Just read an interesting article on Bloomberg Businessweek in relation to Nuclear Technology and the like.
More on the link below;
The Prospect for Safe Nuclear Power - BusinessWeek
I said
As for the 7% idle, might be a good time to debate if these high efficiency pile/pack reactors are wanted, and if lower efficiency ones are better. I seem to recall reading that the all the boron rods were inserted after the earthquake, and generators kicked in for 1/2 hour before getting wet, then batteries gave another 13 hours or so.
So we have a 1st class reactor, where everything was done right - except the 7% on design meant it would blow up if....
I 100% agree with this article - walkaway is the expression I was looking for.
I stated nasty stuff would boil off - and indeed it has. I did not predict plutonium in the ground water from a leak, but it appears so. In this case the nasty stuff has a short half life - but the loss of it may make whats left boil away more furiously.
Its like leaving your house for a 2 week holiday with all stove hotplates on low.
It is a galactically stupid idea building a reactor that cannot be turned 'off' - as I understand was the feature of this reactor. How many others in operation is not something the press seems to print.
On Pile reactors (like the one that could not be turned off) - after the fact it was a bad idea. Rocket scientists may love the theoretical efficiency. This is the model 'Ziggy' recommended for Australia. I say no thanks, and no again to buying US made reactors which also feature too costly to decommission problems.
Thorium , or the ping pong ball reactors seem a better bet. I understand the only design flaws in these reactor designs is that is does not produce sufficient bomb making stuff, so no good for countries interested in joining the club. But at least they are walkaway.