|
DELETE CASCADE posted:i mean normally i'd agree with you and i'm pro-nuclear personally but i'm not sure that "gently caress up over and over until you have sufficient experience to do it right" is advisable re: nuclear reactors I guess we can just wait for received knowledge from the Atomic Gods to teach us how to build reactors? In the mean-time we can build more coal-fired plants. But really the idea is that large Capital Intensive projects like Bridges, Nuclear Reactors, Dams, railroads and misc infrastrucutre will all have similiar pitfalls/project planning problems/contracting issues etc, and as you get better and more comfortable with the scope/scale of these projects you will be able to run them smoother and get them built faster. But if we never attempt to build these things within a humans professional life, then we will be starting from zero every time.
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 18:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 07:51 |
|
|
We did all the loving up over and over back in the day and now we do know how to build nuclear reactors correctly. Or at least we did as of the early 90s. But by then everyone was all scared of Three Mile Island (no actual harm came to anyone) and Chernobyl (ancient incredibly unsafe design that would never get built today) so we weren't allowed to build any of the new good reactors
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 18:51
|
|
|
and now i'm reminded of the time the us government realized they had no idea how to make one of the key components in miniaturized thermonuclear weapons anymore, and most of the people who did had retired, been let go, or were straight up dead so they had to start from scratch. couldn't have anything to do with cutting funding to basically every government agency and having public/private partnerships to run national labs and other institutions thanks to neoliberal doctrine and market fundamentalism, i'm sure
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2022 01:06
|
|
|
bumping the nuclear thread because people wont stop talking about it in the other thread
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 16:39
|
|
|
thank you for your service
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 16:45
|
|
|
how can silicon valley disrupt the nuclear industry? maybe Blockchain could be involved?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 16:50
|
|
|
small modular reactors as a service
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 16:54
|
|
|
Kazinsal posted:small modular reactors as a service a chicken in every pot and a reactor on every block https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/08/31/a-very-fast-very-safe-very-sllim-nuclear-reactor/
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 16:57
|
|
|
disaster pastor posted:hey, Netflix has a new miniseries on Three Mile Island, and after two episodes, my official opinion is that it's loving trash. just constant sensationalist crap and melodrama to overshadow the facts, interviews with locals who say little other than "they showed us the science but I was scared because I knew the science was wrong," and Michio Kaku, perpetual dumbass, as their physicist. forgot about this lovely show. I never bothered watching the rest and never saw 3MI appear in the Discourse around that time, so it seems like everyone was in agreement. good job
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 20:10
|
|
|
rotor posted:bumping the nuclear thread because people wont stop talking about it in the other thread sick
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 20:15
|
|
|
(from radiation poisoning)
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 20:38
|
|
|
three mile island more like five alarm chili
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 15:41
|
|
|
Three Mile Island was so tiny in the grand scheme that all it really deserved was one of those 10 minute CSB animations. Instead, thanks to the media response it got, it's significantly responsible for killing nuclear power development in the USA
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 16:45
|
|
|
yeah i watched the first ep of the three mile show and decided i can skip that poo poo they saw the buzz about Chernobyl (the show) and said "oh we can do a nuclear accident show too! go usa!" and then completely missed every single thing about Chernobyl that was interesting and good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 17:02
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Three Mile Island was so tiny in the grand scheme that all it really deserved was one of those 10 minute CSB animations. Instead, thanks to the media response it got, it's significantly responsible for killing nuclear power development in the USA maybe they can retract the stories to get nuclear back on track?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 17:07
|
|
|
Kazinsal posted:small modular reactors as a service mutually assured destruction as a service (madaas) obviously
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 20:03
|
|
|
the chernobyl show was good
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2022 08:08
|
|
|
nm what’s chernobyl with you?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2022 08:21
|
|
|
Just watched Chernobyl, found myself googling stuff constantly to check if stuff was real. The danger they described for a possible steam explosion was clearly ludicrous. Overall pretty well done I think, would have liked some stuff about building the containment structure but maybe watching concrete dry is too full for HBO
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2022 11:09
|
|
|
distortion park posted:Just watched Chernobyl, found myself googling stuff constantly to check if stuff was real. The danger they described for a possible steam explosion was clearly ludicrous. Overall pretty well done I think, would have liked some stuff about building the containment structure but maybe watching concrete dry is too full for HBO maybe it's that it sounds ludicrous to us now, because we have more complete information about what happened, and all. but when you think about how the people must have felt in the moment trying to understand wtf is going on and fixing it, i think the show gives off the correct vibe kind of
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2022 11:19
|
|
|
distortion park posted:Just watched Chernobyl, found myself googling stuff constantly to check if stuff was real. The danger they described for a possible steam explosion was clearly ludicrous. 4lokos basilisk posted:maybe it's that it sounds ludicrous to us now, because we have more complete information about what happened, and all. bit of both. the steam explosion as they described it in the show (a multiple-megaton blast that annihilates the Ukrainian and Byelorussian SSRs) was and is ludicrous. maybe two scientists ever have posited that that could have happened and I think the second was a protege of the first. but it's the sensationalists who get quoted in the english-language sources, and then it becomes canon in the west. a steam explosion at all, though, was very possible, and would have been disastrous in its own right, especially given the info they had at the time. best case, it would certainly have wrecked what containment there was of reactor 4, killing a bunch more people and spreading enough radioactivity to overshadow the initial explosion. worst case, it could have been large enough to blow up some or all of the other reactors as well, killing almost everyone on site and leaving four reactors' worth of fuel exposed and uncontrolled. it's an hour drive from Chernobyl to Kyiv and there are a bunch of cities within that radius; even the best-case would have had the govt and on-site crew freaking out about the possibilities and trying to prevent them. to me that whole discussion suffers a bit from imo one of the show's few legit misfires: Emily Watson's character standing in for a trillion scientists from all over the USSR participating and advising. i get that they had a bunch of characters already and it's tough to sell people as important and relevant experts when they pop up in one scene and then you never see them again, so I don't have a problem with the character in concept. in practice, though, she's written to constantly be the one who corrects Legasov and Shcherbina when they're wrong. so when she convinces them of something you're clearly supposed to believe that what the three of them are saying is now factual. in this case, nope. distortion park posted:Overall pretty well done I think, would have liked some stuff about building the containment structure but maybe watching concrete dry is too full for HBO pretty sure Mazin said he originally included it but couldn't keep it interesting and couldn't find the right way to tie it into the story anyway. iirc, what was in there at all (other than clearing the roof so they could build the thing to begin with) got cut when he realized he could do the show in five episodes instead of six.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2022 12:51
|
|
|
if there had been a steam explosion, incalculably larger amounts of ionizing radiactive material would've been spread throughout wide swaths of eurasia
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2022 13:40
|
|
|
yup. it would have been unimaginably catastrophic even without the exaggerated effects the show quoted. they needed to prevent the possibility of any steam explosion. (which, as it turned out, wasn't actually likely; there was already melted corium coming through, hitting the water, and not exploding, but they couldn't have known that and they couldn't take the chance.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2022 13:58
|
|
|
the core is made from corium
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2022 14:03
|
|
|
I need a lot of copium for my melting corium
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2022 14:22
|
|
|
fart simpson posted:the core is made from corium other way around, corium is made of the core.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2022 15:35
|
|
|
chernobyl is an excellent dramatization with excellent actors and excellent cinematography. on technical details its better than most i'd say, and while it's obviously not completely accurate the rationale there is understandable imo. a bunch of scientific detail would probably go straight over 98% of the audience's heads and make their eyes glaze over while still alienating probably half of the remainder because there wasn't enough and the other half because it would make the plot drag the level of detail is super impressive though, imo, and within the constraints of a serialized drama i think they did a great job. it would have been unrealistic to expect them to cast two dozen people instead of compositing them into emily watson's character and its more than likely they would not have delivered as good a performance the series is also super good at ratcheting up a sort of existential horror, particularly if you know enough about the accident or just nuclear poo poo in general. to do that the writing, directing and acting had to be pretty tight, or else it becomes farcical or boring all told imo it's definitely one of the best series i've seen in recent years
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2022 16:05
|
|
|
Agreed, making what is visually an industrial accident + fire into a gripping 5 part series without completely walking over the facts is pretty impressive. The only thing that tonally bothered me was them making the evacuation of the city into a creepy authoritarian thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2022 17:03
|
|
|
distortion park posted:Agreed, making what is visually an industrial accident + fire into a gripping 5 part series without completely walking over the facts is pretty impressive. they should have let people vote to stay or not
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2022 17:03
|
|
|
I liked how it came out at the same time as the last season of game of thrones, and the ice king and his legion of the dead just fell completely flat as a scary villain compared to some spicy graphite bricks
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2022 17:25
|
|
|
spicy bricks vs spicy dicks
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2022 20:28
|
|
|
yeah, I don't want to just be critical, the show is legit great and does an amazing job turning the real-life events into a fairly accurate and tonally appropriate drama. I'd recommend it to anyone who has any interest at all, and a number of people who don't already have interest, too. most of my nitpicks are just nitpicks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2022 23:32
|
|
|
disaster pastor posted:yeah, I don't want to just be critical, the show is legit great and does an amazing job turning the real-life events into a fairly accurate and tonally appropriate drama. I'd recommend it to anyone who has any interest at all, and a number of people who don't already have interest, too. most of my nitpicks are just nitpicks. enough! *bangs gavel, confers with party officials* either you hate it or you love it. which is it!?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2022 23:43
|
|
|
Carthag Tuek posted:enough! *bangs gavel, confers with party officials* either you hate it or you love it. which is it!? love it!despite its imperfections
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2022 23:54
|
|
|
disaster pastor posted:love it!despite its imperfections alright but yea generally its very good and a lot of it is excellent (fares fares as the chechen veteran is fantastic) also lol at the dude not getting this: Carthag Tuek posted:theress like 50 scenes in chernobyl (hbo series) where somebody's boss tells them to go do a stupid thing & they do it because they dont want to get fired MariusLecter posted:Buddy, I got bad news about the soviet union for you
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2022 00:24
|
|
|
i mean, the inaccuracies are a little grating sometimes because of what they do get right (and therefore you know the producers knew better), but i don't really feel like there were enough of them to significantly detract from an otherwise excellent and sometimes terrifying drama
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2022 00:41
|
|
|
distortion park posted:The only thing that tonally bothered me was them making the evacuation of the city into a creepy authoritarian thing. They tried to shoehorn a lot of that. Like at the trial, apparently the scientist dude wasn't even there so there was no heroic speech about plant safety and how this was the fault of the authorities for only wanting the cheapest poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2022 02:28
|
|
|
Carthag Tuek posted:but yea generally its very good and a lot of it is excellent (fares fares as the chechen veteran is fantastic) he's super great, I want that guy in more stuff, preferably playing that same role Carthag Tuek posted:also lol at the dude not getting this: yeah, that's one of my genuine complaints: the show depicts people as being forced into poo poo by rear end in a top hat bosses when "they did it because it was their job" or even "they volunteered to do it" were far more common. Dyatlov was enough of an rear end in a top hat in real life that portraying him accurately wouldn't have made him a good guy, but instead they went way off the rails and made him a denialist mega-dick to drain all sympathy, then tried to give some back at the end by making him right about not being solely at fault. Akimov worked on the water flow because he thought the reactor was intact and would need the water, and he was the shift leader and that made it his job; Toptunov was explicitly told he could leave but came back to work with Akimov voluntarily, because he thought he could help. Sitnikov wasn't sent to the roof at gunpoint, he assessed the damage (and may not have gone to the roof at all) in his role as chief engineer, and then went to help Akimov as well because he also thought that was where he could do the most good. Shcherbina wasn't a dick to Legasov and didn't threaten to have anybody shot, we know from Legasov's writings how that helicopter ride went (they were anxious, Shcherbina asked about 3MI because it was the most famous accident to that point, Legasov explained it and also explained that the reactors were totally different so it probably wasn't relevant). Mazin is on the record that he wanted the allegory to western conservatives and climate change to come through strongly, and he didn't trust western audiences to understand that soviet citizens really did take enough pride in their jobs and their community to be dedicated workers and to go above and beyond, and even the ones who didn't knew they weren't going to accomplish anything by making waves. so he just had everyone's superiors be denialist (like conservatives are about climate change) and threatening (so that the audience doesn't wonder why the workers go along with it). it helps the allegory but it does the story and the people involved a disservice. or, in other words, Beeftweeter posted:the inaccuracies are a little grating sometimes because of what they do get right (and therefore you know the producers knew better), but i don't really feel like there were enough of them to significantly detract from an otherwise excellent and sometimes terrifying drama and re: qsvui posted:They tried to shoehorn a lot of that. Like at the trial, apparently the scientist dude wasn't even there so there was no heroic speech about plant safety and how this was the fault of the authorities for only wanting the cheapest poo poo. correct; while the trial scene is great, it's almost completely ahistorical. basically the only things that are factual are that all three were convicted, and that Dyatlov continued to argue both that the operators weren't at fault (partly true) and that he wasn't even in the room for the push to restore power (false, and he admitted as much after his release). but it's a really good episode!
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2022 03:50
|
|
|
Jonny 290 posted:after watching The Lighthouse the other day i wiki'd lighthouses and of course was reminded of the soviet rtg-powered ones in the middle of nowhere You might like https://m.imdb.com/title/tt1588875/ which features two men, RTGS and a feeling of isolation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2022 12:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 07:51 |
|
|
disaster pastor posted:the Brits allegedly had a nuke armed in flight because the cookie they ate with their tea could explode at high altitudes, and one day one exploded and caused a short circuit in the "should we arm the nukes?" part of the computer. Biscuit, old chap. Cookies are a subset thereof but I doubt you meant Marylands. Tell me more 
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2022 14:28
|
|
