What happens when a nuclear powered aircraft carrier gets hit? Are there contingencies to deal with the nuclear fallout?
What happens when a nuclear powered aircraft carrier gets hit? Are there contingencies to deal with the nuclear fallout?
What happens when a nuclear powered aircraft carrier gets hit? Are there contingencies to deal with the nuclear fallout?
You misunderstand how nuclear reactors work
Both the Soviets and Japanese don't know how they work either.
You dont get runaway reactions with modern Light water reactors. If the coolant disappears, the reaction stops. Anyone still pushing the risk of a Chernobyl or even a Fukushima type disaster as a reason to avoid Nuclear energy is a nutjob with an agenda.
If that's the case why don't we build more of these types of reactors? They could also be set up closer to cities also right?
99% of all nuclear reactors are that type.
>why don't we build more
extremely expensive, needs government money, only does permanent load, cannot dial down output fast like a gas power plant can. dismantling a nuclear power plant costs literally billions and takes decades (germany) and end storage is still not solved. technically its possible to kind of recycle the nuclear waste but nobody does that because its abysmally expensive. so nuclear waste is just stored in containers (most permanent sites are not as permanently safe as initially thought) and the tax payer has to pay for everything forever.
the main reason nuclear power plants are built today is so you can have fissile material for a nuclear bomb.
>end storage is still not solved
dig a hole.
Funnily enough, that is the solution. Deep bore holes so it can all be put under the bedrock is a perfectly viable solution.
hole fills up with water, capillary action brings the water back up now loaded with the dissoluted radioactive elements, you have now contaminated your drinking water with plutonium and strontium. congratulations.
>cannot dial down output fast like a gas power plant can
scram
>the main reason nuclear power plants are built today is so you can have fissile material for a nuclear bomb
you think fuel is enriched at power plants?
>the main reason nuclear power plants are built today is so you can have fissile material for a nuclear bomb
>you think fuel is enriched at power plants?
Not him, but you showcased a classic example of dunning kruger here. You are wrong and don´t see why. You have no reason to question your judgement on his statement, because you don´t have the knowledge required to do so.
Nuclear reactors have often been used to breed plutonium. You split U235 to get energy and use some of the neutrons to make U238 into U239 which in turn decays into Plutonium via some intermediate steps. This has been done since the beginning of the nuclear age and it is one of the main reasons for many countries to pursue a nuclear program. The bomb can be reached much quicker an in a less suHispanicious way if you do it via Pu.
dial down output fast like a gas power plant can
>scram
I assume he meant dial output up, I think every kind of power generator can be turned off quickly.
He means load following, he's just too stupid to phrase it right.
>t. Commercial nuclear power anon
Also, this is an example of the bad faith argument here.
>Nuclear can't load follow; therefore it is useless.
It's like saying we should ban AR15s because they can't be used as a CCW and therefore don't belong in civilian hands.
Nuclear is a clean form of grid base load. A plant runs best at full bore 100% output for 18-24 months at a time uninterrupted.
It has an extremely important job that enemies of our nation wanted to stop during the cold war.
As for the retarded long term waste argument, recycling and vitrification was figured out by the french decades ago, fuck Jimmy Carter, and fuck low IQ NIMBYs.
I work at Nuclear power plants as a radiological technician and I still choose to live right next to one.
>MFW all you idiots will feel really stupid when I'm spider man
Can you ship me some stuff so I can turn myself into Doc Samson?
No, but we do tend to live longer because the radiation commits cellular eugenics on us as we work.
Aircrew also?
Nope, nuclear power. You guys probably get about as much dose as we do a year though.
We gotta keep an eye on you fucking Aussies. The last thing we need is giant Dropbears fucking shit up.
CAN'T YOU HEAR
CAN'T YOU HEAR THE THUNDER
>end storage is still not solved
Nice try schlomo but I’m afraid your nose poked out from the screen right here
why can't we dump nuclear waste down defunct coal mines?
Because what happens when you want to use that coal in the future?
one of the dumbest posts I've seen in a while
Have a (You)
there are entire landfills filled with buried windmill blades that amount to 100xs the amount of waste we've generated in 60 years of nuclear power you disingenuous israelite
Sure there are.
>nuh uh I don't believe you
That's not a landfill. This is.
Rough estimate of the number of 55 gallon drums in this photo: (60x30x3)55= 5400 gallons taking up 16,200 cubic feet
Taking the average size of the blades and tower modules into account, you could fit 44 towers or 3360 blades in the same area.
However, there would by necessity be more blades than towers and for safety and practicality reasons that many blades would be difficult to squeeze in there.
I refuse to do any more math than this.
Nuclear is better imo sans initial costs and the waste, but if wind can become more efficient in terms of energy efficiency, recycling, not killing every bird in the area, etc it would be a nice add on.
Idk why everyone assumes we're so limited in resources that we have to pick one and jerk off about it constantly, energy storage and distribution should be the issue, but fuck it, idc anymore.
because people cry about Chernobyl
No. Its because people cry about fucking Chernobyl.
The end storage of the fissile waste was solved by shoving it BACK INTO a reactor, dipshit.
The only things that really need stored is a tiny bit of leftovers, and random crap from idiots who fucked up or other low level shit.
Your mythical "OOOOOH NOOOOOO FOREVER IT WILL SIT" applies to a tiny fraction of stuff left over from fuckups.
96% of your OH NO ITS FOREVERRRRRRR
stuff is class A radioactive waste that is normal trash in a few decades
Three Mile Island is unironically a greater reason why Nuclear Engineering stopped.
Chernobyl was just a good fear mongering piece to what COULD happen but 3MI happening on US Soil and where Big Oil has the closest reach made for a good pysop
Fun fact an even worse disaster occured in New Mexico like 3 months after 3MI but nobody cared because it only affected poor Indians
OH MY GOD THE CONTAINMENT WORKED!!!!
GUYS IT WAS GONNA BE LIKE CHERNOBYL
No. they are really just crying about chernobyl. Unironically.
We have had FAR worse contamination incidents with plutonium fires getting vented across the country side in Colorado.
Twice. From the same place.
But it wasnt A REACTOR LIKE CHERNOOOOOBYL
So it wasn't famous.
Rocky flats was DOE, that's why it wasn't famous.
I work with some guys that were on the cleanup crews.
>Your mythical "OOOOOH NOOOOOO FOREVER IT WILL SIT" applies to a tiny fraction of stuff left over from fuckups.
>96% of your OH NO ITS FOREVERRRRRRR stuff is class A radioactive waste that is normal trash in a few decades
Its actually a retarded criticism of nuclear power regardless if it dangerous for millenia or not. Because we have shit like mercury and arsenic that is toxic forever and produced as mining byproduct. Yet no one ever complains about the permanent storage facilities for those. (Which are very similar to those intended for nuclear waste)
The anti nuclear movement is a product of the KGB and big oil.
>The anti nuclear movement is a product of the KGB and big oil.
Is that what happened in Germany too?
Merkel predecessor Schröder went on to work for Gazprom after stepping down as chancellor...
>As chancellor, he led a coalition government of the SPD and Alliance 90/The Greens. Since leaving public office, Schröder has worked for Russian state-owned energy companies, including Nord Stream AG, Rosneft, and Gazprom.
kek, and they say the kraut's dont have a sense of humor.
That was almost 20 years ago though, did nobody realize they were being retarded in that timeframe?
some did, the rest took 20 years longer. gubmint doesnt give a damn either way
Germany is just terminally retarded
This was mostly the retarded conservative.
>yes lets do the popular thing that en vogue now !
>shut down power plants, agree to rebuild capacity with green energy for independence
>sabotage the planes because green energy is evil, sell gas reservoirs to gazprom too. NIMBY the fuck out of everything
Surprised Pikachu
>why don't we build more of these types of reactors?
Because people are fucking retards. Fortunately the "ahhhh scary nuclear power" hippies in the US are all mostly dead now, and we never went full bore retarded like Germany so we do still have the knowledge to make a come back. It really boggles the mind how you can simultaneously have people who 1 - Bitch nonstop about muh """"global warming""" (a literal scam) and "muh environment", and then 2 - REFUSE to use the by far safest and cleanest technology mankind has discovered to date
>2 - REFUSE to use the by far safest and cleanest technology mankind has discovered to date
Doble this. Even if Chernobyl/Fukushima scenario was somehow still possible, it's still waaaay more green than what's China/India doing with all the pollution lol
how is global warming a scam lol.
ISTG every day the internet becomes a choose your own adventure story, there is a world ensconsing narrative based on confirmation bias for every interest group.
You are thinking of "climate change", which of course happens constantly throughout the Earth's 4.5+ billion year history. "Global warming" is just a cash cow rich politicians can justify why company X is now federally mandated to use company Y's extremely "environmentally friendly" (and extremely expensive) waste disposal service because uh uh the sea level would rise. Spoiler: wealthy politicians own both company X and company Y
>corruption exists therefore anthropogenic climate change doesn't
This is exactly what i am talking about lol
You understand it was George Bush that pushed 'climate change' as a media term
>Republicans are the only people capable of seeing through the leftist lies about climate change.
We don't all worship globohomo Republicans around here, agitator. But you don't care, you're just here to perpetuate arguments and keep us all divided and avoid talking about the real topics.
That was always the case, but now the barrier between thoughts and posts are thinner than ever.
>how is global warming a scam lol
Look at the start dates chosen for the panic and think it through a bit.
NIMBY
Not In My Backyard
Even the 70s green movement hippies that actually take this shit seriously and do research have completely 180'd due to nuclear science advances and climate change.
NIMBYism also if we actually had cheap and clean energy the green lobby wouldn't be able to get massive subsidies and more government control over everyone.
Most are that type of reactors. The only serious accident with that type, a Pressurized Water Reactor, was 3 Mile Island and that was more of a PR disaster rather than a radiological one.
As for why, energy policy in the western world has been ass backwards for years. Add in subversion from foreign actors and powerful fuel lobbies means nuclear as been unfairly rejected in many cases where it would make a lot of sense. But since boomers are dying, positive attitudes towards nuclear power are coming back.
Retarded NIMBYIGGERs that's why.
Because emotional uneducated people are allowed to vote.
This
Furthermore so that communist environmentalists can have an excuse to bankrupt Western economics with their retarded weather-based electricity generation. (Nuclear energy is zero carbon and can easily be too cheap to meter)
>too cheap to meter
I see you are a man of culture. Who are you, who is so knowledgeable in the ways of Commonwealth Edison?
>If that's the case why don't we build more of these types of reactors?
Nuclear lobbyists have less money than oil, coal and solar/green lobbyists
>If the coolant disappears, the reaction stops
decay heat
>The several miles of water above the reactor should act as a very effective neutron moderator
neutron moderators increase reactivity
>decay heat
is not a reaction. Might get hot, but won't go exponential. If this is the "sunk reactor" scenario, good thing it is surrounded by all that water.
Decay heat causes an exponential issue when an AShM has disabled emergency cooling and the core starts to melt down. Of course at that point the concern of core safety is largely academic.
The core is immersed in water by then. It'll be fine.
>neutron moderators increase reactivity
Good thing the neutron flux ended earlier.
>If the coolant disappears, the reaction stops. Anyone still pushing the risk of a Chernobyl or even a Fukushima type disaster as a reason to avoid Nuclear energy is a nutjob with an agenda.
Or they are likely a boomer. Or young people that act like boomers which there seems to be a lot in PrepHole
>Soviets
fundamentally unsafe reactor design that encountered a failure condition, had a runaway reaction and caused a steam explosion
>Japanese
everything was fine until the tsunami destroyed all the backup generators, the wall designed to protect said generators from the tsunami was too small, this was known for years and not fixed, reactor then had no cooling
Nope, Fukushima happened because of retarded management, the construction was fine and held up.
The problem was one retard running the reactos saying that it wasn't necessaryt o shut them down, when he fucking should've.
>the construction was fine
putting the backup generators in an area prone to flooding is definitely not fine
Actually that wasn't the biggest fuck up.
They put the switch gear below water line. So even if they flew in new generators by helicopter, it wouldn't have helped.
GE told them multiple times fir seven years to fix their shit, snd they refused out of Asian bug-nagger pride.
thats incorrect
read the IAEA reports theres a series of them.
there was an unmaintained pipe with a hole in the electric switching in the basement which led to the destruction of the instrumentation power and all other electrical equipment. shit sucks read the reports seriously.
If an EFP goes through the reactor there will be fuel everywhere and a ship too contaminated to fight fires on.
The reactor sits at the bottom of the ship. If it gets hit, the ship is likely going down and this isn't an issue.
By scuttling the ship and letting the sea deal with the radiation.
>scuttling the ship
You'll get the Order of Lenin for this.
The reactors are built as self contained units. So long as they are not directly damaged, they should scram themselves as the ship breaks up around them and just exist as a sealed tub in the water. Some of them are designed to float so they'll surface for recovery.
>What happens when a nuclear powered aircraft carrier gets hit?
well, most likely one country or another will cease to exist.
It probably won't matter which one, just whoever we find convenient at the time
Nuclear reactors don't turn into nuclear bombs when they are damaged, this is a common misconception.
Also water is also a very effective radiation barrier so there really isn't a ton of ecological risk if one is lost. And multiple nuclear subs have been lost.
There are currently eight nuclear submarines rotting at the bottom of the world's oceans
Two are American, six are Russian
We haven't all died yet
Doesn't count. Water is a natural radiation shield.
>Doesn't count
yes it does. Where do you think carriers end up when they sink?
They explode first.
What's going to explode? Their gas tank? Retard.
>K-159
Reactors had been inoperable for years, although likely not defueled (because Russians)
>Are there contingencies to deal with the nuclear fallout?
Yes, there are. You launch a nuclear first strike on the nationstate that scuttled your carrier and relegate the dispersal to a relative inconsequence.
>scuttled
Scuttling is when you sink your own ship
They're closer to fast acting research reactors than civilian reactors. Are fail safe. All lost nuclear subarines lost aren't a nuclear problem, soviets included.
>cannot dial down output fast like a gas power plant can
Even (peak) gas turbines have a ramp time and very limited life cycles without intensive maintenance. Both have limitations, for gas turbines they aren't that efficient outside a narrow band of power, that's why ships mostly use their diesel/small turbine cruising engines.
Big problem for civilian nuclear reactors is high capital costs.
Gas plants are faster and cheaper to build, so despite the fuel being much more expensive per Mw than fission, they start turning a profit much faster.
It takes a long time to even start producing power from a nuclear plant, 10-20 years of planning litigation and construction, and then longer still to pay off the construction costs.
They are a much riskier financial venture for governments and industry even if over a 40 year period they might be cheaper.
It has to compete with all of the other things that governments or commercial investors could invest in over such a long period, so it demands a significant premium.
France for example runs it's own independent nuclear weapons program and produces it's own military reactors so this helps to offset the cost of their highly nuclear energy system.
The energy market could also be completely different by the time it actually starts producing power.
Nuclear projects that seemed highly attractive in the 1970s with the energy insecurity of the time, might end up much less economical by the time they actually started producing power in the 1990s
It's like long duration bonds Vs short duration, under normal financial conditions long duration bonds demand a significant interest rate premium over short duration due to the risks of locking away your money for so long.
Unreliable renewable energy like solar or wind, can end up seeming more attractive since it's much cheaper and faster to start producing power.
Especially if you are working under the assumption that you will have a mixed grid anyway so the intermittency matters less.
Not against nuclear power by any means, but many people don't seem to understand why it's not everywhere.
The several miles of water above the reactor should act as a very effective neutron moderator, while the 100,000 tons of aircraft carrier surrounding the reactor should ensure that no radioactive material escapes into the surrounding environment. Unlike bunker fuel, which continues to poison the oceans in large quantities since WW2.
Bunker fuel breaks down, eco fag. It just takes a while and large quantities released all at once are the issue.
This entire thread is proof of why ExxonMobil and Aramco are thriving.
The reactors will automatically SCRAM if they encounter seawater or any other serious environmental hazard, something that's been demonstrated to work with the USS Scorpion and the Kursk. Both submarines that were abruptly lost with all hands but their reactors shut down on their own without further necessary input. In the case of the USS Thresher, this safety feature actually wound up causing the disaster.
>In the case of the USS Thresher
A electrical problem was heard from the Thresher's MCP bus. The steps from there to SCRAM are not known.
What Fallout? The reactor will just sink to the bottom of the ocean.
It sinks to the bottom of the ocean. Water is a pretty fantastic radiation shield. There are already several nuclear reactors from subs that have been lost.
> MFW these threads on /k/
99.999% of you are fucking retarded and far too stupid to realize it.
The ten or so posters that aren't are pretty cool dudes though.
"Hey Jim, wanna come over and try out my new heated pool?"
they're sticking RGB lights on everything these days
the battles of the future will not be faught by humans but by robots. Robot planes fly from robot ships. Fallout will not be a problem for them. Our duty is clear: build and maintain those robots
you mean the nuclear fallouts in the attacking country?
if it melts down it will just sink to the bottom of the sea - besides at that point it probably wont be the biggest source of contamination...
>it will just sink to the bottom of the sea
every mountain was once at the bottom of the sea dude, everything eventually resurfaces.