


8.9 Pacific Earthquake
#126
Posted 22 March 2011 - 19:50


AJ is responsible for this signature masterpiece... if you see him, tell him I say thanks.

#128
Posted 23 March 2011 - 02:45
...plus if something really bad occurs, nuclear material being spread all over the oceans is...bad...

#129
Posted 23 March 2011 - 06:33
Destiny, on 23 Mar 2011, 4:45, said:
...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.
#130
Posted 23 March 2011 - 07:03

#131
Posted 23 March 2011 - 08:12
Destiny, on 23 Mar 2011, 9:03, said:
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

The brave hide behind technology. The stupid hide from it. The clever have technology, and hide it.
—The Book of Cataclysm


#132
Posted 23 March 2011 - 11:01
Chyros, on 22 Mar 2011, 19:42, said:
Wizard, on 22 Mar 2011, 20:28, said:
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).
#133
Posted 23 March 2011 - 11:36
Wizard, on 23 Mar 2011, 13:01, said:
Chyros, on 22 Mar 2011, 19:42, said:
Wizard, on 22 Mar 2011, 20:28, said:
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).
The brave hide behind technology. The stupid hide from it. The clever have technology, and hide it.
—The Book of Cataclysm


#134
Posted 23 March 2011 - 11:53

#135
Posted 23 March 2011 - 12:06
Chyros, on 23 Mar 2011, 11:36, said:
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.
#136
Posted 23 March 2011 - 12:14
Golan, on 23 Mar 2011, 12:06, said:
Chyros, on 23 Mar 2011, 11:36, said:
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.
#137
Posted 23 March 2011 - 12:22
Wizard, on 23 Mar 2011, 14:14, said:
Golan, on 23 Mar 2011, 12:06, said:
Chyros, on 23 Mar 2011, 11:36, said:
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.
The brave hide behind technology. The stupid hide from it. The clever have technology, and hide it.
—The Book of Cataclysm


#138
Posted 23 March 2011 - 12:23
Chyros, on 23 Mar 2011, 9:12, said:
Destiny, on 23 Mar 2011, 9:03, said:
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.
Quote
Imagine a group of people who are all blind, deaf and slightly demented and suddenly someone in the crowd asks, "What are we to do?"... The only possible answer is, "Look for a cure". Until you are cured, there is nothing you can do.
And since you don't believe you are sick, there can be no cure.
- Vladimir Solovyov

#139
Posted 23 March 2011 - 12:33
SquigPie, on 23 Mar 2011, 23:23, said:
Chyros, on 23 Mar 2011, 9:12, said:
Destiny, on 23 Mar 2011, 9:03, said:
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.

#140
Posted 23 March 2011 - 12:38

#141
Posted 23 March 2011 - 12:41
Quote
Imagine a group of people who are all blind, deaf and slightly demented and suddenly someone in the crowd asks, "What are we to do?"... The only possible answer is, "Look for a cure". Until you are cured, there is nothing you can do.
And since you don't believe you are sick, there can be no cure.
- Vladimir Solovyov

#142
Posted 25 March 2011 - 15:14
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:
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.
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.
#143
Posted 25 March 2011 - 16:53
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:
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.
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.
The brave hide behind technology. The stupid hide from it. The clever have technology, and hide it.
—The Book of Cataclysm


#144
Posted 25 March 2011 - 17:12

#145
Posted 25 March 2011 - 17:19

Total highway repair in just 6 days after the tsunami shows how UBER efficient japanese engineers really are.
#146
Posted 25 March 2011 - 17:28
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:
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.
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.
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.

#147
Posted 25 March 2011 - 18:16
Sgt. Nuker, on 25 Mar 2011, 19:12, said:

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:
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.
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.
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.

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

The brave hide behind technology. The stupid hide from it. The clever have technology, and hide it.
—The Book of Cataclysm


#148
Posted 25 March 2011 - 18:18
Chyros, on 25 Mar 2011, 16:53, said:
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:
Quote
Besides, what would you rather have, needing to filter your water an extra time or nuclear fallout on your hands? tounge.gif
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.
#149
Posted 25 March 2011 - 18:37
Golan, on 25 Mar 2011, 20:18, said:
Chyros, on 25 Mar 2011, 16:53, said:
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.
Golan, on 25 Mar 2011, 20:18, said:
Quote
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 brave hide behind technology. The stupid hide from it. The clever have technology, and hide it.
—The Book of Cataclysm


#150
Posted 25 March 2011 - 21:24
Chyros, on 25 Mar 2011, 18:37, said:
Chyros, on 25 Mar 2011, 18:37, said:
Chyros, on 25 Mar 2011, 18:37, said:
Quote
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:
2 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users