NationStates

Senkaku wrote:

Imperial Joseon wrote:Surprised to find people mostly preferring nuclear power. Hiroshima and Nagasaki 2.0.

i believe we're discussing reactors for power generation not the use of bombs for strategic-level wartime attacks lol

Yeah I noticed how weird that was too but I brushed it off.

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Second, Chernobyl was an outdated design without passive safety features that was being operated in a manner that was basically ASKING for a meltdown.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.

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.

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.

You forgot the battery backups, they were able keep electric pumps running about a day after the diesel pumps went out.

I can see why the U.S. is building new reactors.

American Pere Housh wrote:I can see why the U.S. is building new reactors.

...care to expand on that? What you just did is equivalent to saying "you know what they say..." and then saying nothing after it...

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.

American Pere Housh wrote:I can see why the U.S. is building new reactors.

Better for an environment.

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.)

Ocean thermal could be much more widespread than geothermal. So could tidal power. The problem with tidal and ocean thermal power is that the sea is a destructive place. A wave buoy can sink, there can be a tidal wave which destroys an ocean thermal installation.

There needs to be some changes though. Oil, gas, coal, and natural gas are increasingly becoming more likely to become stranded assets as nuclear power, wind power, hydropower, and solar power expand. There have been massive write downs in the oil industry. More money is being put into nuclear, solar, hydro, and wind as the fear of climate change happens. Also, electric vehicles are becoming more viable, not just cars, but also boats and trains and in the near future planes. Self driving cars change the potential from ownership to sharing with less cars on the road.

https://gimegatrends.com/articles/will- ... ed-assets/

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.)

You'd probably also be interested in solar updraft power:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower
The great thing about these is that they produce power even at night (a bit less than during the day, of course) (which is a major drawback of photovoltaics), and that you can use the land under them for other things (such as photovoltic panels, or farming algae.)
Speaking of biofuels:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event
Azolla is a very fast-growing aquatic fern. It can even nitrogen-fix due to a symbiotic relationship with a nitrogen-fixing bacterium.

Solar is my personal favorite as it is both becoming exponentially cheaper and becoming more efficient at operating under poorer conditions than ever before. After all, every other source of power aside from nuclear and geothermal is just a version of solar power in one way or another. I also like natural gas because it has significant potential to become a truly renewable source of energy, since after all it's pretty much just methane.

Solar/wind/tidal combined with a baseline grid of biogas, hydroelectric and geothermal power would be a sustainable and carbon-neutral power source with massive capacity for future expansion.

The New California Republic wrote:

Senkaku wrote:i believe we're discussing reactors for power generation not the use of bombs for strategic-level wartime attacks lol

Yeah I noticed how weird that was too but I brushed it off.

Strategic-level wartime nuclear attacks are just another Tuesday for you, I'd imagine.

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.

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.

Damn that’s true I guess we’ll just have to uhhhh avoid wars?? aha unless...?

Neanderthaland wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Yeah I noticed how weird that was too but I brushed it off.

Strategic-level wartime nuclear attacks are just another Tuesday for you, I'd imagine.

There is a fallout forecast on the daily weather report.

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.

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.

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

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.

Senkaku wrote:

Grenartia wrote:


Alternatively, switch to the designs that physically cannot meltdown.

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

Imagine actually believing that was the intent of my post.

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.

Fissionable fuel is always going to be rather nasty. Yes even with the thorium cycle.

If being attacked with rockets is a serious concern, I guess you'd minimize the amount of fuel in each one. Smaller reactors, less dirty fuel, strong containment. Maybe some anti-missile defenses.

There was a congressional enquiry after 9/11 and it concluded that a civilian airliner wouldn't breach a containment dome.

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.

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.

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.

so remember kids, all you need is two civilian airliners and a dream!

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Wind is the safest, all in all.