Chernorbyl 30 Years Later

[Joelist]

No doubt it is part expense but there are other factors too, like earthquake vulnerability and radiating heat (not radioactivity simply thermal heat radiation) would become more difficult. I'm sure there are others.

 

[YJ02]

No doubt it is part expense but there are other factors too, like earthquake vulnerability and radiating heat (not radioactivity simply thermal heat radiation) would become more difficult. I'm sure there are others.

would it ever be feasible (don't want to say "possible", over used and besides just about anything is "possible") to have a nuke plant in orbit and either "tether" the power back to the surface or 'broadcast' it back in another way?

if such a thing were done, would a disaster in orbit create the same harmful effects as high alt nuke warheads going off--EMP,radiation,etc?

 

[shavedape]

would it ever be feasible (don't want to say "possible", over used and besides just about anything is "possible") to have a nuke plant in orbit and either "tether" the power back to the surface or 'broadcast' it back in another way?

if such a thing were done, would a disaster in orbit create the same harmful effects as high alt nuke warheads going off--EMP,radiation,etc?

I would think that would depend on how high in orbit such a plant would be. If it was basically in the vacuum of space it would probably be a moot point. As it is the Earth is bombarded with radiation from the Sun (solar winds, solar flares) on a regular basis. This high radiation is deflected by the electro-magnetic field surrounding the planet. So I assume it would do the same to any nuclear radiation on the outside of the terrarium so to speak.

But if it was low enough in orbit it would seed the atmosphere with deadly radiation pellets that would rain down upon our poor, unsuspecting heads thereby wiping out the human race in short order, all because Donald Trump wanted to build a nuke plant in space, the bastard.

 

[Tripler]

;

would it ever be feasible (don't want to say "possible", over used and besides just about anything is "possible") to have a nuke plant in orbit and either "tether" the power back to the surface or 'broadcast' it back in another way?

Was not Tesla working on wireless Electricity if I remember correctly ?

 

[YJ02]

;


Was not Tesla working on wireless Electricity if I remember correctly ?

yes he was

i recently saw something in passing through the channels in sci tv or somewhere,that another research company has picked up his line of thought on this

maybe this? :

 

[YJ02]

But if it was low enough in orbit it would seed the atmosphere with deadly radiation pellets

would that be IF there was a 'disaster' of some type with it?

 

[Bluce Ree]

would it ever be feasible (don't want to say "possible", over used and besides just about anything is "possible") to have a nuke plant in orbit and either "tether" the power back to the surface or 'broadcast' it back in another way?

Not with current technology. The amount of power required to power a single city wouldn't be possible via any type of wireless conduit. Furthermore, the logistics of providing that much power from orbit doesn't make sense. Either it would be a mega structure to power entire segmented regions of a continent or filling the sky with nuclear reactors, neither of which would be practical nor desirable.

 

[Tripler]

Not with current technology. The amount of power required to power a single city wouldn't be possible via any type of wireless conduit. Furthermore, the logistics of providing that much power from orbit doesn't make sense. Either it would be a mega structure to power entire segmented regions of a continent or filling the sky with nuclear reactors, neither of which would be practical nor desirable.

Well we're just going to have to build a Dyson Sphere then dammit !!!

http://earthsky.org/space/what-is-a-dyson-sphere

 

[YJ02]

Not with current technology. The amount of power required to power a single city wouldn't be possible via any type of wireless conduit. Furthermore, the logistics of providing that much power from orbit doesn't make sense. Either it would be a mega structure to power entire segmented regions of a continent or filling the sky with nuclear reactors, neither of which would be practical nor desirable.

so back to my original question; WHY are they not built underground or in a mountain?

is it just simple finances? or is there another "real" reason?

 

[YJ02]

also read somewhere about transferring electric--solar powered-from orbit to the surface via microwave

just how would that work in detail anyone know?

was not this article but it is related

someone explain to me like i am 7yrs old please

http://phys.org/news/2015-03-japan-space-scientists-wireless-energy.html

 

[Joelist]

Microwave power transfer is being worked on, and may become more practical as time goes on.

As to building a nuclear plant underground or in a mountain, there are factors that work against it:

- Cost. It would be hugely expensive to bury an entire facility like that.

- Heat. Remember that the way nuclear power works is the reactor creates heat that boils water to superheated steam. The steam then drives turbines that generate the electricity. All that heat gets radiated out to cool the steam back to water before the whole cycle starts again. The heat is not radioactive but still needs to be dispersed. Burying the reactor makes that more difficult.

Really there isn't any need to do so anyway. A properly designed reactor that is kept up to date with safety features is safe enough for use. Personally, I do wonder why civilian nuclear power plant builders don't use the same reactors the US Navy uses - very long core life, small size coupled with good output and as they are built for use in ships the whole structure is very strong and self-contained.

 

[shavedape]

Personally, I do wonder why civilian nuclear power plant builders don't use the same reactors the US Navy uses - very long core life, small size coupled with good output and as they are built for use in ships the whole structure is very strong and self-contained.

I wonder how many nuclear powered ships -- namely subs -- have been lost due to core malfunctions. I doubt any American ones but I bet Russia has lost a few and kept it quiet.

 

[Bluce Ree]

so back to my original question; WHY are they not built underground or in a mountain?

is it just simple finances? or is there another "real" reason?

Nuclear reactors? Would you really want to live above a nuclear reactor? Talk about advanced China Syndrome.

 

[Overmind One]

Centralized power sources is not the answer at all. It just allows others to control the supply.

 

[Joelist]

I wonder how many nuclear powered ships -- namely subs -- have been lost due to core malfunctions. I doubt any American ones but I bet Russia has lost a few and kept it quiet.

None we know of actually. The Soviets had a number of reactor cooling malfunctions (including one on K-19 that killed 25 crewmen) that were down to poor reactor design. In a way, I think we were fortunate to have someone like Hyman Rickover directing naval reactor development and indeed the entire culture and personnel training of personnel in the Navy who worked with reactors. Bascially he was a workaholic perfectionist who was laser focused on safety.

 

[YJ02]

this guy has done a series of videos where he wanders through "The Zone" exploring and meeting with people who refused to leave

seems most of the people he meets who never left are healthy and are quite old. they grow food in the contaminated ground and raise livestock as well

the place and what has happened after has been quite a lesson in what we didn't actually know about radiation and its environmental effects

 

[Joelist]

It is also interesting to read about the New Safe Confinement and how they now are starting to dismantle the reactor and the old sarcophagus.

 

[YJ02]

It is also interesting to read about the New Safe Confinement and how they now are starting to dismantle the reactor and the old sarcophagus.

has science come up with any reasonable explanation of why so many people were so critically affected by the explosion/ fallout, yet many others, like the ones in these videos. are seemingly unaffected?

and they are living, with seemingly few ailments, at least as long or longer then ppl out of the zone

is there some genetic component that makes some ppl more resistant to radiation? i wouldn't think that's possible