| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 116606 | 2011-03-11 23:25:00 | Nuclear Power stations in NZ - Yes or No? | zqwerty (97) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1185304 | 2011-03-12 22:04:00 | Why. He's got his Mother to thank for fallout. :) | Snorkbox (15764) | ||
| 1185305 | 2011-03-12 22:25:00 | I suggest putting a nuclear power plant in Hone Hawira's backyard Bugger Off!! That's my back yard too. We don't want Nuclear power at all - if we have to have a nuclear power station stick it in Sydney or The Chathams with a loooong cable. |
Paul Ramon (11806) | ||
| 1185306 | 2011-03-12 22:25:00 | en.wikipedia.org | Alex B (15479) | ||
| 1185307 | 2011-03-12 22:30:00 | So... they've got 4 or 5 nuclear reactors in a row there. If one goes critical and melts down - can the other neighbouring reactors survive the blast? | Paul.Cov (425) | ||
| 1185308 | 2011-03-12 22:37:00 | So... they've got 4 or 5 nuclear reactors in a row there. If one goes critical and melts down - can the other neighbouring reactors survive the blast? Sigh. A meltdown does not mean a blast will even occur. Have a read of this:- www.nucleartourist.com HTH |
Snorkbox (15764) | ||
| 1185309 | 2011-03-12 22:44:00 | en.wikipedia.org Bananas, potatoes, brazil nuts all naturally radioactive... explains why they package potato chips inside foil bags huh? :p More nuclear trivia for those interested: The worlds first man-made critical pile was constructed on a squash court! Bloody students! www.atomicarchive.com |
Paul.Cov (425) | ||
| 1185310 | 2011-03-12 22:46:00 | So... they've got 4 or 5 nuclear reactors in a row there. If one goes critical and melts down - can the other neighbouring reactors survive the blast? Yes. They did at Chernobyl which was far worse than this. In fact Chernobyl continued to generate electricity until 2000. Plus there shouldn't be any catastrophic explosion. The reactor core was shut down immediately after the earthquake so it hasn't been producing heat or nuclear reactions for 40 hours. What the problem is the left-over heat around the reactor which has to be gotten rid of. These things operate damned hot and it can take 2 - 3 days to fully run down. A melt-down means the uranium rods literally melt but they are still held within the containment vessel. The danger arises from exploding coolant which separates out into H and O atoms. Bang = H2O. Plus dust and particles. And an explosive breach of the containment vessel. |
Winston001 (3612) | ||
| 1185311 | 2011-03-12 22:53:00 | "If" there is a Meltdown; if the core does melt, then it will slump to the bottom of the reactor vessel, melt through to into the containment floor" which will lead to that safety measure to fail. "It's likely to spread like a molten pool to the edge of the steel shell and melt through." You could have containment failure in less than a day." Then the core would exposed to the external environment. In that worst-case scenario, the only thing that can be done is to entomb the melted core in sand and cement, much as was done in Chernobyl. Said Bergeron, "A lot of first responders will die." Quoted from This report (www.time.com) |
wainuitech (129) | ||
| 1185312 | 2011-03-12 22:56:00 | The only thing melting down are some panicked posters here. | prefect (6291) | ||
| 1185313 | 2011-03-12 23:00:00 | The only thing melting down are some panicked posters here. Theres some melted Ice Cream on the sink bench in the container from last night - does that count as a melt down :p :D | wainuitech (129) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 | |||||