On 4/15/2011 8:49 AM, Invisible wrote:
> On 15/04/2011 16:35, Darren New wrote:
>> On 4/15/2011 5:57, Invisible wrote:
>>> That's kind of my point. You only need to be slightly wrong about one
>>> tiny thing, and it's game over.
>>
>> Not really. Look up thorium salt reactors. They don't go critical, the
>> wastes are not very radioactive, you can't blow them up, etc etc.
>> They're much safer.
>
> As I understand it, normal nuclear reactors are incapable of a *nuclear*
> explosion. That doesn't mean that the cooling system can't overload and
> explode. Or freak weather conditions level the building. Or somebody
> flies a passenger jet into it. Or...
>
The problem isn't nuclear explosions, its hydrogen generated by the 
system, which get hot enough to ignite. Mind.. I am seriously unclear 
why they couldn't make like a permeable something that could grab up the 
hydrogen, react it again, and just generate water from the excess, as 
part of the cooling, but.. I am sure it just silly to imagine a way to 
get rid of the damn stuff in a useful way, instead of just letting it 
get generated in insane amounts, when the fuel housings start to corrode...

Post a reply to this message