You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
3 points

Eh, it’s honestly safer than you’d think. The size of the reactor plays a huge role in safety.

A reactor sized for a container ship would be literally incapable of melting down, because there just isn’t enough fuel to get to those temperatures. You could then limit the ship’s speed, and over build the reactor a bit, so that the reactor is never truly stressed during normal operation.

Then for refueling, you just remove the entire reactor and replace it with a new, fully fueled one every 10 years or so.

That’s where you want your controls.

Other than that, yeah it would be safer than oil. A crash just means your reactor casing gets wet.

The main worry is someone cutting into the reactor to take out the spicy rocks… and there are easier ways to get spicy rocks.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Technology

!technology@lemmy.world

Create post

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


Community stats

  • 18K

    Monthly active users

  • 12K

    Posts

  • 553K

    Comments