this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2024
103 points (98.1% liked)

chapotraphouse

13533 readers
873 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Gossip posts go in c/gossip. Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from c/gossip

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

"Waah Waah its expensive"

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] morrowind@lemmy.ml 16 points 3 months ago (3 children)

I'm sure the Titanic was also unsinkable for a regular breach.

Now what happens if somebody drops a bomb on the plant

[–] FourteenEyes@hexbear.net 18 points 3 months ago

"What are you going to do, bomb me?" -- nuclear reactor engineer at meltdown-proof nuclear plant

[–] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 11 points 3 months ago

I do kinda wonder what happens if they lose coolant.

Helium has such a low heat capacity, it has to be at a fairly high pressure (70 bar in this case) and flow really fast. It's mitigated to some extent by the low density and size of the reactor, as demonstrated by the passive flow being sufficient to cool it.

Also IIRC these fuel pebbles themselves become less reactive as they get hotter and they can get very hot before melting down

[–] Nacarbac@hexbear.net 10 points 3 months ago

Well, they do tend to be designed to be resistant to that kind of thing - and some sorta fancy bunker buster would probably disperse the fissile material anyway. Certainly a big ol' not good, but criticality depends on having enough mass in close proximity, so it's similar to how you can blow up a nuclear missile with an interceptor safely-ish.

Setting an oil facility ablaze is going to be much easier and have worse health effects in the vicinity.