|
Just caught up on the thread and the show. Parts of it gave me strong flashbacks to the Fukushima/Tsunami livethread in GBS on 2011. There were lots of people understandably worried about the reactors melting down and a radioactivity leak, only to be met by a squadron of overly confident armchair nuclear experts. They explained that there was no conceivable way a modern reactor could fail like this, that the idea of a leak of radioactive material was totally ridiculous and that the plant was specifically designed for scenarios like this. Any criticism was dismissed as uninformed scaremongering against nuclear power. They all kinda mysteriously disappeared from the thread after the Japanese government starting evacuating and people were abandoning Tokyo.
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 09:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 03:42 |
|
|
"You have made lava...." "We were prepared for this..." I loved that exchange.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 09:55
|
|
|
TheShadowAvatar posted:"You have made lava...." My own reaction to that briefing was interesting (at least to me), because up until then I'd managed to keep at least some distance to the show despite the horror of this having happened IRL...then suddenly they mention that a second explosion could've released radiation from all 4 reactors over all of eastern Europe at a time when I was 1 year old IRL and cripes, suddenly I'm somehow even more invested in the show than I thought I'd be.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 10:12
|
|
|
FiftySeven posted:After reading more about radiation poisoning over the past few days, I am kind of just left wondering one thing. If someone has certainly taken a lethal dose, absolutely no questions asked, stupid amounts of radiation, why do they even bother trying to keep them alive? If I knew that I was in that situation, I would want only one thing, a loaded gun. I would just want to end it as fast as possible on my terms before I ended up like Hiroshi Ouchi or any of the poor guys who were killed by Chernobyl. gently caress science at that point, I wouldnt want to be a test subject. Just end it as painlessly and quickly as possible. Couple pages back, but Ouchi was a weird aberration where there's no solid explanation for why his medical staff undertook such herculean feats of futility to keep him alive. For those who died at Chernobyl of ARS, it was a matter of days rather than weeks or months. If someone got a fatal dose on that scale today, they would have options to refuse treatment and resuscitation. Most places still wouldn't permit euthanasia, but they also wouldn't go to any great lengths to keep you technically alive if your chromosomes were pureed. Skippy McPants fucked around with this message at 10:26 on Jun 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 10:21
|
|
|
Official blessing from god https://twitter.com/clmazin/status/1135934309439696896
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 10:22
|
|
|
Craig Mazin definitely getting his Cinderella moment. Good for him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 10:25
|
|
|
drunkill posted:Official blessing from god Ugh put these two in a room and make them make Jared Harris do something... 
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 10:29
|
|
|
Toxic Fart Syndrome posted:Ugh put these two in a room and make them make Jared Harris do something... Cast Jared Harris as a pimp in season 3 of The Deuce. I'm not joking 
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 10:33
|
|
|
TheShadowAvatar posted:Watching those control rods dance made my gut sink. Holy poo poo Look at 'um go! 
Skippy McPants fucked around with this message at 10:39 on Jun 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 10:33
|
|
|
Necrothatcher posted:Just caught up on the thread and the show. Parts of it gave me strong flashbacks to the Fukushima/Tsunami livethread in GBS on 2011. There were lots of people understandably worried about the reactors melting down and a radioactivity leak, only to be met by a squadron of overly confident armchair nuclear experts. They explained that there was no conceivable way a modern reactor could fail like this, that the idea of a leak of radioactive material was totally ridiculous and that the plant was specifically designed for scenarios like this. Any criticism was dismissed as uninformed scaremongering against nuclear power. tbf the radioactive material itself didn't leak, it was all kept in the containment vessels, it was all that seawater they had to throw on it that became radioactive as a byproduct that leaked. i will say this unequivocally: there were no spicy rocks at fukushima
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 10:37
|
|
|
Necrothatcher posted:Just caught up on the thread and the show. Parts of it gave me strong flashbacks to the Fukushima/Tsunami livethread in GBS on 2011. There were lots of people understandably worried about the reactors melting down and a radioactivity leak, only to be met by a squadron of overly confident armchair nuclear experts. They explained that there was no conceivable way a modern reactor could fail like this, that the idea of a leak of radioactive material was totally ridiculous and that the plant was specifically designed for scenarios like this. Any criticism was dismissed as uninformed scaremongering against nuclear power. The people leaving Tokyo was far more scared foreigners than it was Japanese people. There were huge differences in the way that the whole thing was dealt with by the international media vs the Japanese media, and I still resent it pretty badly for the amount of panic it caused for my friends and family.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 11:13
|
|
|
Yeah, a lot of people in that thread were 110% convinced that the reactor was now a ticking thermonuclear bomb that would kill tens of millions and turn all of Japan into an irradiated, Fallout-style wasteland.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 11:31
|
|
|
it would have been a fist of the north star wasteland tbf
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 11:40
|
|
|
Necrothatcher posted:Just caught up on the thread and the show. Parts of it gave me strong flashbacks to the Fukushima/Tsunami livethread in GBS on 2011. There were lots of people understandably worried about the reactors melting down and a radioactivity leak, only to be met by a squadron of overly confident armchair nuclear experts. They explained that there was no conceivable way a modern reactor could fail like this, that the idea of a leak of radioactive material was totally ridiculous and that the plant was specifically designed for scenarios like this. Any criticism was dismissed as uninformed scaremongering against nuclear power. Those people were right though? In the end, even the evacuation is considered to be somewhat of a mistake, as it caused more deaths and suffering than the very limited radiation would have. The Fukushima reactors were much much safer than the Chernobyl one and the same thing could absolutely not happen with them (for all the reasons that Jarred Harris so perfectly explained in the last episode).
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 11:53
|
|
|
Skippy McPants posted:Couple pages back, but Ouchi was a weird aberration where there's no solid explanation for why his medical staff undertook such herculean feats of futility to keep him alive. For those who died at Chernobyl of ARS, it was a matter of days rather than weeks or months. My takeaway is that if you work with nuclear reactors you should have a living will with clear do not resuscitate orders if you were to get radiation sickness. And make drat sure that poo poo is legally binding.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 12:06
|
|
|
Finished the show. I'm not prepared to jump on the hyperbole bandwagon and say its the best TV show of all time, since it's only 5 episodes compared to 60+ for the likes of Sopranos, Mad Men, Breaking Bad. But I will definately say the quality of the 5 episodes is the highest of all shows. I can't even say what my favourite episode or moment is - there is no drop off at all in any of the episodes. Regarding the final episode, I work in IT and have had that sinking feeling when something has gone wrong. To think what was going through those guys heads in that control room when the reactor started going out of control boggles the mind. I probably would have started puking even before the explosion. What was the latest stage in the sequence of events when disaster could have been avoided? I take it as soon as the reactor started spiking power there was no way out given the problem with the graphite on the control rods (ie no actual way to perform the emergency shutdown). Nuclear power is so interesting. It's a pity the amount of stigma it has, I really do think despite Chernobyl and Fukushima we should have more of it. Not only is it clean, but after the startup costs it seems really cheap to run - there were only 10 people working that night? Or is that per reactor so 40 total at Chernobyl. What is the key reason why some materials make good nuclear fuel and others don't? I understand the concept of radiation and molecules hitting each other, splitting and releasing energy - is uranium just the best/only material that has the property of those molecules firing away from each other in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 12:17
|
|
|
Make a sequel about the 2009 incident at the Sayano-Shushenskaya hydroelectric power station. Call it Chernobyl 2: Hydroelectric Boogaloo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 12:27
|
|
|
This is obviously a huge hypothetical and it didn't happen this way...but would there have been a less politically suicidal way to point out the flaws in the RBMK reactors? Instead of "wow look at all these lies and coverups" frame it as "due to a regrettable design oversight, putting the graphite tip into the reactor under these circumstances is bad"
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 12:42
|
|
|
kaesarsosei posted:What was the latest stage in the sequence of events when disaster could have been avoided? I take it as soon as the reactor started spiking power there was no way out given the problem with the graphite on the control rods (ie no actual way to perform the emergency shutdown). Someone with more knowledge can correct me, but I think it's whichever was last between disabling the coolant pumps or yanking too many control rods. Yeah, once power spiked that was it that because their SCRAM button only made the problem worse. Also, the show doesn't point it out, but on top of the SCRAM system being fatally flawed thanks to graphite-tipped control rods, the crew didn't even know that RBMK reactors have a high void coefficient, Wikipedia posted:The reactor had a dangerously large positive void coefficient of reactivity. The void coefficient is a measurement of how a reactor responds to increased steam formation in the water coolant. Most other reactor designs have a negative coefficient, i.e. the nuclear reaction rate slows when steam bubbles form in the coolant, since as the vapour phase in the reactor increases, fewer neutrons are slowed down. Faster neutrons are less likely to split uranium atoms, so the reactor produces less power (a negative feedback). Chernobyl's RBMK reactor, however, used solid graphite as a neutron moderator to slow down the neutrons, and the water in it, on the contrary, acts like a harmful neutron absorber. Thus neutrons are slowed down even if steam bubbles form in the water. Furthermore, because steam absorbs neutrons much less readily than water, increasing the intensity of vaporization means that more neutrons are able to split uranium atoms, increasing the reactor's power output. This makes the RBMK design very unstable at low power levels, and prone to suddenly increasing energy production to a dangerous level. This behaviour is counter-intuitive, and this property of the reactor was unknown to the crew. They thought it was safer to run the reactor at low power than it actually was. Skippy McPants fucked around with this message at 12:47 on Jun 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 12:44
|
|
|
Anne Whateley posted:What I disagree with is the huge opportunity for a missed theme. What caused Chernobyl? Siloing of information, an absolutely garbage hostile team, and disrespect for scientists. What fixed Chernobyl? A bunch of scientists coming together, cooperating, sharing information and using scientific principles to figure out what happened and how to fix it as a functioning team that respects each other. A bit late, but I agree. My favourite scene in Apollo 13 is when the group of engineers and scientists are sitting in a room, the boss man shows up, throws a box of stuff at them, and tells them this is what they've got on the ship, you nerds figure out how to make an air filter out of it. Same principle.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 12:53
|
|
|
jivjov posted:This is obviously a huge hypothetical and it didn't happen this way...but would there have been a less politically suicidal way to point out the flaws in the RBMK reactors? Instead of "wow look at all these lies and coverups" frame it as "due to a regrettable design oversight, putting the graphite tip into the reactor under these circumstances is bad" It would have been hard: - the problem had been pointed out earlier and disregarded, even in other incidents (which were covered up as well), which spoke badly to the dynamics in the scientific and military institutions - the training and communication issues only emphasized that - the "friendly atom" of civilian nuclear power was a point of pride for the soviet union, who were the first country to use nuclear power for civilian use, and used it as a device to oppose the Western-style military usage of atomic power. That a problem exists where the technology is risky hurt a lot of their plans - Science was super important ideologically to the soviets, and the RBMK was the one true soviet-designed reactor. That their homegrown design was faulty and that they should reverse to the water-water designs of the West would be a huge problem for their whole ideology. This was one of the reasons prior coverups happened in the first place. - the RBMK design had been approved for production in civilian reactors before the design had even been completed, and was initially refused; they needed to "patch up" the theoretical design to rush it to production because the central planning had already decided it would be live in a few years. This could then throw a wrench into the whole "planned economy" thing they had going on, since it indicated a lack of safety in their timelines. The truth is that even if it was an oversight, admitting to the fault required admitting to all the other prior coverups already, and all the other existing problem. This was more of a culmination of it all than the first breakthrough. They were already way too far down the path to go "woopsie we messed up" MononcQc fucked around with this message at 13:05 on Jun 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 13:02
|
|
|
Skippy McPants posted:Look at 'um go! How much did they say those weight again/ 750 kilo or something?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 13:12
|
|
|
Dalael posted:How much did they say those weight again/ 750 kilo or something? Yup, for most boiling water reactors it's a mass of ~750 to 830kg depending on the reactor type. 750 is the usual value for RBMK iirc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 13:17
|
|
|
kaesarsosei posted:Finished the show. I'm not prepared to jump on the hyperbole bandwagon and say its the best TV show of all time, since it's only 5 episodes compared to 60+ for the likes of Sopranos, Mad Men, Breaking Bad. But I will definately say the quality of the 5 episodes is the highest of all shows. I can't even say what my favourite episode or moment is - there is no drop off at all in any of the episodes. The problem with nuclear reactors is that while they are cheap to run, they are incredibly expensive & complex to build and there is so much red tape associated with it that most nuclear reactors getting built in the US get cancelled before seeing the light of day. And they're usually cancelled after billions have been spent. http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx https://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/cost-nuclear-power
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 13:24
|
|
|
kaesarsosei posted:What was the latest stage in the sequence of events when disaster could have been avoided? Not an expert, obviously. Just an armchair nuclear powerplant operator here, but I'd say the moment where power dipped below 30MW. At that point the engineers had the right idea in doing a full shutdown and allowing 24 hours to bring the power back up. Dyatlov's decision to raise the power immediately sealed the fate of the plant, as doing so required removing all of the 'brakes' from the reaction and relying soley on the flawed control rods as an emergency stop. Shutting down the pumps obviously didn't help, but if I understand it right the plant was already heading for disaster even if the pumps were kept running. The rods would have had to be reinserted sooner or later to resume normal operation which would have caused the same power spike, leading to the same result.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 13:30
|
|
|
kaesarsosei posted:What is the key reason why some materials make good nuclear fuel and others don't? I understand the concept of radiation and molecules hitting each other, splitting and releasing energy - is uranium just the best/only material that has the property of those molecules firing away from each other in the first place? That was a question I asked myself, too, a good while ago and I had a friend who works in nuclear science to take me through a wild journey of studying the basics of nuclear physics to understand it. The relatively easy to understand and basic explanation is this (anyone feel free to correct me, I'm no expert): There are not only three kinds of radiation that you know (Alpha, Beta and Gamma) but there are a lot more of ways an atom can fall apart. This happens due to its mass, but also due to quantum mechanics and the infamous quantum tunneling, that basically just fucks with our classic understanding of how physics work. Alpha, Beta and Gamma radiation are by far the most common ones and also those who happen naturally all the time. Other kinds are rare, but you can raise the odds by artificially creating super massive atoms that turn funky compared to their natural, more common isotopes (for example, enriched uranium vs. natural uranium). Neither of those common radiation types however are directly usable to start a chain reaction, as the first one shoots out helium ions, the second one shoots out electrons or positrons, the third one is basically pure energy somewhat similar to light. What you need to make nuclear fission possible is neutron radiation, that is a rare form of radioactivity where only a single neutron leaves the nucleus and then indirectly ionizes the stuff it hits (neutrons are neutral, of course, so they can't do it directly) by causing a nuclear reaction in the other atom's core, causing energy levels to rise and the entire atom turning into an energetically elevated state. A material you want for a reactor, and also for nuclear weapons for that matter, needs to emit this kind of radiation on a somewhat regular basis, at best without the need of packing 200 tons of it onto each other. So, once you have that as basis, in order for a nuclear reactor to work on a meaningful scale, you need a material that a) produces enough energy to be worth the gigantic costs and effort, b) can sustain a nuclear chain reaction over a long period of time without being interrupted and without the steady need of pumping more fuel into the reactor, c) is not only sustainable, but controllable, that means you have to be able to control the speed of the neutrons that fly around the reactor by slowing it down using a moderator and you can stop the reaction by absorbing the neutrons entirely, d) needs to be a material that is quite common in the earth, e) does not fall apart into a non-radiating material instantly after it fell apart once, as that would poison the reactor in no time, making it useless and, f) don't absorb the neutron that hit you, but split into more parts while releasing more neutrons, else there could never even start a chain reaction in the first place. The only materials that we so far have on an industrial scale is Uranium and Plutonium. There are other options, like Thorium for example in an experimental reactor type called Molten Salt Reactor, but that's still in testing phase and might have unusable dangerous downsides. Plutonium is actually even way better than Uranium, which is why we use it in part for reactors, too, but it's hard to find and also is generated in the reactor itself, so it's cheaper and easier to start with Uranium. Those metals have the ability to eject neutrons from their core, absorb neutrons in a matter of a few femtoseconds to then fall into two different minerals while ejecting more neutrons than you got hit by (thus provide the foundation for a chain reaction to happen), are relatively cheap to obtain (Uranium at least, Plutonium you can however generate using Uranium, so that's a bonus) and control it using moderators to slow down the neutrons to increase the chance of hitting another atom successfully (Graphite for RBMK in Chernobyl, Water or Deuterium for most western nuclear reactors, some alternative concepts use various gases or certain salts) and you can stop the chain reaction by absorbing a good part if not all wild neutrons using control rods and various chemical you put in the coolant or moderator, like Boron. Plus, you can recycle those materials once they are burned out by shooting more stuff at them and re-energize the atoms that way to re-form the original Uranium atom. Goons Are Gifts fucked around with this message at 13:51 on Jun 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 13:46
|
|
|
Just done watching the series, i have nothing but commendations for the incredible work done in the series. While parts have been changed to make it more palatable, it has always been a light touch. I would guess that another series could be done about Vajont, it was man made and happened due to gross incompetence on the designers so there are some links with chernobyl. There are a good documentary and a rather dry drama movie already but i would love if Mazin and crew would give it a shot
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 13:50
|
|
|
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2019/04/04/chernobyl-syndrome/ Apparently shooting all the animals wasn't enough, the Soviets decided to actually get some use out of them: quote:The State Committee of Industrial Agriculture had 50,000 animals rounded up and slaughtered during the evacuation from the Zone, and their radioactive wool, hides, and meat sent to different cities for processing. Brown’s findings in a Kiev archive led her to Chernihiv, in northern Ukraine, where workers at a wool factory requested the same benefits received by those who had been at the site of the reactor explosion. The workers had held the Chernobyl wool in their hands and inhaled its fibers. Soon their noses started to bleed, and they became dizzy, nauseous, and fatigued. Their managers pushed them to fulfill their quotas anyway. [...] Moscow agronomists explained how to make sausage with an “acceptable” amount of radioactive meat, and Chernobyl sausages were distributed across the USSR without special labeling. All in all, a pretty interesting article that adds even more context. Worth a look! Also, 'chernobyl sausages' is the perfect way to describe the miners.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 13:58
|
|
|
On the topic of nuclear power, is the modern understanding that fusion is essentially impossible as power source? There's the "always 20 years out" thing that used to be said, but it seems like any more the materials to make it work just aren't possible without magic sci-fi capacitors and magnets.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 14:17
|
|
|
ZorajitZorajit posted:On the topic of nuclear power, is the modern understanding that fusion is essentially impossible as power source? There's the "always 20 years out" thing that used to be said, but it seems like any more the materials to make it work just aren't possible without magic sci-fi capacitors and magnets. Fusion is definitely possible, and has been proven to work on multiple occasions. It generates energy and can be reliably contained. The only small snag is that starting and maintaining the reaction costs more energy than the reaction produces. Lowering the energy required to maintain the reaction (or increasing the output) is the final hurdle that scientists are trying to overcome now. I believe a year or two ago they actually managed to produce energy from a fusion reactor during one of the many experiments, but as with anything these things take time to analyze, check, reproduce reliably, etc. Even if they found the last piece of the puzzle today it would probably take another 10 years before the first commercially operated fusion plant is fully up and running and delivering power.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 14:33
|
|
|
ZorajitZorajit posted:On the topic of nuclear power, is the modern understanding that fusion is essentially impossible as power source? There's the "always 20 years out" thing that used to be said, but it seems like any more the materials to make it work just aren't possible without magic sci-fi capacitors and magnets. "It's just 30 years away" is a long standing joke in that community but recent advances in the technology are apparently very promising. My very limited understanding of it is that the main issue is to be able to maintain in place the plasma created which as of 2019, we are able to hold for approximately 1 minute. If it ever works tho holy poo poo... quote:General Atomics, a manufacturer of the powerful magnets necessary for fusion plasma containment, estimates that a working reactor would only need 11 pounds of hydrogen to generate the energy equivalent of 18,750 tons of coal, 56,000 barrels of oil or 755 acres of solar panels – an amazing feat of science and technology.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 14:34
|
|
|
edit: beatenZorajitZorajit posted:On the topic of nuclear power, is the modern understanding that fusion is essentially impossible as power source? There's the "always 20 years out" thing that used to be said, but it seems like any more the materials to make it work just aren't possible without magic sci-fi capacitors and magnets. Oh no, not at all, but the research kinda split up between one main concept that proved to be probably impossible to realize towards one out of two concepts that might actually work, one of which seems to be at least somewhat realistic to work, once some crucial technical difficulties, mainly the temperature and the sustainability, are figured out. The basic concept behind the today research for this is that you take hydrogenisotopes, put it into a huge rear end metal torus and then heat up the hydrogen towards 250 million degrees Kelvin. At that temperature the entire stuff is turned into a plasma with no more electrons bound towards each other and the energy is so incredibly high that the energy the atoms receive from outside is enough to overcome the so far strongest force we know in physics, being the magnetic force that keeps atoms apart. Once that is done, the atoms come together and may fuse into helium, releasing more energy than we ever remotely generated with any fission reactor ever. A reactor that works like this is the ITER, built in France, it already created some promising results as they managed to create this plasma for a good moment using external electromagnetic cages in 2016. An additional alternative reactor with another concept was finished in 2015 in Germany. Also there were successes regarding stability and security regarding the plasma, the main problem remains the energy output and the sustainability, as the plasma turns too cold too soon. It is estimated that these problems won't be solved on an industrial scale until 2050, so it still has a long way to go, but research continues. Goons Are Gifts fucked around with this message at 14:38 on Jun 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 14:35
|
|
|
Sentient AI and eternal fusion energy is just around the corner (not in our lifetime)
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 14:39
|
|
|
The real downer with this show is that it seems like a lot of people's take away is "nuclear power is really bad and dangerous." Which, ya it's dangerous, but plants in the west (and even in Eastern Europe) just don't have the same conditions that made Chernobyl so bad and Nuclear is the most viable large-scale solution to global warming (from a cost-benefit standpoint). At least in the short-term. poo poo, the cancer and radiation associated with coal (mining and burning) has killed FAR more people than nuclear ever will. Collapsing Farts posted:Sentient AI and eternal fusion energy is just around the corner (not in our lifetime) Better battery tech combined with wind/solar is probably the next big green breakthrough that will make a global difference if nuclear isn't on the table.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 14:50
|
|
|
So the next logical question about fusion - it's easier to make a fission bomb than a fission reactor right? So would a fusion bomb be easier than a fusion reactor, and what kinda yield would such a thing have?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 14:55
|
|
|
I don’t think the show presented it that way at all. If anything, the show is really pointing out that the accident was caused by people treating nuclear power flippantly. The main hero is the one constantly treating it with the respect it deserves. He never once treats nuclear energy as bad or dangerous. Only when he learns of what others are doing does he sound the alarms.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 14:58
|
|
|
kaesarsosei posted:So the next logical question about fusion - it's easier to make a fission bomb than a fission reactor right? So would a fusion bomb be easier than a fusion reactor, and what kinda yield would such a thing have? Pretty much all modern nuclear weapons are fusion bombs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermonuclear_weapon
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 15:02
|
|
|
kaesarsosei posted:What was the latest stage in the sequence of events when disaster could have been avoided? I take it as soon as the reactor started spiking power there was no way out given the problem with the graphite on the control rods (ie no actual way to perform the emergency shutdown). There were multiple times it should have been stopped and they were crystal clear to the operators. Right up till they started the test the crisis could have been averted as all the steps taken up to that point primed the reactor for failure the moment they started the test. Hypothetically maybe even a bit later into the test if the emergency water tanks had been active, but Dyatlov had them locked out so if the test did not work they could rev the reactor back up and try again. But as soon as the test initiated and the power to the feed pumps slowed, pressing the AZ-5 button was like hitting a detonator
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 15:04
|
|
|
kaesarsosei posted:So the next logical question about fusion - it's easier to make a fission bomb than a fission reactor right? So would a fusion bomb be easier than a fusion reactor, and what kinda yield would such a thing have? We've been building fusion bombs since the 1950s. Basic concept is using the physical and radiation pressure from a small fission bomb (primary) to compress and heat a cylinder of lithium-deuterium (secondary) to the point that fusion happens. Straight fission weapons have a theoretical upper limit somewhere between 500kt and 1mt. Fusion weapons, so far anyway, don't have a theoretical upper limit, but the size makes them impractical. Russia tested a Fission-Fusion bomb at 50MT in the 60's that was missing it's third stage (fission-fusion-fission) that would have pushed it into the 100MT range. It was so large they had to specially modify the bomber that carried it, including removal of the bomb bay doors. CommanderApaul fucked around with this message at 15:09 on Jun 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 15:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 03:42 |
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:Nuclear is the most viable large-scale solution to global warming (from a cost-benefit standpoint). At least in the short-term. I will never not fight this view. As I stated earlier, while a running nuclear power plant creates the cheapest form of electricity, the capital requirements to build one is huge and is more than what the private sector is willing to shell for 95% of the time. In the US at least, there are so much red tape that most nuclear reactors never see the light of day, after billions have been spent into them. Not only that, but the timeline required to build & test a plant means that any nuclear powerplant that starts construction today, will not produce power for an entire decade and is very likely to be cancelled before completion. I'm not against nuclear power, but I honestly don't think it's a viable short term solution. https://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/cost-nuclear-power https://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/cost-nuclear-power/florida-and-georgia-nuclear-power-projects-too-risky quote:Between 2002 and 2008, for example, cost estimates for new nuclear plant construction rose from between $2 billion and $4 billion per unit to $9 billion per unit, according to a 2009 UCS report, while experience with new construction in Europe has seen costs continue to soar. quote:Unproven Technology, Escalating Costs https://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/cost-nuclear-power/nuclear-power-subsidies-report quote:Government subsidies to the nuclear power industry over the past fifty years have been so large in proportion to the value of the energy produced that in some cases it would have cost taxpayers less to simply buy kilowatts on the open market and give them away, according to a February 2011 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists. Each of those links provide the full reports & fact sheets for those interested. It's pretty dry & boring stuff but it's there. The economics of it show that it's just not the best option. It's only touted as such because those who do usually don't bother looking into the cost of it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 15:09
|
|