198 replies to this topic

[Ghostrider]

If the reactor was built underwater, though, it would be even more unlikely that there would be a meltdown, as all the surrounding water would have to become superheated (not likely). If the containment vessel stays intact, no radioactive material can escape.

[BeefJeRKy]

I think underwater reactors are indeed a safer idea. However, it might be worthwhile looking into a newer reactor design that avoids Uranium that way, the weaponizing excuse can be discarded. Something Thorium based perhaps.

[Destiny]

Well...how, Chyros? How do you even build a nuclear power plant underwater? The sea itself is inherently unsafe, if you understand my meaning. There are a lot of factors to factor in when trying something like that. No one will let you build a nuclear reactor in Lake Superior, and building it in the salty seas will do a LOT of BAD stuff to the exterior of the plant, plus accessing the plant itself is going to be a pain. If there's a breach somewhere the entire plant will get flooded eventually, regardless of bulkheads, stop-the-water-from-coming-omg-measures and etc.






...plus if something really bad occurs, nuclear material being spread all over the oceans is...bad...

[BeefJeRKy]

Destiny, on 23 Mar 2011, 4:45, said:

Well...how, Chyros? How do you even build a nuclear power plant underwater? The sea itself is inherently unsafe, if you understand my meaning. There are a lot of factors to factor in when trying something like that. No one will let you build a nuclear reactor in Lake Superior, and building it in the salty seas will do a LOT of BAD stuff to the exterior of the plant, plus accessing the plant itself is going to be a pain. If there's a breach somewhere the entire plant will get flooded eventually, regardless of bulkheads, stop-the-water-from-coming-omg-measures and etc.






...plus if something really bad occurs, nuclear material being spread all over the oceans is...bad...

A well built Nuclear Reactor won't suffer any problems at sea. Basically just prefabricate it and put it in some sea proof shell. If oil rigs can survive the sea and its rough erosion, I don't see how a bunker structure couldn't work. As for access, it could be robotically operated and managed. Even exchanging nuclear fuel and waste could be arranged through some docking technique. All of these problems are simple engineering questions. It's a matter of how expensive/practical is it? The advantage of a seaborn reactor is that you know longer need those massive cooling towers, as well as it being kept out of harm's way and smaller overall footprint.

[Destiny]

I'm not so sure myself but heh, whatever works.

[Chyros]

Destiny, on 23 Mar 2011, 9:03, said:

I'm not so sure myself but heh, whatever works.

Well obviously the above-land type still has its shortcomings. It's just an idea, but it seems like a logical step forward dealing with the current ones' weaknesses, right?

The Japs are trying to make a space elevator, it's not as if they can't think of how to do an underwater reactor .

[Wizard]

Chyros, on 22 Mar 2011, 19:42, said:

Wizard, on 22 Mar 2011, 20:28, said:

@ Underwater reactors, that ain't ever going to happen. You all know what sort of reaction we see when the black stuff hits a shore line, there is no chance on earth that anyone will attempt to place nuclear material under the ocean. About 60 million hippies and whale huggers would simultaneously assplode.

But it would actually be considerably less harmful to the environment if you put it underwater D: .

I can't agree with that theory. Imagine the situation if an underwater reactor did go critical. How in the hell do you deal with billions ^billions of tons of water that are now contaminated? What if some of that gets into the gulf stream??!? Look at the trouble that one of the most technically advanced countries on the planet had of dealing with a metaphorical burst pipe 2 miles down (actually they would have had less trouble dealing with that if they didn't have a stupid law that stopped non-American ships from doing the work etc, but anyway).

[Chyros]

Wizard, on 23 Mar 2011, 13:01, said:

Chyros, on 22 Mar 2011, 19:42, said:

Wizard, on 22 Mar 2011, 20:28, said:

@ Underwater reactors, that ain't ever going to happen. You all know what sort of reaction we see when the black stuff hits a shore line, there is no chance on earth that anyone will attempt to place nuclear material under the ocean. About 60 million hippies and whale huggers would simultaneously assplode.

But it would actually be considerably less harmful to the environment if you put it underwater D: .

I can't agree with that theory. Imagine the situation if an underwater reactor did go critical. How in the hell do you deal with billions ^billions of tons of water that are now contaminated? What if some of that gets into the gulf stream??!? Look at the trouble that one of the most technically advanced countries on the planet had of dealing with a metaphorical burst pipe 2 miles down (actually they would have had less trouble dealing with that if they didn't have a stupid law that stopped non-American ships from doing the work etc, but anyway).

Well the useful thing about billions and billions of tons of water is that the concentration would then be extremely low, not much more than what it is now, I'd think. Besides, water is quite dense so it has the useful property of damping the radiation considerably.

[Destiny]

Japan's been a country that catches fish for many, many years. I don't think...any country would want their shore to be full of dead fishes actually.

[Golan]

Chyros, on 23 Mar 2011, 11:36, said:

Well the useful thing about billions and billions of tons of water is that the concentration would then be extremely low, not much more than what it is now, I'd think. Besides, water is quite dense so it has the useful property of damping the radiation considerably.

The fallout from Chernobyl still proved to create a noticeable health risk in eating fungi and animals in south east germany - 1500km from ground zero.
Pollution of the seas with radioactive material carries the added risk of it concentrating in sea life, i.e. many peoples food.

Edited by Golan, 23 March 2011 - 12:07.

[Wizard]

Golan, on 23 Mar 2011, 12:06, said:

Chyros, on 23 Mar 2011, 11:36, said:

Well the useful thing about billions and billions of tons of water is that the concentration would then be extremely low, not much more than what it is now, I'd think. Besides, water is quite dense so it has the useful property of damping the radiation considerably.

The fallout from Chernobyl still proved to create a noticeable health risk in eating fungi and animals in south east germany - 1500km from ground zero.
Pollution of the seas with radioactive material carries the added risk of it concentrating in sea life, i.e. many peoples food.

That is ultimately my point. Given how crucial marine ecology is for life on earth in general it would be a terrible idea to contaminate it.

[Chyros]

Wizard, on 23 Mar 2011, 14:14, said:

Golan, on 23 Mar 2011, 12:06, said:

Chyros, on 23 Mar 2011, 11:36, said:

Well the useful thing about billions and billions of tons of water is that the concentration would then be extremely low, not much more than what it is now, I'd think. Besides, water is quite dense so it has the useful property of damping the radiation considerably.

The fallout from Chernobyl still proved to create a noticeable health risk in eating fungi and animals in south east germany - 1500km from ground zero.
Pollution of the seas with radioactive material carries the added risk of it concentrating in sea life, i.e. many peoples food.

That is ultimately my point. Given how crucial marine ecology is for life on earth in general it would be a terrible idea to contaminate it.

I guess that's true, though the ultimate risk of a meltdown in the first place would still be all but nil. I agree that weighing the risks and taking them into account is a must, but it's a bit like avoiding water in swimming pools because the water might take fire - water inherently all but certainly prevents the catastrophe from happening.

[SquigPie]

Chyros, on 23 Mar 2011, 9:12, said:

Destiny, on 23 Mar 2011, 9:03, said:

I'm not so sure myself but heh, whatever works.

Well obviously the above-land type still has its shortcomings. It's just an idea, but it seems like a logical step forward dealing with the current ones' weaknesses, right?

The Japs are trying to make a space elevator, it's not as if they can't think of how to do an underwater reactor .

Isn't Jap a racist term? Not that I mind, just wanted to know.

Anyway. 25 Embassies in Tokyo just closed down temporary, until the nuclear crisis is solved.

Edited by SquigPie, 23 March 2011 - 12:28.

[Alias]

SquigPie, on 23 Mar 2011, 23:23, said:

Chyros, on 23 Mar 2011, 9:12, said:

Destiny, on 23 Mar 2011, 9:03, said:

I'm not so sure myself but heh, whatever works.

Well obviously the above-land type still has its shortcomings. It's just an idea, but it seems like a logical step forward dealing with the current ones' weaknesses, right?

The Japs are trying to make a space elevator, it's not as if they can't think of how to do an underwater reactor .

Isn't Jap a racist term? Not that I mind, just wanted to know.

Seems to differ across the world. The UK and US classify it as offensive, but the rest of the world (including Japan) doesn't.

[Destiny]

The embassies closing are...odd.

[SquigPie]

They wanna get out before the Super-Mutants arrive perhaps.

[Golan]

Chyros, on 23 Mar 2011, 12:22, said:

Wizard, on 23 Mar 2011, 14:14, said:

Golan, on 23 Mar 2011, 12:06, said:

Chyros, on 23 Mar 2011, 11:36, said:

Well the useful thing about billions and billions of tons of water is that the concentration would then be extremely low, not much more than what it is now, I'd think. Besides, water is quite dense so it has the useful property of damping the radiation considerably.

The fallout from Chernobyl still proved to create a noticeable health risk in eating fungi and animals in south east germany - 1500km from ground zero.
Pollution of the seas with radioactive material carries the added risk of it concentrating in sea life, i.e. many peoples food.

That is ultimately my point. Given how crucial marine ecology is for life on earth in general it would be a terrible idea to contaminate it.

I guess that's true, though the ultimate risk of a meltdown in the first place would still be all but nil. I agree that weighing the risks and taking them into account is a must, but it's a bit like avoiding water in swimming pools because the water might take fire - water inherently all but certainly prevents the catastrophe from happening.

That comparison doesn't work. If an underwater reactor's meltdown is stopped by sea water, that means the shielding has been breached and sea water is in direct contact with the radioactive material. Cue contamination.
It's more like avoiding to put water in a swimming pool in the middle of the desert - it might cool you but there's much better use for it. Like not exposing it to contamination so you can drink it.

Edited by Golan, 25 March 2011 - 15:16.

[Chyros]

Golan, on 25 Mar 2011, 17:14, said:

Chyros, on 23 Mar 2011, 12:22, said:

Wizard, on 23 Mar 2011, 14:14, said:

Golan, on 23 Mar 2011, 12:06, said:

Chyros, on 23 Mar 2011, 11:36, said:

Well the useful thing about billions and billions of tons of water is that the concentration would then be extremely low, not much more than what it is now, I'd think. Besides, water is quite dense so it has the useful property of damping the radiation considerably.

The fallout from Chernobyl still proved to create a noticeable health risk in eating fungi and animals in south east germany - 1500km from ground zero.
Pollution of the seas with radioactive material carries the added risk of it concentrating in sea life, i.e. many peoples food.

That is ultimately my point. Given how crucial marine ecology is for life on earth in general it would be a terrible idea to contaminate it.

I guess that's true, though the ultimate risk of a meltdown in the first place would still be all but nil. I agree that weighing the risks and taking them into account is a must, but it's a bit like avoiding water in swimming pools because the water might take fire - water inherently all but certainly prevents the catastrophe from happening.

That comparison doesn't work. If an underwater reactor's meltdown is stopped by sea water, that means the shielding has been breached and sea water is in direct contact with the radioactive material. Cue contamination.
It's more like avoiding to put water in a swimming pool in the middle of the desert - it might cool you but there's much better use for it. Like not exposing it to contamination so you can drink it.

You can have it behind a dam, or inside of a lake. That would solve the problem, right?

[Sgt. Nuker]

That way, if the reactor breaks, the contaminated water can just evaporate and then it can give new meaning to the term "heavy downpour" in another part of the country.

[Kris]

The world could really learn from the japanese:


Total highway repair in just 6 days after the tsunami shows how UBER efficient japanese engineers really are.

[Destiny]

Chyros, on 26 Mar 2011, 0:53, said:

Golan, on 25 Mar 2011, 17:14, said:

Chyros, on 23 Mar 2011, 12:22, said:

Wizard, on 23 Mar 2011, 14:14, said:

Golan, on 23 Mar 2011, 12:06, said:

Chyros, on 23 Mar 2011, 11:36, said:

Well the useful thing about billions and billions of tons of water is that the concentration would then be extremely low, not much more than what it is now, I'd think. Besides, water is quite dense so it has the useful property of damping the radiation considerably.

The fallout from Chernobyl still proved to create a noticeable health risk in eating fungi and animals in south east germany - 1500km from ground zero.
Pollution of the seas with radioactive material carries the added risk of it concentrating in sea life, i.e. many peoples food.

That is ultimately my point. Given how crucial marine ecology is for life on earth in general it would be a terrible idea to contaminate it.

I guess that's true, though the ultimate risk of a meltdown in the first place would still be all but nil. I agree that weighing the risks and taking them into account is a must, but it's a bit like avoiding water in swimming pools because the water might take fire - water inherently all but certainly prevents the catastrophe from happening.

That comparison doesn't work. If an underwater reactor's meltdown is stopped by sea water, that means the shielding has been breached and sea water is in direct contact with the radioactive material. Cue contamination.
It's more like avoiding to put water in a swimming pool in the middle of the desert - it might cool you but there's much better use for it. Like not exposing it to contamination so you can drink it.

You can have it behind a dam, or inside of a lake. That would solve the problem, right?

Woah woah, you're insane there...water is precious, mate. No one will let you build a nuclear reactor in Lake Superior or in the Hoover Dam.

[Chyros]

Sgt. Nuker, on 25 Mar 2011, 19:12, said:

That way, if the reactor breaks, the contaminated water can just evaporate and then it can give new meaning to the term "heavy downpour" in another part of the country.

Yes, the WATER will evaporate. I don't see uranium evaporating that quickly though .

Destiny, on 25 Mar 2011, 19:28, said:

Chyros, on 26 Mar 2011, 0:53, said:

Golan, on 25 Mar 2011, 17:14, said:

Chyros, on 23 Mar 2011, 12:22, said:

Wizard, on 23 Mar 2011, 14:14, said:

Golan, on 23 Mar 2011, 12:06, said:

Chyros, on 23 Mar 2011, 11:36, said:

Well the useful thing about billions and billions of tons of water is that the concentration would then be extremely low, not much more than what it is now, I'd think. Besides, water is quite dense so it has the useful property of damping the radiation considerably.

The fallout from Chernobyl still proved to create a noticeable health risk in eating fungi and animals in south east germany - 1500km from ground zero.
Pollution of the seas with radioactive material carries the added risk of it concentrating in sea life, i.e. many peoples food.

That is ultimately my point. Given how crucial marine ecology is for life on earth in general it would be a terrible idea to contaminate it.

I guess that's true, though the ultimate risk of a meltdown in the first place would still be all but nil. I agree that weighing the risks and taking them into account is a must, but it's a bit like avoiding water in swimming pools because the water might take fire - water inherently all but certainly prevents the catastrophe from happening.

That comparison doesn't work. If an underwater reactor's meltdown is stopped by sea water, that means the shielding has been breached and sea water is in direct contact with the radioactive material. Cue contamination.
It's more like avoiding to put water in a swimming pool in the middle of the desert - it might cool you but there's much better use for it. Like not exposing it to contamination so you can drink it.

You can have it behind a dam, or inside of a lake. That would solve the problem, right?

Woah woah, you're insane there...water is precious, mate. No one will let you build a nuclear reactor in Lake Superior or in the Hoover Dam.

How is water precious on an island?

Besides, what would you rather have, needing to filter your water an extra time or nuclear fallout on your hands?

[Golan]

Chyros, on 25 Mar 2011, 16:53, said:

You can have it behind a dam, or inside of a lake. That would solve the problem, right?

Same analogy as before. Actual swimming pool and water source combined this time.
Chernobyl could be sealed in a concrete bunker. Imagine trying to seal away an entire lake.
Besides, a nuclear power plant needs constant cooling under normal conditions as well, that's what nearby water resource are used for usually. If you use them as a 'safeguard' against a meltdown and shield them (however you'd do that), you require another source for constant cooling capacity.

Chyros, on 25 Mar 2011, 18:16, said:

Sgt. Nuker, on 25 Mar 2011, 19:12, said:

That way, if the reactor breaks, the contaminated water can just evaporate and then it can give new meaning to the term "heavy downpour" in another part of the country.

Yes, the WATER will evaporate. I don't see uranium evaporating that quickly though .

The water would take extreme amounts of radiation with it.

Quote

How is water precious on an island? tounge.gif

Besides, what would you rather have, needing to filter your water an extra time or nuclear fallout on your hands? tounge.gif

Did you ever try drinking saltwater?

Contamination of a lake isn't a matter of filtering drinking water. For one, filtering nuclear contamination from water doesn't get rid of it, it only moves it to the filters. Two, it isn't perfect and will have long-time effects. Three, the actual lake itself would still mean millions of tons of waters lying around freely accessible by man and animal.

Edited by Golan, 25 March 2011 - 18:28.

[Chyros]

Golan, on 25 Mar 2011, 20:18, said:

Chyros, on 25 Mar 2011, 16:53, said:

You can have it behind a dam, or inside of a lake. That would solve the problem, right?

Same analogy as before. Actual swimming pool and water source combined this time.
Chernobyl could be sealed in a concrete bunker. Imagine trying to seal away an entire lake.
Besides, a nuclear power plant needs constant cooling under normal conditions as well, that's what nearby water resource are used for usually. If you use them as a 'safeguard' against a meltdown and shield them (however you'd do that), you require another source for constant cooling capacity.

I don't think I follow.

Golan, on 25 Mar 2011, 20:18, said:

Did you ever try drinking saltwater?

Humans have been able to make drinkable water pretty much since the stone age. I don't imagine doing it in this day and age will be much harder.

Quote

Contamination of a lake isn't a matter of filtering drinking water. For one, filtering nuclear contamination from water doesn't get rid of it, it only moves it to the filters. Two, it isn't perfect and will have long-time effects. Three, the actual lake itself would still mean millions of tons of waters lying around freely accessible by man and animal.

Well, at least it will still be drinkable, and once it's collected you can dispose of it safely. And you'd imagine a nuclear meltdown wouldn't be particularly motivating for people to go to such a lake.



Fact is, I'm not seeing anyone suggesting a better alternative, or even any alternative. I know building it underwater has its flaws, but I'm confident that people with an actual degree in engineering can defend my suggestion much better that I can alone. It's not as if less possible things haven't been done before.

[Golan]

Chyros, on 25 Mar 2011, 18:37, said:

I don't think I follow.

The disadvantages outweigh the advantages by design.

Chyros, on 25 Mar 2011, 18:37, said:

Golan, on 25 Mar 2011, 20:18, said:

Did you ever try drinking saltwater?

Humans have been able to make drinkable water pretty much since the stone age. I don't imagine doing it in this day and age will be much harder.

I don't imagine people bothered doing it for the present-day population numbers in the stone age.

Chyros, on 25 Mar 2011, 18:37, said:

Quote

Contamination of a lake isn't a matter of filtering drinking water. For one, filtering nuclear contamination from water doesn't get rid of it, it only moves it to the filters. Two, it isn't perfect and will have long-time effects. Three, the actual lake itself would still mean millions of tons of waters lying around freely accessible by man and animal.

Well, at least it will still be drinkable, and once it's collected you can dispose of it safely. And you'd imagine a nuclear meltdown wouldn't be particularly motivating for people to go to such a lake.

Drinkable, yes, healthy, not at all. Pretty much every country using nuclear power has problems getting rid of the nuclear waste, even though it's right there in manageable portions and the processes are all centralized. Imagine thousands of filters per year requiring to be disposed in time with radiation shielding in almost every process step - effectively, this wouldn't be feasible.
Most people have no friggin' idea what a meltdown actually means and what dangers radiation poses. Radioactive contamination doesn't cause water to get a nice, intimidating glow, it makes it perfectly clear x

Chyros, on 25 Mar 2011, 18:37, said:

Fact is, I'm not seeing anyone suggesting a better alternative, or even any alternative. I know building it underwater has its flaws, but I'm confident that people with an actual degree in engineering can defend my suggestion much better that I can alone. It's not as if less possible things haven't been done before.

The alternative is building it over water with proper safeguards. I'm quite confident that people with an actual degree in engineering won't bother with your suggestion.