|
I just watched this a few days ago and the scene with someone taking their baby out to bask in the fallout has stuck with me since and it makes me super sad everytime I think about it 
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 20:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 16:14 |
|
|
Bonzo posted:I heard an interview with David Crosby (the musician) and he said he thought nuclear was bad because "humans make mistakes". Funny because there have never been any oil spills or people driving tanker ships drunk or anything. this is a bad analogy because the area around the gulf of mexico is still arguably inhabitable by humans
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 20:24
|
|
|
Mr Luxury Yacht posted:I mean, there's a metric fuckton more safety protocols and safeguards compared to the water industry (because by comparison nobody thinks about giving a poo poo about water) and the reactors are fundamentally different designs than the RBMKs at Chernobyl without weird control rod designs and wacky dangerous high positive void coefficients but okay dude I guess you're right and we'll all turn into super mutants or something And short sighted Conservative governments could never gain power and make dangerous cutbacks again. Surely the public has learned their lesson! :jerkoff: Fwiw I think a lot of the new nuclear generating technology is very promising and I wish we were building reactors with it instead of rehabbing reactors that are past their shelf life. I'm seriously not an anti nuclear zealot, i just don't trust ideologically anti-regulation governments ( currently en vogue ) to keep us safe and question clustering them on (as I say) the shores of the greatest freshwater reserves on the planet. Build them up on James Bay instead and treat transmission loss as a cost of doing business.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 20:34
|
|
|
lol if you think it just goes without saying that we would never gently caress up that badly in america this is america, it's 2019, and donald trump is the president. be happy that we just hosed up choosing the president, and not taking lowball bids for a nuclear plant on a fault line
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 20:41
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:No matter how well done or accurate this show is done, that's what people will come away from it with. That this could have happened anywhere anytime and we should close all nuclear power plants. I wonder if the show will call out the RBMK design as bad, but I'm not sure that would help for the perception of nuclear power without one or more characters also turning straight to the camera and saying something like, "But Western designs like PWR are cool and good! *thumbs up*"
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 20:47
|
|
|
Fabulousity posted:I wonder if the show will call out the RBMK design as bad, but I'm not sure that would help for the perception of nuclear power without one or more characters also turning straight to the camera and saying something like, "But Western designs like PWR are cool and good! *thumbs up*" It wasn't just that the reactor design was bad IIRC, they had also actually manually overridden much of what there was of safety measures for a test or experiment of some kind which pushed the reactor and its systems to the limit and ultimately over the edge. You could maybe have focused on some of that and still gotten a good show. But the general public's misconceptions about nuclear power are in general so great that it probably won't matter. They see a disastrous industrial accident, they've probably heard about it from their parents or they remember it themselves. They and most of the people and media around them have always assumed that this is pretty much how nuclear power always is. I mean one of the main reasons fusion could really work as clean energy if it ever gets to the state where it's viable (keep on dreaming) is probably because most people don't think it's "nuclear power". Randarkman fucked around with this message at 20:55 on May 10, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 20:50
|
|
|
Chernobyl is my true crime. Like inject everything to do with that into my eyeballs.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 20:54
|
|
|
If you give someone a swirlie in a toilet in Pripyat what would happen to them?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 21:03
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:It wasn't just that the reactor design was bad IIRC, they had also actually manually overridden much of what there was of safety measures for a test or experiment of some kind which pushed the reactor and its systems to the limit and ultimately over the edge. That part might still be coming based on the couple of scenes where the control room guys basically say “we did everything right, right?” while trading meaningful glances.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 21:03
|
|
|
Chinatown posted:If you give someone a swirlie in a toilet in Pripyat what would happen to them? The toilets probably aren't still running. But if they were they'd get wet. Humans most likely could move back there with no real problems.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 21:05
|
|
|
Chinatown posted:If you give someone a swirlie in a toilet in Pripyat what would happen to them? Reactor? drat near killed her!
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 21:06
|
|
|
poverty goat posted:lol if you think it just goes without saying that we would never gently caress up that badly in america A thread about nuclear power, and we somehow figure out how to personally blame Donald Trump for potential future nuclear disasters. Impressive. All commercial reactors in the US operate under a negative void coefficient in their design. This means that upon loss of cooling, the reactor will drop its power output. This is different from a positive void coefficient (like Chernobyl) where the reaction actually increases in a positive feedback loop upon loss of cooling. The issue with all reactors, including negative void coefficient designs is the removal of residual heat after the reaction has stopped. That is what caused the meltdowns at Three Mile Island and Fukushima after a loss of mechanically pumped coolant. If those accidents had a reactor design like Chernobyl, the results would have been much worse. New reactor designs incorporate passive measures (such as convection and gravity fed coolant) to address this issue of a loss of the coolant pumps and/or loop. I also want to note that TMI and Fukushima are plants which were built in the 70s that suffered core meltdowns. Fukushima was hit with one of the worst recorded earthquakes in history followed by a 100' tidal wave. The casualty effects of meltdown was 1 cancer death attributed to radiation out of nearly 20,000 killed from the other effects of the earthquake. TMI had no recorded deaths, and marginal health impacts. I think the problem is that people hold nuclear power to a standard of perfection rather than the alternative.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 21:38
|
|
|
As it happens, we have data! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents Mortality rates per PWh generated: Nuclear power (US): 0.1 Nuclear power (global): 90 Coal (US): 10,000
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 21:45
|
|
|
The part when the fire brigade guy picks the chunk of graphite fuel channel and his buddy is just like "I dunno what that is, but don't gently caress with it!" is just, gently caress. Also, wading waist deep in reactor coolant. I'm really glad they've clearly gone the route of keeping to actual facts of the event. Chernobyl is so terrifying there's no reason to embellish. Having had many jobs where death is an ever present specter in the background, and being the typically "annoyingly safe/voice of reason" guy I often find someone much like myself in these films, and I know exactly who I would've been. When they call the day shift they walk up to a guy who is waiting in line and they start asking him what the code for the safe is so they can get the "good" dosimeter (the one that would burn out at 1,000 roentgens p/h) and he's just like "It's not in a safe, it's in the other building! How do you not know this!?" That's me, I'm that guy.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 21:48
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:I mean one of the main reasons fusion could really work as clean energy if it ever gets to the state where it's viable (keep on dreaming) is probably because most people don't think it's "nuclear power". Cause for optimism: There's tons of articles in newspapers and tech magazines from the past several decades saying it's only ten years away.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 22:00
|
|
|
on the other hand mom is goin fuckin hardcore https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpbAs9E966g
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 22:01
|
|
|
jeffery posted:on the other hand mom is goin fuckin hardcore idgi are we supposed to replace the score with this edm set?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 22:04
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 22:06
|
|
|
hell yeah radiation dance party, we’re all going to die
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 22:07
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 22:10
|
|
|
Aurora Borealis? (It's actually a blue beam of high energy radiation from the core making the air glow)
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 22:29
|
|
|
Wait the guy's name is Dyatlov. What are the chances this is connected to the Dyatlov's pass incident.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 22:30
|
|
|
Tinfoil Papercut posted:As it happens, we have data! Solar: 450
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 22:55
|
|
|
The nuke industry, at least in the US, is drat good about sharing reports about accidents, equipment failures, and injuries. In the few years I've been doing it I've only heard about a small handful of fatalities, excluding old fat guys' hearts giving out in the shitter and things of that nature. None of the fatalities I have read about we're radiological in nature. Just garden variety industrial accidents.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 23:15
|
|
|
I think another nuclear energy boogeyman is the waste. Everyone says that nuclear waste is pretty much bad forever. I know there has to be some aspect of fear mongering mixed in there.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 23:21
|
|
|
I though that was the main hurdle preventing wider adoption of nuclear power. Nobody knows what to do with the waste, other than bury it in the middle of a desert and construct abstract warnings for people 8000 years from now
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 23:23
|
|
|
they should make a suite of these mini series set in the 80s, next one should be the challenger explosion
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 23:31
|
|
|
That's what should be happening, yes. Instead Nevada threw a NIMBY fit over a piece of barren useless desert so the planned facility never really happened. Now it sits safely in fuel pools and dry casks on nuclear sites across the nation and the federal government pays a penalty to power companies because of this since it failed to provide said facility. It's all very stupid, but not hazardous. E: that's just fuel I'm talking about though. Just straight up rad trash gets processed and disposed of, a process that honestly I know little about.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 23:32
|
|
|
I read about these three dudes that had to drain the coolant pool under the reactor. Apparently the lava flow from the melted fuel rods and graphite and concrete and poo poo was melting through the floors and if it hit the coolant pools there would be a huge steam explosion that would have made a lot more people die. So they went in wearing wet suits and had to manually open the valves in waist deep radioactive water. The weird thing is all western sources said they all three died right after their mission until a couple years ago two of the three guys were given medals by the Ukrainian government. All three of them survived with one dying a few years ago. How did they avoid dying that close to the reactor with both the biological shields blown out of place and standing in the radioactive water?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 23:33
|
|
|
Necros posted:I read about these three dudes that had to drain the coolant pool under the reactor. Apparently the lava flow from the melted fuel rods and graphite and concrete and poo poo was melting through the floors and if it hit the coolant pools there would be a huge steam explosion that would have made a lot more people die. So they went in wearing wet suits and had to manually open the valves in waist deep radioactive water. The weird thing is all western sources said they all three died right after their mission until a couple years ago two of the three guys were given medals by the Ukrainian government. All three of them survived with one dying a few years ago. How did they avoid dying that close to the reactor with both the biological shields blown out of place and standing in the radioactive water? Probably the very water that makes that situation seem so scary. Water is loving excellent shielding. I worked in a fuel transfer canal last season and it was deliberately flooded for that very reason. I worked on that fuel cart in hip waders. Even nasty water might be safer to be in rather than all the screaming hot poo poo on the floor shining directly on you.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 23:36
|
|
|
Necros posted:I read about these three dudes that had to drain the coolant pool under the reactor. Apparently the lava flow from the melted fuel rods and graphite and concrete and poo poo was melting through the floors and if it hit the coolant pools there would be a huge steam explosion that would have made a lot more people die. So they went in wearing wet suits and had to manually open the valves in waist deep radioactive water. The weird thing is all western sources said they all three died right after their mission until a couple years ago two of the three guys were given medals by the Ukrainian government. All three of them survived with one dying a few years ago. How did they avoid dying that close to the reactor with both the biological shields blown out of place and standing in the radioactive water? you can soak up a lot of rads without dying immediately. it really depends on where you are and how much radiation you're getting hit with i mean, maybe the guys got cancer earlier than they would have Rad-daddio posted:I think another nuclear energy boogeyman is the waste. Everyone says that nuclear waste is pretty much bad forever. I know there has to be some aspect of fear mongering mixed in there. radiation is like a fire in that the hotter it is, the faster it burns out. waste which is dangerous forever, is less dangerous than waste which is only dangerous for a little while. and a ton of nuclear waste isn't drums full of glowing spent fuel, but rather irradiated equipment like gloves and tools or building materials and other nuclear-adjacent stuff which won't kill you anytime soon but still needs to be rounded up and collected in one spot
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 23:44
|
|
|
why don't any of them have radios
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 23:44
|
|
|
Honky Dong Country posted:That's what should be happening, yes. Instead Nevada threw a NIMBY fit over a piece of barren useless desert so the planned facility never really happened. Now it sits safely in fuel pools and dry casks on nuclear sites across the nation and the federal government pays a penalty to power companies because of this since it failed to provide said facility. Before you store it there's also the posibility of recycling spent fuel for use as fuel in other types of reactors. This is done to some degree in several countries already (France and India at least IIRC) with plans to further develop it, this would at least cut down on the amount of plutonium in the waste (which is typically the thing that takes long to decay, the actual fission products are typically extremely radioactive and decay quickly so with them you only really need to store the waste for some months to years until it is safer to move). I think this could be done several times over (might be what the "plans to further develop" is) as I assume each time you still get a bunch of uranium with you into the fuel together with the plutonium, which again will mean there will be more plutonium in the waste which might be recycled again.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 23:45
|
|
|
Honky Dong Country posted:That's what should be happening, yes. Instead Nevada threw a NIMBY fit over a piece of barren useless desert so the planned facility never really happened. Now it sits safely in fuel pools and dry casks on nuclear sites across the nation and the federal government pays a penalty to power companies because of this since it failed to provide said facility. The past is a huge obstacle in further nuclear adoption. In the PNW, all we hear about Hanford are the costs, and bungling that are coming from the cleanup, and the negligence of the past. Also the Trojan plant fiasco, and the never-activated Satsop plant. But, are any of the small-scale projects progressing at all?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 23:53
|
|
|
You mean stuff like NuScale? Far as I know it's still going through the NRC. Hopefully it's goes through and into service because it's really loving awesome.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 00:06
|
|
|
why do they have to make huge loving reactors and not the ones they use on all the ships
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 00:14
|
|
|
ethanol posted:why do they have to make huge loving reactors and not the ones they use on all the ships Output. But that is the trend I see most promise in right now. That NuScale design is a lil guy that only puts out about 60 megawatts but is designed to be modular. So basically you can build a mostly empty facility with a few in there and add more as demand goes up. There's a lot of other really great benefits to the design too, like there being no need for mechanically pumped cooling so a total loss of power isn't even a threat like it is to most reactors due to losing reactor cooling pumps. That's why most plants have a redundant amount of diesel generators.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 00:20
|
|
|
ethanol posted:why do they have to make huge loving reactors and not the ones they use on all the ships edit:bad guess schmug fucked around with this message at 00:24 on May 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 00:20
|
|
|
Yep. Naval reactors aren't as safe either. That's not to say they're dangerous, but they're not as safe as most civilian designs. E: quick internet search shows even a Nimitz only produces like 100MW and drives the screws. Most the units I've worked on are ~1000MW Honky Dong Country fucked around with this message at 00:24 on May 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 00:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 16:14 |
|
|
Honky Dong Country posted:Yep. Naval reactors aren't as safe either. That's not to say they're dangerous, but they're not as safe as most civilian designs. yeah. Something tells me that with all the "evil" that reactors are thought to be I doubt having a bunch of house size ones in every town is ever going to fly- safe or not.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 00:28
|
|