What would happen to Nuclear Power Stations if…
Discussion
LaurasOtherHalf said:
otolith said:
Our absence would be in the interests of most other species on the planet.
There not being enough of us to destroy the biosphere would be in the interests of those who remain.
The universe doesn’t care either way.
Claptrap imho, in another few millions of years something else would evolve to take over and the planet would be back in the same position.There not being enough of us to destroy the biosphere would be in the interests of those who remain.
The universe doesn’t care either way.
It’s like survivor guilt, hating your species for the battles against nature we’ve won over millions of years.
That’s not to say I don’t think it will happen, I sort of subscribe to that theory of why we’ve never encountered aliens. Basically before we get so advanced to achieve interstellar travel we wipe ourselves out.
Could be war, an external extinction event or f
king about with viruses in labs.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox
annodomini2 said:
LaurasOtherHalf said:
otolith said:
Our absence would be in the interests of most other species on the planet.
There not being enough of us to destroy the biosphere would be in the interests of those who remain.
The universe doesn’t care either way.
Claptrap imho, in another few millions of years something else would evolve to take over and the planet would be back in the same position.There not being enough of us to destroy the biosphere would be in the interests of those who remain.
The universe doesn’t care either way.
It’s like survivor guilt, hating your species for the battles against nature we’ve won over millions of years.
That’s not to say I don’t think it will happen, I sort of subscribe to that theory of why we’ve never encountered aliens. Basically before we get so advanced to achieve interstellar travel we wipe ourselves out.
Could be war, an external extinction event or f
king about with viruses in labs.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox
There's too many what if's...
It will depend on many factors:
1. Reactor design, there are many different designs, some old, some new, with varying degrees of safety mechanisms and automation.
2. State of the reactor at the point of the incident, full generation capacity or shutdown for maintenance, or some state in between.
3. Environment around the system at the point of failure.
a: The odds of a Chernobyl type incident are probably quite low, although there are still RMBK reactors operating.
b: Meltdown for some systems is plausible, most, if not all, would be contained by their containment systems (RMBK excluded), e.g. Three Mile Island.
c: Secondary issues due to gas build up (ala Fukashima), may be possible with some reactors.
c: Some will be fine at the point of failure and the immediate aftermath.
The main issue will be time, if the situation occurs for a long period, it will move to how the containment holds up over time, as the material in the reactors currently needs to be stored for thousands of years how the reactor will hold up after not being designed to operate in this way.
It will depend on many factors:
1. Reactor design, there are many different designs, some old, some new, with varying degrees of safety mechanisms and automation.
2. State of the reactor at the point of the incident, full generation capacity or shutdown for maintenance, or some state in between.
3. Environment around the system at the point of failure.
a: The odds of a Chernobyl type incident are probably quite low, although there are still RMBK reactors operating.
b: Meltdown for some systems is plausible, most, if not all, would be contained by their containment systems (RMBK excluded), e.g. Three Mile Island.
c: Secondary issues due to gas build up (ala Fukashima), may be possible with some reactors.
c: Some will be fine at the point of failure and the immediate aftermath.
The main issue will be time, if the situation occurs for a long period, it will move to how the containment holds up over time, as the material in the reactors currently needs to be stored for thousands of years how the reactor will hold up after not being designed to operate in this way.
LaurasOtherHalf said:
otolith said:
Our absence would be in the interests of most other species on the planet.
There not being enough of us to destroy the biosphere would be in the interests of those who remain.
The universe doesn’t care either way.
Claptrap imho, in another few millions of years something else would evolve to take over and the planet would be back in the same position.There not being enough of us to destroy the biosphere would be in the interests of those who remain.
The universe doesn’t care either way.
annodomini2 said:
There's too many what if's...
It will depend on many factors:
1. Reactor design, there are many different designs, some old, some new, with varying degrees of safety mechanisms and automation.
2. State of the reactor at the point of the incident, full generation capacity or shutdown for maintenance, or some state in between.
3. Environment around the system at the point of failure.
a: The odds of a Chernobyl type incident are probably quite low, although there are still RMBK reactors operating.
b: Meltdown for some systems is plausible, most, if not all, would be contained by their containment systems (RMBK excluded), e.g. Three Mile Island.
c: Secondary issues due to gas build up (ala Fukashima), may be possible with some reactors.
c: Some will be fine at the point of failure and the immediate aftermath.
The main issue will be time, if the situation occurs for a long period, it will move to how the containment holds up over time, as the material in the reactors currently needs to be stored for thousands of years how the reactor will hold up after not being designed to operate in this way.
Precisly none of that matters if we only have a tiny population density. The reactors go bang, like a volcano goes bang, and we simply move away.It will depend on many factors:
1. Reactor design, there are many different designs, some old, some new, with varying degrees of safety mechanisms and automation.
2. State of the reactor at the point of the incident, full generation capacity or shutdown for maintenance, or some state in between.
3. Environment around the system at the point of failure.
a: The odds of a Chernobyl type incident are probably quite low, although there are still RMBK reactors operating.
b: Meltdown for some systems is plausible, most, if not all, would be contained by their containment systems (RMBK excluded), e.g. Three Mile Island.
c: Secondary issues due to gas build up (ala Fukashima), may be possible with some reactors.
c: Some will be fine at the point of failure and the immediate aftermath.
The main issue will be time, if the situation occurs for a long period, it will move to how the containment holds up over time, as the material in the reactors currently needs to be stored for thousands of years how the reactor will hold up after not being designed to operate in this way.
On a global or even country scale, it's irrelevant
105.4 said:
99.9% of the population ceased to exist overnight?
Yes, I know. It’s a completely unlikely scenario, but crap like this does drift though my tiny little mind every so often.
From my very rudimentary understanding of nuclear fusion, the fuel rods are bathed in water? Water that would eventually evaporate, causing a situation that ‘wasn’t great, but isn’t horrifying’.
Could your average Joe with almost zero knowledge of the operation of a nuclear power station gain entry to the control room and save the day? Or would their meddling cause things to go ‘boom’?
As an aside, is there any more catastrophic dilemmas that would await what would be left of mankind? Would Porton Down be a ticking time bomb? What would happen if all the animals were released from zoos?
Please feel free to include your own nightmarish scenarios.
I do not have my own scripts, but I will be happy to answer some of your questions.Yes, I know. It’s a completely unlikely scenario, but crap like this does drift though my tiny little mind every so often.
From my very rudimentary understanding of nuclear fusion, the fuel rods are bathed in water? Water that would eventually evaporate, causing a situation that ‘wasn’t great, but isn’t horrifying’.
Could your average Joe with almost zero knowledge of the operation of a nuclear power station gain entry to the control room and save the day? Or would their meddling cause things to go ‘boom’?
As an aside, is there any more catastrophic dilemmas that would await what would be left of mankind? Would Porton Down be a ticking time bomb? What would happen if all the animals were released from zoos?
Please feel free to include your own nightmarish scenarios.
What would happen if all the animals were released from the zoo? Most likely nothing major will happen. There are several reasons for this. The first is that animals that live for a long time in captivity are not adapted to life in the wild. Secondly, many animals kept in zoos are simply not adapted to the habitat they will find themselves in. Third - given the military power of mankind, this "problem" will be settled in a couple of days.
- Would Porton Down be a ticking time bomb? Yes, I think it's quite possible. Considering the specifics of their developments. However, I exclude the scenario, as from one of the films about the zombie apocalypse. Because there would have to be too many coincidences to make it work, and the people who work in these places are not stupid at all.
105.4 said:
99.9% of the population ceased to exist overnight?
Yes, I know. It’s a completely unlikely scenario, but crap like this does drift though my tiny little mind every so often.
From my very rudimentary understanding of nuclear fusion, the fuel rods are bathed in water? Water that would eventually evaporate, causing a situation that ‘wasn’t great, but isn’t horrifying’.
Could your average Joe with almost zero knowledge of the operation of a nuclear power station gain entry to the control room and save the day? Or would their meddling cause things to go ‘boom’?
As an aside, is there any more catastrophic dilemmas that would await what would be left of mankind? Would Porton Down be a ticking time bomb? What would happen if all the animals were released from zoos?
Please feel free to include your own nightmarish scenarios.
I do not have my own scripts, but I will be happy to answer some of your questions.Yes, I know. It’s a completely unlikely scenario, but crap like this does drift though my tiny little mind every so often.
From my very rudimentary understanding of nuclear fusion, the fuel rods are bathed in water? Water that would eventually evaporate, causing a situation that ‘wasn’t great, but isn’t horrifying’.
Could your average Joe with almost zero knowledge of the operation of a nuclear power station gain entry to the control room and save the day? Or would their meddling cause things to go ‘boom’?
As an aside, is there any more catastrophic dilemmas that would await what would be left of mankind? Would Porton Down be a ticking time bomb? What would happen if all the animals were released from zoos?
Please feel free to include your own nightmarish scenarios.
What would happen if all the animals were released from the zoo? Most likely nothing major will happen. There are several reasons for this. The first is that animals that live for a long time in captivity are not adapted to life in the wild. Secondly, many animals kept in zoos are simply not adapted to the habitat they will find themselves in. Third - given the military power of mankind, this "problem" will be settled in a couple of days.
- Would Porton Down be a ticking time bomb? Yes, I think it's quite possible. Considering the specifics of their developments. However, I exclude the scenario, as from one of the films about the zombie apocalypse. Because there would have to be too many coincidences to make it work, and the people who work in these places are not stupid at all.
DaviBrons said:
What would happen if all the animals were released from the zoo? Most likely nothing major will happen. There are several reasons for this. The first is that animals that live for a long time in captivity are not adapted to life in the wild. Secondly, many animals kept in zoos are simply not adapted to the habitat they will find themselves in. Third - given the military power of mankind, this "problem" will be settled in a couple of days.
Not necessarily...Yes, we're not going to end up with herds of elephants or giraffes roaming the countryside, but assuming large numbers of animals were able to escape some of those might end up establishing a wild population. Mainly those with large captive populations (so a good "starting population"), or possibly those with the capability to cross-breed with existing wild species.
Yes, the remaining military power could still deal with them, but going from 70m people in the UK (for example) to 70k people, hunting down a few loose monkeys, wolves, other canines will be low on the list of initial priorities.
Likewise, although a lot of domesticated dogs would probably end up starving to death locked in their own homes, a lot will end up escaping and running wild. Again, once they've scavenged the "low hanging fruit", a lot will starve, but I would expect a significant number will figure out a way to survive. Maybe not enough to become a significant threat to the remaining human population, but enough to upset the existing ecosystem. Likewise with cats, they're probably more adept at surviving so again the existing ecosystem will be significantly impacted.
Moving on to "farmed" animals, I expect most dairy herds would die out through neglect, but I think there's something like 4 million pigs in the UK, if a large number of those escaped and ran wild the damage would be immense.
DaviBrons said:
Would Porton Down be a ticking time bomb? Yes, I think it's quite possible. Considering the specifics of their developments. However, I exclude the scenario, as from one of the films about the zombie apocalypse. Because there would have to be too many coincidences to make it work, and the people who work in these places are not stupid at all.
I doubt that there is anything nasty stored in Porton Down which would bother anyone who didn't break in and go looking for it. In general, failure of the systems needed to maintain biological material will not result in them "escaping", it will result in them degrading. If the freezers containing virus samples fail, for instance, over time they will just become useless. I suppose they might at any particular time have experiments running which generate aerosols which the positive pressure system in a BSL4 lab helps to keep in the building, but the window of risk for that would be small. They manufacture and store small amounts of dangerous chemicals, which might eventually escape given long enough for the buildings to decay and collapse, but that wouldn't do much more than make a local hazard. 
otolith said:
DaviBrons said:
Would Porton Down be a ticking time bomb? Yes, I think it's quite possible. Considering the specifics of their developments. However, I exclude the scenario, as from one of the films about the zombie apocalypse. Because there would have to be too many coincidences to make it work, and the people who work in these places are not stupid at all.
I doubt that there is anything nasty stored in Porton Down which would bother anyone who didn't break in and go looking for it. In general, failure of the systems needed to maintain biological material will not result in them "escaping", it will result in them degrading. If the freezers containing virus samples fail, for instance, over time they will just become useless. I suppose they might at any particular time have experiments running which generate aerosols which the positive pressure system in a BSL4 lab helps to keep in the building, but the window of risk for that would be small. They manufacture and store small amounts of dangerous chemicals, which might eventually escape given long enough for the buildings to decay and collapse, but that wouldn't do much more than make a local hazard. Regarding animals from Zoos, the only one I could see having a decent change would be Zebras. Nothing else springs to mind that would be able to survive and thrive, (happy to be corrected though).
Thanks both for your replies about Porton Down. Feel free to add your own nightmarish scenarios in the event of a collapse of civilisation.
105.4 said:
From my very rudimentary understanding of nuclear fusion, the fuel rods are bathed in water? Water that would eventually evaporate, causing a situation that ‘wasn’t great, but isn’t horrifying’.
Could your average Joe with almost zero knowledge of the operation of a nuclear power station gain entry to the control room and save the day? Or would their meddling cause things to go ‘boom’?
As an aside, is there any more catastrophic dilemmas that would await what would be left of mankind? Would Porton Down be a ticking time bomb? What would happen if all the animals were released from zoos?
Please feel free to include your own nightmarish scenarios.
There are lots of reactor designs and plenty of them don't use water like that.Could your average Joe with almost zero knowledge of the operation of a nuclear power station gain entry to the control room and save the day? Or would their meddling cause things to go ‘boom’?
As an aside, is there any more catastrophic dilemmas that would await what would be left of mankind? Would Porton Down be a ticking time bomb? What would happen if all the animals were released from zoos?
Please feel free to include your own nightmarish scenarios.
I would like to think that the reactors would initially scram (that is, they'd insert all the control rods and shut themselves down) if nobody was there to drive anything.
They would still need cooling until cold (which wouldn't happen for many years) so effectively, in the complete fall of civilization, most/all of the reactors would ultimately fail unsafe.
On the other hand, 99.9% of the population dying is 0.1% out. We all die. All you're talking about is it happening at the same time, without replacement.
Even with only 0.1% of the world population left, that's still 78 million people. There would statistically have to be a few nuclear physicists amongst them, it's bigger than the population of the UK.
Max_Torque said:
Precisly none of that matters if we only have a tiny population density. The reactors go bang, like a volcano goes bang, and we simply move away.
On a global or even country scale, it's irrelevant
Chernobyl would have been much worse without human intervention, but I agree this would be a regional issue rather than global.On a global or even country scale, it's irrelevant
annodomini2 said:
Max_Torque said:
Precisly none of that matters if we only have a tiny population density. The reactors go bang, like a volcano goes bang, and we simply move away.
On a global or even country scale, it's irrelevant
Chernobyl would have been much worse without human intervention, but I agree this would be a regional issue rather than global.On a global or even country scale, it's irrelevant
It'd be bliss....
I'd spend the first few weeks and months hiding and scavenging. I figure the rats know how to survive.
Then slowly I'd creep out of my burrow to see which powerfully built director types had taken over and whether I could befriend any of them.
I'd then over time in a 'Master Blaster' kind of way make them entirely dependent upon me, with a mixture of sycophantic praise and gaslighting.
Before ultimately stabbing them in both eyes in a drug fueled orgy of violence.
Then, covered in the leaders blood, I'd announce their rein of medium abuse and terror were over, to be quickly replaced by periods of intense savagery and generosity in random orders so as to confuse everyone.
By this stage the salt mines I advocated under the previous ruler would be well underway and I'd move very quickly into enslaving as many people in the mines as possible.
All men who were ever so slightly well built or directorial would immediately be incarcerated as would anyone who mentioned either the old ways, or the old leader.
Once the mines were well stocked I would go about my reeducation process, whose ultimate aim would be to return the nuclear power stations into operation.
I would hope to achieve this in the thirty or so years I have left.
However I haven't given things very much thought...
I'd spend the first few weeks and months hiding and scavenging. I figure the rats know how to survive.
Then slowly I'd creep out of my burrow to see which powerfully built director types had taken over and whether I could befriend any of them.
I'd then over time in a 'Master Blaster' kind of way make them entirely dependent upon me, with a mixture of sycophantic praise and gaslighting.
Before ultimately stabbing them in both eyes in a drug fueled orgy of violence.
Then, covered in the leaders blood, I'd announce their rein of medium abuse and terror were over, to be quickly replaced by periods of intense savagery and generosity in random orders so as to confuse everyone.
By this stage the salt mines I advocated under the previous ruler would be well underway and I'd move very quickly into enslaving as many people in the mines as possible.
All men who were ever so slightly well built or directorial would immediately be incarcerated as would anyone who mentioned either the old ways, or the old leader.
Once the mines were well stocked I would go about my reeducation process, whose ultimate aim would be to return the nuclear power stations into operation.
I would hope to achieve this in the thirty or so years I have left.
However I haven't given things very much thought...
dundarach said:
It'd be bliss....
I'd spend the first few weeks and months hiding and scavenging. I figure the rats know how to survive.
Then slowly I'd creep out of my burrow to see which powerfully built director types had taken over and whether I could befriend any of them.
I'd then over time in a 'Master Blaster' kind of way make them entirely dependent upon me, with a mixture of sycophantic praise and gaslighting.
Before ultimately stabbing them in both eyes in a drug fueled orgy of violence.
Then, covered in the leaders blood, I'd announce their rein of medium abuse and terror were over, to be quickly replaced by periods of intense savagery and generosity in random orders so as to confuse everyone.
By this stage the salt mines I advocated under the previous ruler would be well underway and I'd move very quickly into enslaving as many people in the mines as possible.
All men who were ever so slightly well built or directorial would immediately be incarcerated as would anyone who mentioned either the old ways, or the old leader.
Once the mines were well stocked I would go about my reeducation process, whose ultimate aim would be to return the nuclear power stations into operation.
I would hope to achieve this in the thirty or so years I have left.
However I haven't given things very much thought...
I'd spend the first few weeks and months hiding and scavenging. I figure the rats know how to survive.
Then slowly I'd creep out of my burrow to see which powerfully built director types had taken over and whether I could befriend any of them.
I'd then over time in a 'Master Blaster' kind of way make them entirely dependent upon me, with a mixture of sycophantic praise and gaslighting.
Before ultimately stabbing them in both eyes in a drug fueled orgy of violence.
Then, covered in the leaders blood, I'd announce their rein of medium abuse and terror were over, to be quickly replaced by periods of intense savagery and generosity in random orders so as to confuse everyone.
By this stage the salt mines I advocated under the previous ruler would be well underway and I'd move very quickly into enslaving as many people in the mines as possible.
All men who were ever so slightly well built or directorial would immediately be incarcerated as would anyone who mentioned either the old ways, or the old leader.
Once the mines were well stocked I would go about my reeducation process, whose ultimate aim would be to return the nuclear power stations into operation.
I would hope to achieve this in the thirty or so years I have left.
However I haven't given things very much thought...
annodomini2 said:
Max_Torque said:
Precisly none of that matters if we only have a tiny population density. The reactors go bang, like a volcano goes bang, and we simply move away.
On a global or even country scale, it's irrelevant
Chernobyl would have been much worse without human intervention, but I agree this would be a regional issue rather than global.On a global or even country scale, it's irrelevant
hidetheelephants said:
annodomini2 said:
Max_Torque said:
Precisly none of that matters if we only have a tiny population density. The reactors go bang, like a volcano goes bang, and we simply move away.
On a global or even country scale, it's irrelevant
Chernobyl would have been much worse without human intervention, but I agree this would be a regional issue rather than global.On a global or even country scale, it's irrelevant
They ignored the test procedure due to grid supply problems, attempted to complete the test without taking the reactor off and delayed it to just the wrong time and they disconnected so many protection systems to drive themselves into a place they should not have been.
This resulted in very high Xenon which they attempted to override by pulling all the rods out of the core and setup the accident.
If the humans hadn't operated like this, it would have just shutdown like any other commercial reactor.
its the risk thing again...
as soon as the word nuclear is mentioned we start to see mushroom clouds and devastated cities.
Thats the thing - people are conditioned to fear the fear.
Its how world peace has prevailed, soo many conditioned to fear the fear. city crushing instant retaliation awaited. suicide to start a war.
So now a population fearing nuclear...
the OP scenario... a cataclysmic event. and how would the nuclear facilities pan out... 440 reactors according to wiki... thats a lot.
and then you have to add in all the support structure for obtaining the fuel and then for disposing of the waste.
what about military ? all those nuclear weapons aswell... they would be sitting around.
Someone someplace thought it would be a good idea to try and design a sign that could alert future generations that there was something dangerous... a kind of lasting no mans land.. stay out etc.
what ever we do there is always going to be a residual impact on life.
as soon as the word nuclear is mentioned we start to see mushroom clouds and devastated cities.
Thats the thing - people are conditioned to fear the fear.
Its how world peace has prevailed, soo many conditioned to fear the fear. city crushing instant retaliation awaited. suicide to start a war.
So now a population fearing nuclear...
the OP scenario... a cataclysmic event. and how would the nuclear facilities pan out... 440 reactors according to wiki... thats a lot.
and then you have to add in all the support structure for obtaining the fuel and then for disposing of the waste.
what about military ? all those nuclear weapons aswell... they would be sitting around.
Someone someplace thought it would be a good idea to try and design a sign that could alert future generations that there was something dangerous... a kind of lasting no mans land.. stay out etc.
what ever we do there is always going to be a residual impact on life.
ruggedscotty said:
Someone someplace thought it would be a good idea to try and design a sign that could alert future generations that there was something dangerous... a kind of lasting no mans land.. stay out etc.
Yes, I found that project fascinating.https://www.damninteresting.com/this-place-is-not-...
Gary C said:
hidetheelephants said:
annodomini2 said:
Max_Torque said:
Precisly none of that matters if we only have a tiny population density. The reactors go bang, like a volcano goes bang, and we simply move away.
On a global or even country scale, it's irrelevant
Chernobyl would have been much worse without human intervention, but I agree this would be a regional issue rather than global.On a global or even country scale, it's irrelevant
They ignored the test procedure due to grid supply problems, attempted to complete the test without taking the reactor off and delayed it to just the wrong time and they disconnected so many protection systems to drive themselves into a place they should not have been.
This resulted in very high Xenon which they attempted to override by pulling all the rods out of the core and setup the accident.
If the humans hadn't operated like this, it would have just shutdown like any other commercial reactor.
In the absence of people, big electrical grids would go offline fairly quickly (in the UK they only have to go 1.15Hz off the mandated 50Hz before the grid will automatically shed load by disconnecting stuff, as happened on 9th August 2019) and pretty soon after that the cooling would go to local diesel and then when the fuel was exhausted, offline at all the powerplants, leading ultimately to meltdowns at the nuclear ones. This is true of just about all the commercial reactors out there, never mind the ones in ships, subs and icebreakers.
There are >400 commercial nuclear reactors in the world. Hundreds of potential chernobyls. It wouldn't be pretty.
I dread to think what would happen at places like porton down (frozen biological stuff becoming unfrozen, for example).
See also: non-nuclear reactors (especially gas ones) going on fire, oil refineries, oil and gas production facilities, pumps. All water pumps would go offline (much of east anglia would be flooded by the sea as it once was, along with low-lying areas of managed ground all over the world, such as the Netherlands). Imagine what a dam would do if unmanaged to the point of overtopping (oroville). London would be flooded the first time the london barrier didn't do its thing, which it does typically half a dozen times a year.
Loads of stuff would fail catastrophically without regular human intervention. It's a built world.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff