Carefully reread what you quoted:
He now knows enough to take no position.
The only thing that you appear to have more expertise than me is talking out of your ass.
Is there an actual point to any of these comments?
Yes. The core can melt down, radiation can be released, but you can’t cause a nuclear power plant to explode like a nuclear bomb.
First off, the rate of reaction makes all the difference, as noted by Der Trihs. Secondly, it’s not the same reaction. Nuclear fission bombs either use plutonium or highly enriched, weapons grade uranium, whereas nuclear power plants use slightly enriched uranium that cannot be made to react fast enough to produce a nuclear explosion. More precisely, a nuclear bomb is designed to produce a prompt supercritical reaction in a very short period of time (i.e. small fractions of a second). A nuclear power reactor physically cannot be made to do this.
No shit, Sherlock. This still isn’t the same thing as “exploding like a nuclear bomb.” As I and others have said repeatedly, a meltdown would indeed be a bad thing to happen. If the containment vessel were to be breached, it could even be catastrophic. Nevertheless, a nuclear meltdown (i.e. the melting of a reactor core due to residual decay heat) is much less devastating than a nuclear bomb explosion.
No, reactors can melt down, which was the whole point of my previous post–the one you quoted in its entirety, and then told me that I don’t know what I’m talking about. :rolleyes:
No argument there.
Wow. You have clearly demonstrated that you know what you are talking about, and you obviously have more expertise than me. :rolleyes:
Posting a link to numerous Soviet/Russian nuclear submarine accidents proves nothing other than the fact that the Soviets/Russians have never put a high premium on safety.
Why not link to all of the U.S. nuclear submarine reactor accidents? Maybe because there haven’t been any?
:smack: Where on Earth are you people getting this from? :rolleyes:
Let me be perfectly clear: It IS possible for a reactor meltdown to occur, even in modern reactor designs.
That’s why we (at least in the U.S.) require elaborate backup cooling and emergency power systems, along with containment structures. If these work as designed, they can prevent a meltdown from occurring, but it is not the same thing as “meltdowns being impossible.”
(As opposed to a nuclear power reactor spontaneously blowing up like a nuclear bomb. That is truly impossible.)
Well, I hate to break to you, but this stuff happens all the time. It is impossible to anticipate every scenario. I’ve worked on 100 million dollar spacecraft hardware and we ran into unanticipated situations all the time (Galaxy 15). Call it chaos theory or whatever, but you would think that nuclear weapons have been studied to death about safety issues. And they have, but you get those WTF moments that put the fear of G-d into you wondering how did we even survive the latter half of the 20th century. Read up on Scott Sagan’s The Limits of Safety to get an idea of just how difficult it is to avoid a screw-up. Remember the Bent Spear incident at Minot AFBin North Dakota?
My WAG is they did not anticipate the magnitude of the tsunami taking out the backup generators. Perhaps a dusty memo was written about it, but my guess it they ruled it out as a possibility. After all, a combination super-duper earthquake with colossal tsunamis–dude, you’ve watched too much Godzilla!
After all, it’s human nature to try compare our experiences to ones we know. When it doesn’t work out that way, well–we’re taken aback by it.
And this just in, bylined as of 12 minutes ago…
The problem was the quake and Tsunami took out the electricity. Many of the valves were run electrically. Emergency back up power was good for about 8 hours. That passed without power being restored. They then ran off batteries, trucking them in from wherever they could find them.
It may have not been enough. Apparently the redundancies were insufficient in this case.
It is not a bomb but it could release enough energy to blow the containment vessel. If not, the reactor is still dead.
HAHAHA- OH MY GOD!
A truly devastating earthquake leads several dopers into arguing, for bizarre reasons I can’t quite follow, about socialism vs. capitalism. Let’s all talk about how much better shit would have been if Japan had only practiced the right kind of politics. If Japan had socialized profits as well as losses (because it’s relevant somehow), this wouldn’t be happening.
The moon is exploding and everybody’s hair is on fire. Quick, let’s talk about how much my politics would have improved the situation!
Thanks - ignorance fought. Having read a bit more about it, I see that the term ‘passive safety’ is probably the thing I was thinking of.
I can’t speak for everyone, naturally, but when I used the term ‘modern’ in this context I was referring to things that are modern at the time of me posting - I wasn’t referring to everything that has been modern at some point, because that would probably include quite a lot of things.
Frankly, we’ve been waiting for your head to explode for years now and are quite surprised it hasn’t yet.
Japan has lots of earthquakes. Like California they have been waiting for the big one. This scenario was not only anticipated ,but expected.
Tsunamis hit Japan too. That is also not a shock. But often, the decision comes down to whether the potential is real enough to justify the extra expense. As we see in these events, we err on the side of money sometimes and the cost turns out to be enormous.
Looks like everyone else was too busy with earnest arguments to notice, I enjoyed this. Much LOLing. 
Because you will never need even the first one, which was a waste of money and ate into profits of investors. Two or three backup systems would be two or three too many because investors have to pay for them. Investors do not have to pay for accident costs because they are in a future that might never happen, interfere with current quarterly profit bonuses and even if they do happen, insurance companies and taxpayers will pay for those costs. Without quarterly bonuses based on profits ignoring future potential liabilities, companies might not be able to hire top managers who can ignore future potential liabilities and won’t be competitive with companies that do. It’s a race to the fucking bottom!
That dork would be you genious.
[QUOTE=levdrakon]
Everyone here forgotten Hiroshima & Nagasaki? Ooh, I’ll never understand why people get so worked up about nuclear explosions. Don’t they understand how safe they are???
[/quote]
Dunce.
“Remember Hiroshima & Nagasaki? Gosh, people get so upset about nuclear explosions.”
Makes perfect sense.
“Ye olde nuke plant’s about to go up like that 15kt Little Boy dropped on Hiroshima!”
Is not what I said, as hard as you try to make it so.
The most anti-capitalist nation on the planet still has a budget that limits the number of backup systems they can install. This shit has got nothing to do with “the race to the bottom” and claiming that it does in order to serve your petty political ideologies makes you sound like a tactless fecal bomber.
As well as a disaster of biblical proportions, its a catastrophe of spreadsheets and actuarial tables. So, who underwrites the liability insurance of this atomic clusterfuck?
Couple of things. I’m guessing that you are an engineer by trade because you seem to have no sense of humor at all and missed a whole thread of sarcasm. Why sarcasm? How could you have missed that? Because you are a completely humor-deaf doofus. A nuclear reactor is uranium undergoing fission. So is a nuclear bomb. Other than the time factor, they are the same thing. When the reactor gets out of control it is never going to be as efficient as an atomic bomb, or as quick, but it is the very same phenomena of physics. Little Boy converted 25 kg of highly enriched uranium, about 90 percent, into energy at 8 to 15 percent efficiency in a fraction of a second. (Hey pocket protector boy, I did that from memory!) A reactor uses much less enriched uranium, but a lot more of it, to release much more energy over a period of years. Assuming it doesn’t get out of control. It’s not going to go “boom”, but it will release more energy than a bomb. It will contaminate the environment. And it will need to be cleaned up by taxpayers. That is never any concern to the pro-nuke people because they do not want to draw any attention to the costs of clean up and quarantine, so they ignore it. Any environmental clean up is outrageously expensive. But most kinds have some place where the dirty materials can legally be taken. Not so with nuclear clean up waste.
Second. You claim that there are no US nuclear submarine reactor accidents. If there had been, they would be classified. Were there? Maybe. Site Disabled - FreeServers In the early 1990s I attended the deposition of a Mare Island shipyard worker who many years earlier worked about a nuclear submarine doing repairs that had to take radiation precautions because he was under the belief that the reactor had a problem. Anyway, check out the link. Navy has never admitted a reactor accident is not the same as never having one. They are in fact quite common according to the link.
Cue Kramer Voice:
They write it off Jerry. They just write it off.
A little more news: Japan: Fukushima operator built nuclear plants to withstand only up to 7.9 quake
Oops. Man, I always put so much faith in those presentations, too. 
It sure as hell won’t in a short period of time (like the time it takes to “explode”). It CAN NOT DO IT. The physics won’t allow it.
Who gives a flying fuck if it can release a shitload of energy over a period of years? Hell, thats the good thing about the whole thing.