wrong. And yet, people still complain on how dangerous these things are.

It's kind of like airplanes. "You only hear about the crashes." Or the times where people have to make a crash landing, or when something fails. I guess it's a sort of fear thing we have instilled in our media (American media, rather).

 

[Light 086]

Up next... My Opinion:
I know they are a more efficient power source than coal and fossil fuels, because the power they generate is much greater. True nuclear waste is still pollution, but unlike carbon monoxide and air pollutants it can be treated and contained.

Let me know if I messed anything up, as it's quite lengthy and I might of missed something.

In regards to "efficient power source", the estimated cost for a nation for one massive failure of an NPP, like in chernobyl, will have an ESTIMATED cost of 5 - 50 trillion Euro( 5000 - 50.000 billion euro). This is an assessment made for the ministry of economics here in germany, by the Prognos AG in Switzerland.

Since when is anything we rely on ever cheap?

That's why they make sure it doesn't fail, Japan's didn't fail because of the safety features put into them. Fossil fuels are limited and running low which is why we need alternate power. I'm not trying to make it out as awesome and perfect nothing is, but it's the best compared to what we have. We all know what one can do with nuclear fission.

What other good alternatives are there? Steam is great in anime and can do everything, not so much in reality so that's off the table. Batteries create too much waste in their creation to be of any use, and they only store energy not generate it. Solar power is too inefficient on a large scale. On small scale like individual houses companies and governments don't like it, because they lose money and so have already started taxing people for using this source of energy. Wind farms are way too expensive for the amount of power they supply or lack of power they supply (I know a bit about this as London is having a major conflict with this right now).

Also keep in mind these decisions are influenced by people with a lot of money who want more money. So on the bright side we are all equally fucked regardless of their decision because we pay for it through taxes.

 

[martin's a madman]

Yeah, but if something DOES go wrong, stuff goes, very, horribly wrong.
See: Chernobyl outskirts.

Chernobyl. Was. An. Anomaly. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.241623-Probing-The-Inaccuracies-Nuclear-Power]

Stop using it as an example.

When you anomalies create problems that big, we need to make sure that we use this power responsibly. It's clean and safe, for the most part, but when things go wrong, they tend to really go wrong.

What's going on at the Dai-ichi and Dai-ni plants are examples of why we need to have more safeties in place should something like this happen. While it's true that there was no way to properly prepare for such a powerful disaster previously, the fact that it has happened will give us a reason and means to prepare for such a disaster in the future.

An anomaly with a piece of paper could see the death of thousands, perhaps millions if all the unfortunate conditions were in place.

 

[Unesh52]

However it is true that nuclear reactors do contain very lethal levels of radiation that can kill organic life easily if all of it was released at once, and would cause long term environmental disasters if a complete meltdown ever were to occur. ...Though not many people died, because the reactor never did have a complete and total meltdown. It's still the worst in history though compared to what could have happened, it pales in comparison.

Japan's reactor was compromised due to the earthquake/tsunami that had struck them, which lead to the radiation poisoning of the people I brought up with the news report.

Ok, the reaction at Chernobyl was so bad because it exploded -- raining red hot, radioactive debris all over the immediate area -- and because it caught fire -- sprinkling radioactive material around for miles. I'm not certain if the core melted all the way (it probably didn't have time, what with all the exploding), but I don't see how it being solid chunks of radioactive material all over the ground would be less dire than liquid pools of radioactive material all over the ground. The only real problem might be that it's harder to scoop liquid into a container. You need a shovel and...

Now really, I don't mean to be rude, so please don't take it this way, but you do understand that a meltdown is just the core melting, right? A "total meltdown" by itself would not bring about any of the destruction Chernobyl wrought, and even if the liquid material -- in its entirety -- were to somehow leak out of the reactor, it would still be releasing no more radiation than Chernobyl was, and in fact, over a much smaller area. Your proposed possibility of total meltdown leading to mass environmental destruction and loss of life seems to be unfounded. Nothing "worse" than Chernobyl can happen. It was the worst case scenario. Something completely different could happen that might be worse, but such a thing is unknown and would be unprecedented. I'm not in a position to discuss the threat posed by such a hypothetical disaster.

Also, about this "radiation poisoning." The article you gave only said 160 people may have been exposed, not that they had been laid up with medical disorder. Also, Evil Ermine was talking about some of the stories about radiation leaking:

Also the reported radiation 'leaks' that have been reported have not been explained properly, the radiation was not dangerous and has a half life of only minutes at the most so basically by the time you finish reading this then it will have already decayed to a level that is at most only slightly more radioactive than your average granite kitchen worktop.

I respect your position of compromise, and I'm glad that you agree there is an unreasonable amount of alarmism driving the opposition on this issue, but I still think you over-estimate the potential for danger here.

 

[keinechance]

Yeah, but if something DOES go wrong, stuff goes, very, horribly wrong.
See: Chernobyl outskirts.

Chernobyl. Was. An. Anomaly. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.241623-Probing-The-Inaccuracies-Nuclear-Power]

Stop using it as an example.

When you anomalies create problems that big, we need to make sure that we use this power responsibly. It's clean and safe, for the most part, but when things go wrong, they tend to really go wrong.

What's going on at the Dai-ichi and Dai-ni plants are examples of why we need to have more safeties in place should something like this happen. While it's true that there was no way to properly prepare for such a powerful disaster previously, the fact that it has happened will give us a reason and means to prepare for such a disaster in the future.

An anomaly with a piece of paper could see the death of thousands, perhaps millions if all the unfortunate conditions were in place.

Do you really think a piece of paper is the same as a NPP in regards of possible anomalys?

 

[martin's a madman]

Yeah, but if something DOES go wrong, stuff goes, very, horribly wrong.
See: Chernobyl outskirts.

Chernobyl. Was. An. Anomaly. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.241623-Probing-The-Inaccuracies-Nuclear-Power]

Stop using it as an example.

When you anomalies create problems that big, we need to make sure that we use this power responsibly. It's clean and safe, for the most part, but when things go wrong, they tend to really go wrong.

What's going on at the Dai-ichi and Dai-ni plants are examples of why we need to have more safeties in place should something like this happen. While it's true that there was no way to properly prepare for such a powerful disaster previously, the fact that it has happened will give us a reason and means to prepare for such a disaster in the future.

An anomaly with a piece of paper could see the death of thousands, perhaps millions if all the unfortunate conditions were in place.

Do you really think a piece of paper is the same as a NPP in regards of possible anomalys?

I was making a point that we shouldn't use the incredibly improbable as an excuse to absolutely shut down all use of something.

But he's right, we should be constantly improving NPPs instead of shutting them down when (in a very rare case) something goes wrong.

 

[keinechance]

However it is true that nuclear reactors do contain very lethal levels of radiation that can kill organic life easily if all of it was released at once, and would cause long term environmental disasters if a complete meltdown ever were to occur. ...Though not many people died, because the reactor never did have a complete and total meltdown. It's still the worst in history though compared to what could have happened, it pales in comparison.

Japan's reactor was compromised due to the earthquake/tsunami that had struck them, which lead to the radiation poisoning of the people I brought up with the news report.

Ok, the reaction at Chernobyl was so bad because it exploded -- raining red hot, radioactive debris all over the immediate area -- and because it caught fire -- sprinkling radioactive material around for miles. I'm not certain if the core melted all the way (it probably didn't have time, what with all the exploding), but I don't see how it being solid chunks of radioactive material all over the ground would be less dire than liquid pools of radioactive material all over the ground. The only real problem might be that it's harder to scoop liquid into a container. You need a shovel and...

Now really, I don't mean to be rude, so please don't take it this way, but you do understand that a meltdown is just the core melting, right? A "total meltdown" by itself would not bring about any of the destruction Chernobyl wrought, and even if the liquid material -- in its entirety -- were to somehow leak out of the reactor, it would still be releasing no more radiation than Chernobyl was, and in fact, over a much smaller area. Your proposed possibility of total meltdown leading to mass environmental destruction and loss of life seems to be unfounded. Nothing "worse" than Chernobyl can happen. It was the worst case scenario. Something completely different could happen that might be worse, but such a thing is unknown and would be unprecedented. I'm not in a position to discuss the threat posed by such a hypothetical disaster.

Also, about this "radiation poisoning." The article you gave only said 160 people may have been exposed, not that they had been laid up with medical disorder. Also, Evil Ermine was talking about some of the stories about radiation leaking:

Also the reported radiation 'leaks' that have been reported have not been explained properly, the radiation was not dangerous and has a half life of only minutes at the most so basically by the time you finish reading this then it will have already decayed to a level that is at most only slightly more radioactive than your average granite kitchen worktop.

I respect your position of compromise, and I'm glad that you agree there is an unreasonable amount of alarmism driving the opposition on this issue, but I still think you over-estimate the potential for danger here.

There are currently 3 reactors in the proccess of meltdown, one whose core has been breached, as well as a fire in a 4 reactor, where spent nuclear fuel rods are being stored. One of these reactors alone, has the potential of chernobyl.

 

[keinechance]

Yeah, but if something DOES go wrong, stuff goes, very, horribly wrong.
See: Chernobyl outskirts.

Chernobyl. Was. An. Anomaly. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.241623-Probing-The-Inaccuracies-Nuclear-Power]

Stop using it as an example.

When you anomalies create problems that big, we need to make sure that we use this power responsibly. It's clean and safe, for the most part, but when things go wrong, they tend to really go wrong.

What's going on at the Dai-ichi and Dai-ni plants are examples of why we need to have more safeties in place should something like this happen. While it's true that there was no way to properly prepare for such a powerful disaster previously, the fact that it has happened will give us a reason and means to prepare for such a disaster in the future.

An anomaly with a piece of paper could see the death of thousands, perhaps millions if all the unfortunate conditions were in place.

Do you really think a piece of paper is the same as a NPP in regards of possible anomalys?

I was making a point that we shouldn't use the incredibly improbable as an excuse to absolutely shut down all use of something.

But he's right, we should be constantly improving NPPs instead of shutting them down when (in a very rare case) something goes wrong.

Well I want them ALL shut down in due time, like here in germany with our "Phase out plan".
The oldest ones, which are not really needed to supply energy to us now, the newer ones in order of age, until the last one goes offline in 2035.

And yes I know, some people say that we will not be able to fill the gap with renewable energy sources, but some people say it is possible. Both sides have their experts and calculations to prove that they are right and the others wrong, so I guess it comes down to which crowd you throw in with.

 

[martin's a madman]

Yeah, but if something DOES go wrong, stuff goes, very, horribly wrong.
See: Chernobyl outskirts.

Chernobyl. Was. An. Anomaly. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.241623-Probing-The-Inaccuracies-Nuclear-Power]

Stop using it as an example.

When you anomalies create problems that big, we need to make sure that we use this power responsibly. It's clean and safe, for the most part, but when things go wrong, they tend to really go wrong.

What's going on at the Dai-ichi and Dai-ni plants are examples of why we need to have more safeties in place should something like this happen. While it's true that there was no way to properly prepare for such a powerful disaster previously, the fact that it has happened will give us a reason and means to prepare for such a disaster in the future.

An anomaly with a piece of paper could see the death of thousands, perhaps millions if all the unfortunate conditions were in place.

Do you really think a piece of paper is the same as a NPP in regards of possible anomalys?

I was making a point that we shouldn't use the incredibly improbable as an excuse to absolutely shut down all use of something.

But he's right, we should be constantly improving NPPs instead of shutting them down when (in a very rare case) something goes wrong.

Well I want them ALL shut down in due time, like here in germany with our "Phase out plan".
The oldest ones, which are not really needed to supply energy to us now, the newer ones in order of age, until the last one goes offline in 2035.

Well, of course they'll all shut down eventually, when we get to the next step in what we need. Fusion would be preferable, even though that still does count as 'nuclear' but not in the dirty fission sense everybody thinks of.

 

[keinechance]

Yeah, but if something DOES go wrong, stuff goes, very, horribly wrong.
See: Chernobyl outskirts.

Chernobyl. Was. An. Anomaly. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.241623-Probing-The-Inaccuracies-Nuclear-Power]

Stop using it as an example.

When you anomalies create problems that big, we need to make sure that we use this power responsibly. It's clean and safe, for the most part, but when things go wrong, they tend to really go wrong.

What's going on at the Dai-ichi and Dai-ni plants are examples of why we need to have more safeties in place should something like this happen. While it's true that there was no way to properly prepare for such a powerful disaster previously, the fact that it has happened will give us a reason and means to prepare for such a disaster in the future.

An anomaly with a piece of paper could see the death of thousands, perhaps millions if all the unfortunate conditions were in place.

Do you really think a piece of paper is the same as a NPP in regards of possible anomalys?

I was making a point that we shouldn't use the incredibly improbable as an excuse to absolutely shut down all use of something.

But he's right, we should be constantly improving NPPs instead of shutting them down when (in a very rare case) something goes wrong.

Well I want them ALL shut down in due time, like here in germany with our "Phase out plan".
The oldest ones, which are not really needed to supply energy to us now, the newer ones in order of age, until the last one goes offline in 2035.

Well, of course they'll all shut down eventually, when we get to the next step in what we need. Fusion would be preferable, even though that still does count as 'nuclear' but not in the dirty fission sense everybody thinks of.

I also think that this will most likely be the solution everybody can work with. Although I don't like the "Let's leave everything as it is until then" mindset. Here in Germany we managed to increase the pertcentage of renewable sources from less then 1% to almost 18% of all the needed energy in 10 years, even with the increased consumption, so I think there is still something to be done with this.

 

[theultimateend]

Gotta love all of the ignorant rage directed at people who are rightly just raising their hands and pointing out that Nuclear Power is VERY dangerous.

Eh.

It's dangerous but you need counter examples. Ideally we'd just use solar paneling, an area the size of Arizona (cumulatively not assuming that much in a single place) would power the US with much extra left over for storage or something but people are far too silly to want to invest in the jobs that would be necessary to maintain that.

Coal power is hardly safe, hydroelectric dams at least initially cause large amounts of damage to the environment, wind power is (apparently) pretty good at murdering flying animals.

Natural Gas has a myriad of major issues including polluting the drinking water, which is lame because I'm quite fond of...you know...drinking water.

I suspect that this all won't matter anyways as Traveling Wave reactors become a thing of reality. Three Thousand years of fuel already wasting away on the surface of the earth, fairly simple to build (as far as necessary parts are concerned) and the resulting material could not (to my knowledge) be used to make weaponized material.

Nuclear power has changed dramatically since it was first conceived and thinking of it all as some megalith of death and destruction is unfair to others and yourself.

This particular plant had to be hit by the 6th largest Earthquake in Human History AND a fairly mind boggling Tsunami just to create the scenario we are seeing now. It is unlikely that this sort of event will occur again in any of our lifetimes. It is also unfair to demand that anyone prepare for that kind of event.

I'm quite sure if a 9.0 Earthquake rocked the Three Gorges Dam or the damage would be immense as well.

Generally speaking a Quake strong enough to move a land mass multiple feet from their previous position is going to cause lots of death, lots of destruction, and leave even the most amazingly constructed architecture in either ruins or serious condition.

If I had to choose between living next to a Nuclear Plant and a Coal Plant I would choose the first. At least that one requires a cataclysm for it to screw me sideways.

Ideally though I'll go back to my first point, I'd love for the US to invest majorly into Solar Power. Even the upgrading as new technology arises would result in more jobs. It's such a large endeavor that it could be our next major project similar to what...I think Roosevelt did, I'm a bit tired so my History lobe isn't running on all cylinders.

 

[Light 086]

A "total meltdown" by itself would not bring about any of the destruction Chernobyl wrought, and even if the liquid material -- in its entirety -- were to somehow leak out of the reactor, it would still be releasing no more radiation than Chernobyl was, and in fact, over a much smaller area. Your proposed possibility of total meltdown leading to mass environmental destruction and loss of life seems to be unfounded. Nothing "worse" than Chernobyl can happen. It was the worst case scenario. Something completely different could happen that might be worse, but such a thing is unknown and would be unprecedented. I'm not in a position to discuss the threat posed by such a hypothetical disaster.

I'm not qualified in this field either. And I don't think we'll know until it does happen.

Like I said though scientists 'speculate' that the intensity of the radiation would be extremely lethal if the whole plant had a meltdown, not one reactor.

As for the Japanese reactor, there was damage to the reactor that's all I know. In my research they will let some radioactive 'steam' out in extreme situations to reduce pressure in the core and to inject additional cooling water to prevent a meltdown, so radiation probably did get out.

I got that last part from: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_meltdown under the 'effects' portion. Yeah it's wiki, but I couldn't get any better info.

The deaths I mentioned from radiation were from Chernobyl, not Japan (should have cleared that up too, sorry).

So I got really nothing like I said, just speculation. We're just beating our heads against the wall at this point.

Despite whether it is possible or not, I can say this with certainty: When people hear 'nuclear' they think bomb, death, and radiation and thus fear it without understanding. It probably sounded like I thought the same and I definitely made myself sound like some of those that are ignorant from my first post.

 

[SilentHunter7]

One thing I'd like to point out for perspective: We've had more disasters involving Oil and other fossil fuels since the year 2000, than in the entire history of Nuclear Power.

Spoiler: Oil disasters in the last 10 years

January 18, 2000: A ruptured pipeline near Rio de Janeiro dumps 343,000 gallons of oil into Guanabara Bay

November 28, 2000: An Oil tanker runs aground near New Orleans, and spills over 500,000 gallons of crude into the Mississippi River

November 13, 2002: An oil tanker sinks off the coast of Spain, releasing over 20 Million gallons of heavy fuel oil into the ocean.

July 28, 2003: A tanker runs aground near Pakistan, and dumps over 28,000 tons of oil into the ocean

December 7, 2004, an oil tanker sinks in a storm, and dumps 300,000 gallons of oil all over the Alaskan coastline.

August 2005: Hurricane Katrina strikes the Gulf of Mexico, resulting in an estimated 7 Million gallons of oil spilled into the Gulf.

June 19, 2006: 70,000 barrels of oil were released from a refinery after being damaged from a violent rainstorm

July 15, 2006: Israeli bombing missions into Lebannon cause an estimated 3 to 10 Million gallons of oil to be spilled into the Mediterranean.

August 11, 2006: A sinking oil tanker dumps 500,000 gallons of oil into the Pacific, and devastates the Philippines fishing industry. The ship continues to leak oil to this day.

December 7, 2007: A stricken oil tanker spilled over 2 and a half million gallons of oil into the Yellow Sea, and ruins South Korean fishing and tourism industries.

July 25, 2008: An oil tanker collides with a barge carrying oil in the Mississippi River, dumping hundreds of thousands of gallons, and devastating local wildlife.

March 11, 2009: 52,000 gallons of oil are accidentally lost overboard from a cargo ship in a Cyclone in the Coral Sea, off the coast of Australia.

April 24, 2010: The Deepwater Horizon rig explodes and sinks to the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, causing a spill of over 205 million gallons of crude oil.

And those were just the ones I could find, and it doesn't even include all the disasters and deaths from natural gas platforms exploding, and mine fires and subsidences. I'm sure if I looked harder, that list would be way longer.

Compare that to only 2 disasters in the last 60 years, Chernobyl, and Kyshtym, that affected the environment and civilian populations. And those both occurred in the Soviet Union, due to many, many egregious safety violations.

The safety measures taken at Three Mile Island and Fukoshima prove that when proper safety measures are taken, even in worst case scenarios (Gross operator error, and the a disaster of biblical scale, respectively) Nuclear Power is a safe alternative energy. And those reactors are almost archaic by the safety standards of reactors built today.

 

[JordanXlord]

why do they fear nuclear power plants....because almost 79% of the world are idiots or are just afraid of tech


my father is freaking his balls off

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Why do we fear them? 2 words "lowest bid".

Yeah, that's the biggest reason I'm wary of them here in the US myself and I don't buy all that fear hype bullshit the news has been banging on about lately. I'm just worried that one of those "lowest bid" models is just going to crap out one day, I don't hold much faith for the companies that do those low bid jobs.

THat is really the only reason why I'd not care for the US to start churning it out, unless we get some fool proof designs from the french and metrials have to be inspected and approved befor they are used..... would also be nice if the watering system for the plant was sealed so if they have to dumb water to cool the rods it won't get into the ground water.

But if the build process is typical gov lowest bid that costs 10X more than researching a good contractor,ect ....

 

[Evil Tim]

I concede the point. I tried to equate "introducing the control rods" with "pulling the plug." Indeed, if the control rods break or you can't lower them into the core for some reason (like lack of power), you can get a meltdown.

In modern designs they're usually suspended above the reactor by electromagnets and / or being pushed against by massive springs. The power being on is the only thing stopping the rods being inserted.