Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
Comment
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


420chan is Getting Overhauled - Changelog/Bug Report/Request Thread (Updated April 10)
Nuclear Reactors Ignore Report Reply
Beatrice Fidgebanks - Thu, 16 Oct 2014 02:39:18 EST ID:2/2vOAx0 No.13522
File: 1413441558855.jpg -(1187528B / 1.13MB, 2549x1824) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 1187528
In the event of a major apocalypse event nuclear reactors could come into disrepair or be unmaintanable causing them to meldown/leak/whatever...
discuss?

-Would the earth become irradiated to hell?
-would huge areas become toxic wastes?
>>
cursive !M6R0eWkIpk - Fri, 17 Oct 2014 21:58:03 EST ID:YTTsLjoZ No.13530 Ignore Report Reply
1413597483816.gif -(44265B / 43.23KB, 375x410) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>13522
That's an interesting thought. I wonder if there are fail-safes that would cause them to power down without periodic human feedback.
They tried to hide Chernobyl from the rest of the world but countries as far away as Norway started to detect it.
>>
cursive !M6R0eWkIpk - Fri, 17 Oct 2014 22:02:46 EST ID:YTTsLjoZ No.13531 Ignore Report Reply
1413597766782.gif -(29415B / 28.73KB, 590x347) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>13530
Here's a map of the World's nuclear power plants..

MAD MAX MOTHER FUCKER
>>
Rebecca Murdcocke - Fri, 24 Oct 2014 06:42:27 EST ID:BV+m87gI No.13548 Ignore Report Reply
>>13531
WTF man your in all fucking boards. Kudos I guess, but get a life
>>
Augustus Chengerlen - Mon, 27 Oct 2014 21:32:58 EST ID:3jRLe49Z No.13558 Ignore Report Reply
"The equipment in the spent fuel buildings adjoining nuclear power plants that maintain the temperature level of the spent nuclear fuel rods will shut down. Spent nuclear fuel for nuclear power plants is generally stored in pools in on-site facilities. Because the fossil fuel powered back up, power generators will run out. At that time, the cooling pools that prevent the spent nuclear fuel from overheating will start to boil since this water is not replenished.

Radioactive steam will vent into the atmosphere due to the water eventually evaporating. The spent fuel will eventually set fire to the building, and the steam pressure will cause the storage facilities to explode, causing a (non nuclear) explosion, emitting radiation not only in the immediate area of the plant but around the globe due to winds. The resulting nuclear disasters spread fallout over large areas. This is repeated dozens of times as shutdown nuclear plants and spent fuel houses explode. Radioactive clouds cross the skies and rain carries the radiation to the ground. Most plants and small animals within the affected zones die. The bigger ones (like deer) flee to unaffected regions, not because they notice the radiation, but because of the lack of food."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftermath:_Population_Zero
>>
David Fandock - Thu, 13 Nov 2014 17:16:42 EST ID:CirwOZKv No.13595 Ignore Report Reply
>>13548
you don't know cursive nigga. literally an insane trans pornstar
>>
cursive !M6R0eWkIpk - Thu, 23 Apr 2015 08:38:57 EST ID:Fspi6Bah No.13882 Ignore Report Reply
1429792737320.gif -(1044940B / 1020.45KB, 500x200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>13595
'ppreciate dat, homie.
>literally
, though? Idk, i don't think so. Drugs wear off you know?
>>
Isabella Honeyspear - Fri, 01 May 2015 14:11:28 EST ID:SR60N5Bd No.13896 Ignore Report Reply
>>13548
How would YOU know ?
>>
Rebecca Murdecocke - Thu, 24 Sep 2015 15:35:20 EST ID:jMHozOd5 No.14137 Ignore Report Reply
1443123320419.png -(34553B / 33.74KB, 400x254) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>13548
>get a life
Fuck me now I feel like a bastard.
>Nb /-:
>>
Nigel Bronderwill - Sun, 20 Dec 2015 02:09:18 EST ID:A+TXoRQX No.14232 Ignore Report Reply
at some point the electricity would turn off. just like if the apocolypse came and all the cars were left running. theyde just run out of gas. be like a normal...4 weeks of exhaust
>>
Basil Blatherville - Sun, 17 Jan 2016 19:49:48 EST ID:ZPR246QA No.14255 Ignore Report Reply
This is my biggest fear to be honest, first time running into anyone else worried about it though.
>>
Edward Chunkinbedging - Mon, 18 Jan 2016 00:03:44 EST ID:5qptw8PM No.14256 Ignore Report Reply
1453093424463.jpg -(56213B / 54.90KB, 975x412) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Humanity would evolve into an interesting species.
But yes most places would be irradiated if they all fell into disrepair.
But hey Pripiyat is pretty nice in Spring.
>>
Polly Supperfoot - Fri, 22 Jan 2016 10:16:29 EST ID:3VlPy42e No.14259 Ignore Report Reply
I'm pretty sure that nuclear powerplants without human intervention will just stop working.

They won't blow up, they won't meltdown. They won't leak.

They'll just stop without any danger. At least, until scavengers start breaking things looking for parts.
>>
Phineas Gonnermitch - Thu, 28 Jan 2016 12:38:41 EST ID:62s6RvOq No.14276 Ignore Report Reply
>>14259
That's the theory, lol.
But remember Chernobyl happened when they screwed up a reactor shutdown.
>>
Ian Nucklewutch - Fri, 29 Jan 2016 11:00:30 EST ID:3VlPy42e No.14279 Ignore Report Reply
>>14276
Chernobyl was people though. People fucked up.

There's no magical part in nuclear powerplants that magically make them explode when there are no people around.
>>
Frederick Bringerstock - Fri, 19 Feb 2016 17:59:32 EST ID:eHf8lHL/ No.14299 Ignore Report Reply
>>13558 so if we had major earth quakes around the globe we could have many Chernobyl's on our hands, land ruined and large plooms of clouds of radioactive material.
>>
Fanny Follerbanks - Mon, 22 Feb 2016 12:55:08 EST ID:SDQsnROe No.14303 Ignore Report Reply
>>14259
They require considerable maintenance to not collapse. Eventually the fail-safes would break down and leak toxic shit. If a meltdown were to occur and no one was there to prevent it or clean up it would be an absolute nightmare for generations.
>>
Nathaniel Bennerfuck - Tue, 01 Mar 2016 06:25:15 EST ID:3VlPy42e No.14308 Ignore Report Reply
>>14303
Uh no.

You'd need some serious fucking disaster to wreck an inactive nuclear reactor. Quit being a fucking sissy spewing urban legends.
>>
Henry Drummerpet - Sat, 12 Mar 2016 04:03:30 EST ID:6lYGqBY2 No.14314 Ignore Report Reply
>People thinking Chernobyl is reality.

Actually, every single safety measure was disabled. Warnings were going off like fucking crazy. They kept chugging along. Then an explosion happened. Denied it happened. Didn't shut down anything. Kept everything running and then realized how fucked everything was and "shut down" 1 reactor which amounted to them running away from it while it went critical. Then they ran the other 3 reactors like nothing was happening while shit went down in a poorly designed and conceived nuclear plant.

Nuclear power if it wasn't built in 1942 is actually pretty damn safe now. Assuming every security measure isn't disabled and you don't run your plants after a fucking explosion 5 feet from the control centre all while telling everyone in the surrounding area that everything is cool lol rly guise.
>>
Nell Fushridge - Mon, 14 Mar 2016 11:49:38 EST ID:fB8yDgMT No.14315 Ignore Report Reply
>>13522
Everyone in this thread is wrong. Nuclear power plants require a constant supply of electricity to pump in cool water to cool spent nuclear fuel. Nuclear power plants, without anyone to maintain them, would undoubtedly malfunction, so radiation would be an issue.
>>
Oliver Bammerway - Sat, 30 Apr 2016 14:58:51 EST ID:wU85klcQ No.14346 Ignore Report Reply
Modern nuclear reactors are pretty safe. Even if one were to overheat, any number of failsafes would turn it off before shit went bad. Even if they were disabled, like in Chernobyl, things would seize up and stop working rather peacefully as the reactor goes UN-critical because there's no one there to keep forcing it to work.

There'd be bigger dangers of coal plants catching fire because of a tree bursting into flame during a hot and dry season, or hydro dams bursting from lack of maintenance and the concrete cracking or turbine blade coatings flaking off or some shit.
>>
Charlotte Hillerfuck - Sat, 07 May 2016 18:59:27 EST ID:bpemRCI3 No.14352 Ignore Report Reply
>>13531
Man, France just went balls-out on nuclear power.
>>
Sidney Handlespear - Mon, 09 May 2016 01:04:13 EST ID:AUsbr0S+ No.14354 Ignore Report Reply
>>14315
Modern plants are built with out the need for electricity to cool them
>>
Clara Fonkindale - Mon, 09 May 2016 01:24:01 EST ID:/8uAKE8R No.14355 Ignore Report Reply
ok you smug niggas, how about one of you EXPLAIN these new, never-failing safety devices that are built into "modern" reactors that keep the fuel rods from setting everything on fire
>>
Eliza Bloggletudge - Thu, 12 May 2016 18:02:54 EST ID:j+s4gdZk No.14358 Ignore Report Reply
>>14355
Seriously, this. I keep running into this debate the internet over. "But modern atomic power is SAFE, we shouldn't be doing solar or wind, we should just install a lot of atomic power plants and it's SAFE 100% of the time".

I call bullshit. Nothing is 100% foolproof. Never. Not one thing ever invented by man.
>>
Jarvis Clandledock - Thu, 12 May 2016 18:03:04 EST ID:URBXargV No.14359 Ignore Report Reply
>>14355
Seriously, this. I keep running into this debate the internet over. "But modern atomic power is SAFE, we shouldn't be doing solar or wind, we should just install a lot of atomic power plants and it's SAFE 100% of the time".

I call bullshit. Nothing is 100% foolproof. Never. Not one thing ever invented by man.
>>
Ebenezer Shakefield - Fri, 13 May 2016 19:41:19 EST ID:UcGMS4Yk No.14360 Ignore Report Reply
>>14355
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor_safety_system

im not saying tis never failing but they are getting smarter about how to build these things.
>>
Ebenezer Sinderwill - Sat, 28 May 2016 09:29:08 EST ID:k3Zn00zK No.14366 Ignore Report Reply
>>14360
AFIK no current commercial reactor has inherent safety or is walkaway safe.

Every nuclear power plant in operation is working using pressurized water flowing through the reactor and once that water isn't flowing any more the reactor will melt down if it isn't fully shut down already.

The only real difference between current reactors and the ones in Fukushima and Tschernobyl might be more reliable engineering in the shutdown mechanism, but when it comes down to it all that does still is inserting some neutron absorbing rods between the reactor rods.
If that mechanism fails every reactor will eventually melt down.
>>
Jarvis Sopperdock - Wed, 01 Jun 2016 14:17:35 EST ID:19PQK8yy No.14367 Ignore Report Reply
>>14366
I was talking to this retired nuclear engineer from Arkansas that runs a hot dog stand, and he worked at the Pilgrim plant in Massachusetts. Apparently it's a miracle that Boston is still here, due to the poor maintenance at the plant.

Get Perl hot dogs, they're delicious.
>>
Nathaniel Blirrybanks - Fri, 03 Jun 2016 11:28:01 EST ID:KnhNp1xG No.14368 Ignore Report Reply
Modern nuclear power is much safer in terms of accidents. We don't use graphite in control rods anymore, so they don't cause the opposite of the intended effect. Even then, Chernobyl was idiocy, and the experiment that led to the disaster wasn't cleared by the plant manager's bosses.

Still, nuclear waste isn't safe no matter how technology we get.
>>
Augustus Bobberwater - Sat, 04 Jun 2016 06:34:16 EST ID:3VlPy42e No.14369 Ignore Report Reply
>>14368
You're fucking retarded.

We already have technology to create nuclear "waste" plants that use nuclear waste to generate power and over time transform nuclear waste in regular old lead.

It's just that no one (the oil industry) wants to build it.
>>
Cedric Sinderbit - Sat, 04 Jun 2016 13:20:56 EST ID:VdtcG9t4 No.14371 Ignore Report Reply
>>14369
If anyone was really interested in free, safe energy we'd be using ocean thermal.
>>
Charles Nicklefuck - Wed, 08 Jun 2016 11:01:50 EST ID:k3Zn00zK No.14372 Ignore Report Reply
>>14369
There are Breeder Reactors, in particular Liquid Fluoride Thorium Breeder Reactors, which transmute some of the existing byproducts of current reactors, and are much safer.
But they are nowhere near production ready and they don't "run on the waste" of existing reactors: They either are used to process existing waste or produce energy. I suppose a combination of both is theoretically possible if you sacrifice efficiency but it's nowhere near as awesome as you made it out to be.


Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.