Or using, newer reactors which haven't been vetted as much as those older models have

'cheap'?

doubtful

Research of new reactors isn't cheap

ROIE beats ROI

Then the testing of them..

Many iterations..

THEN, you need to actually build them

true, but sooner you start the better your design

Yeah I suppose

We shouldn't be throwing as much money into meme wind as we are

analog sticks are basically miniature tits

change my mind

and if the old design has just one accident, it will derail any nuke deployment

best to have a newer, safer more efficent design with fail-safes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_8tEMkX48s

Chernobyl and long-island can be considered 'old designs'

you can hide an accident inland

but by the water

But they only melted down due to human error

Basically, incompetence

well, yes and no. A good design is idiot proof

It doesn't really matter how good the design is, when the operators turn off the automated controls and start dicking around

See. Three Mile *

it's like software. write a program and give it to as many idiots you can find and have them try to break it

the more idiots you can survive, the better the design

Lmao true

oh, but the design does matter because such a system can't BE totally automated

for example, if we had an EMP we would have to worry that the nuke plants never lost power and ran out of diesel

Funnily enough, with three mile, the automated system which the operators disabled could have easily fixed the issue.

or the coolant pumps couldn't run

a good design has a neutral fail state, meaning you don't need to actively do anything to keep it from melting down

Generally, you're always going to need to do *something*

That something will be the control rods.

nope, not with a molten salt design

You ALWAYS want to kill the reaction

it just goes inert and drains into a seperate drain tank

And physically stop the fission from occurring

table salt is already frozen

you need energy to melt it