Yeah I noticed how weird that was too but I brushed it off.
Advertisement
by The New California Republic » Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:55 am
by Neutraligon » Thu Feb 13, 2020 1:36 pm
Imperial Joseon wrote:Grenartia wrote:
Ok, let me just take all of this head on.
First, no nuclear reactor has ever been able to be "Hiroshima and Nagasaki 2.0". Yes, that includes Chernobyl.
Second, Chernobyl was an outdated design without passive safety features that was being operated in a manner that was basically ASKING for a meltdown. Modern Gen 3 and 4 reactors are fail safe, and many Gen 4 designs are physically impossible to meltdown.
Fukushima incident, too.
by Window Land » Thu Feb 13, 2020 2:18 pm
Neutraligon wrote:Imperial Joseon wrote:
Fukushima incident, too.
I know you have changed your opinion but I want to clarify what happened there.
Fukushima got hit by a massive quake, one it was no designed to actually take (it was designed to take a less strong earthquake and keep producing electricity though the building itself was built to withstand the actual earthquake, and did). Due to the quake, the reactor properly started to shut down, but doing so meant that it was no longer producing electricity to cool the reaction (bad design there) and so of course switched to emergency power provided by diesel generators which worked until the plant got hit by a massive tsunami that the plant was also not designed for, taking out the backup generators. It was only after these backups where taken out that issues began to occur. When the tsunami flooded where the first set of generators were, they attempted to switch to a second set of backup generators that where higher up but those too had been flooded and so could not work, and due to the earthquake messing up roads and the such, backups from outside where delayed in reaching the plant. In essence, this powerplant had backups for the backups for the backups and they all failed due to the sheer severity of the quake and then tsunami as well as issues with the design.
Woodie Flowers wrote:If you’re anti-science, you’re pro-stupid.
Evelyn Beatrice Hall wrote:I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Winston Churchill wrote:Democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried.
Free SpeechRandall Munroe wrote: I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express.
by American Pere Housh » Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:54 am
by The New California Republic » Fri Feb 14, 2020 9:08 am
American Pere Housh wrote:I can see why the U.S. is building new reactors.
by Prolets Isl » Fri Feb 14, 2020 9:12 am
by Imperial Joseon » Fri Feb 14, 2020 9:12 am
American Pere Housh wrote:I can see why the U.S. is building new reactors.
by Earth Orbit » Fri Feb 14, 2020 10:03 am
Prolets Isl wrote:Molten Salt Nuclear Reactors seem promising.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a29112873/salt-reactors/
Personally I'm still waiting for Ocean Thermal Electric Generators to become more efficient.
FNS HOMEPAGE | 11/23/2170 | BREAKING: VIOLETIST ATTACKS TAKING PLACE ACROSS FEDERATION, LUNA - STATE OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY DECLARED | 11/23/2170 | FNS HOMEPAGE
by UniversalCommons » Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:46 pm
by Hfhbsd » Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:53 pm
Earth Orbit wrote:Prolets Isl wrote:Molten Salt Nuclear Reactors seem promising.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a29112873/salt-reactors/
Personally I'm still waiting for Ocean Thermal Electric Generators to become more efficient.
Just Googled those. Seems like a really interesting and clever concept - geothermal, but on water. I'm skeptical of its practicality, as the gradients in temperature aren't nearly at the level you see in geothermal, but it could hold some promise. (Nuclear would likely beat it out in terms of cost per unit hour, however, especially because sea platforms are painfully expensive to maintain.)
by Vetalia » Sun Feb 16, 2020 9:22 pm
by Neanderthaland » Sun Feb 16, 2020 9:26 pm
by Albrenia » Sun Feb 16, 2020 9:31 pm
by Senkaku » Mon Feb 17, 2020 12:21 am
Albrenia wrote:Still rather iffy about nuclear power myself, not for it being 'dirty' or 'dangerous' in normal settings, but for it being a rather large weakness in the event of a more conventional war.
When the tidal wave damaged the Fukushima plant, it sent waves of people fleeing from the area in panic. I can't help but think of how easily one could cripple a country if one blew some big holes in a few nuclear power plants and let the panic of the population do its work.
by The New California Republic » Mon Feb 17, 2020 3:17 am
by Grenartia » Mon Feb 17, 2020 4:54 am
Albrenia wrote:Still rather iffy about nuclear power myself, not for it being 'dirty' or 'dangerous' in normal settings, but for it being a rather large weakness in the event of a more conventional war.
When the tidal wave damaged the Fukushima plant, it sent waves of people fleeing from the area in panic. I can't help but think of how easily one could cripple a country if one blew some big holes in a few nuclear power plants and let the panic of the population do its work.
Senkaku wrote:Damn that’s true I guess we’ll just have to uhhhh avoid wars?? aha unless...?
by Senkaku » Mon Feb 17, 2020 12:48 pm
Grenartia wrote:Albrenia wrote:Still rather iffy about nuclear power myself, not for it being 'dirty' or 'dangerous' in normal settings, but for it being a rather large weakness in the event of a more conventional war.
When the tidal wave damaged the Fukushima plant, it sent waves of people fleeing from the area in panic. I can't help but think of how easily one could cripple a country if one blew some big holes in a few nuclear power plants and let the panic of the population do its work.Senkaku wrote:Damn that’s true I guess we’ll just have to uhhhh avoid wars?? aha unless...?
Alternatively, switch to the designs that physically cannot meltdown.
by Albrenia » Mon Feb 17, 2020 1:20 pm
by Grenartia » Mon Feb 17, 2020 6:48 pm
Senkaku wrote:
Yeah I’m sure no problems would result if a bunker buster hit one of those and scattered fuel pebbles and radioactive dust across the countryside, you’re right no need to even try to avoid a global war against a peer adversary that can kinetically strike the homeland’s power grid
Broke: avoiding war because war is bad
Woke: avoiding war because you don’t want them to blow up your reactors
Bespoke: not avoiding war because you’re a warmonger
Master stroke: not avoiding war because your reactors are safe even if they take a direct hit so it doesn’t matter
by Nobel Hobos 2 » Mon Feb 17, 2020 8:47 pm
Albrenia wrote:Hehehe.
My concerns would be much lessened if one could design a reactor able to be safe even if it has all of its shielding blasted away or the core itself damaged. I'm not sure if that's possible, but if it is, that's nice.
It's not so much the actual danger which causes the panic though, one would need to somehow convince the population that nothing's amiss when the word of the reactor getting hit gets out though.
by Senkaku » Tue Feb 18, 2020 12:39 am
Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:[
There was a congressional enquiry after 9/11 and it concluded that a civilian airliner wouldn't breach a containment dome.
by Albrenia » Tue Feb 18, 2020 12:59 am
Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:Actually this is a de facto nuclear attack. The appropriate response would be to nuke them back.
That's state actors accounted for, now the only worry is terrorists with truck bombs or possibly small missiles.
by Nobel Hobos 2 » Tue Feb 18, 2020 4:10 am
Albrenia wrote:Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:Actually this is a de facto nuclear attack. The appropriate response would be to nuke them back.
That's state actors accounted for, now the only worry is terrorists with truck bombs or possibly small missiles.
Is it really though? Would a hit on a nuclear power plant really be responded to with a full MAD response?
by Albrenia » Tue Feb 18, 2020 4:18 am
Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:Albrenia wrote:
Is it really though? Would a hit on a nuclear power plant really be responded to with a full MAD response?
Interesting you mention MAD. It worked. Any state actor considering such a vicious attack would be aware of the possible response so they wouldn't do it.
Don't underestimate a truck bomb though.
by Imperial Joseon » Tue Feb 18, 2020 4:28 am
Albrenia wrote:Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
Interesting you mention MAD. It worked. Any state actor considering such a vicious attack would be aware of the possible response so they wouldn't do it.
Don't underestimate a truck bomb though.
MAD certainly did work, I'm not denying that. If each nation did consider that as the response to hitting a nuclear power plant, that would at least keep the war panic scenario a rare chance.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Ancientania, Bovad, Faisol, Homalia, Kerwa, Kubra, La Xinga, Likhinia, Neanderthaland, Neo-Hermitius, Neu California, Port Carverton, Saiwana, Tiami, Trollgaard, Tungstan, Uiiop
Advertisement