“Waah Waah its expensive”

  • alcoholicorn
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    To test this, which became commercially operational in December 2023, Dong and his team switched off both modules of HTR-PM as they were operating at full power, then measured and tracked how the temperature of different parts of the plant went down afterwards. They found that HTR-PM naturally cooled and reached a stable temperature within 35 hours after the power was removed.

    I mean if you drove the titanic through an iceberg and it was fine, I’d say you’d have a iceberg-proof ship, since you’ve literally proved it against an iceberg.

    They proved that this power plant doesn’t melt down when its cooling power supply is removed

    • booty [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      I mean if you drove the titanic through an iceberg and it was fine, I’d say you’d have a iceberg-proof ship

      And you would be wrong, because the Titanic could’ve plowed directly into the iceberg and it wouldn’t have sunk. They weren’t calling it unsinkable for no reason. The circumstances that led to the Titanic sinking were very difficult to foresee, just like the circumstances which might potentially cause a meltdown in a “meltdown-proof” reactor.

      I think the tech itself is great I just think this language is in poor taste

    • morrowind
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      4 months ago

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

      Now what happens if somebody drops a bomb on the plant

      • alcoholicorn
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        4 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 [any]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        4 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.

    • bumpusoot [any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      This is just foolish reasoning, everything is immune to failure until it isn’t.

      Basically every major accident in history (including Chernobyl) happened because of circumstances that were either not imagined or deemed so unlikely they’d never happen. Effectively calling your thing failure-proof is just stupid.