Sign up Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 3      Prev   1   2   3   Next
Conradian

Registered:
Posts: 1,999
Reply with quote  #16 
Nuclear reactors do not cause nuclear explosions. They are NOT, repeat NOT, A-bombs and they are certainly not H-bombs.
Smokey McDoob

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 26
Reply with quote  #17 
Steam explosions do not create oddly-recognizable clouds of dark grey 'vapour' (water vapour is white, is it not?)...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-N4kOyIkrLh0/TX7XGdNmejI/AAAAAAAAaTc/65Qoe5rAStI/s400/earthquake++2.JPG

https://georgevalah.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/fukublast.jpg

You'll have a hard time convincing me that THAT is steam. What you say about concrete at high temperatures, however, is at least plausible...

But how did a completely defueled Reactor 4 explode? There were no fuel rods to get hot. And no (obvious) way for the concrete of that building to get to 1200C.
Killacyte

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 770
Reply with quote  #18 
Notice how there is not any explosive light or fire.  That does not look like a nuclear explosion to me.  It really does look like a steam explosion.
Conradian

Registered:
Posts: 1,999
Reply with quote  #19 
Water vapour is white... That is not simply water vapour though.
EternityTide

Registered:
Posts: 85
Reply with quote  #20 
[ApX7jCT]
[I am not refering to those who actually DO know what they are talking about]
Killacyte

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 770
Reply with quote  #21 
It looks like water vapour mixed with a ton of dust and debris.
Levits

Registered:
Posts: 687
Reply with quote  #22 
Smokey, take the time to look through Wikipedia or other information outlets. It will help you understand the processes and functions of a nuclear reactor. The uranium used in nuclear reactors is not the same as used in nuclear bombs.

What you see in the images are all based upon a build up of pressure. The nuclear reactor meltdown in Japan certainly had nuclear material in it. From the information that I've heard of it, the nuclear material that was present within the reactor was never retrieved as it has melted its way down into the earth.

And I can certainly tell you now that if there was radiation present in such concentrated amounts that people had to be evacuated, there was nuclear material present.

As for the color of the water vapor:

Yes, steam is traditionally white. However, mix together that of concrete and it turns into a nasty dark and dull color. A few other components and it can turn yellow and any other shade of colors. If you notice in your example picture, there is indeed white steam clouds escaping at the bottom of the dark clouds. Now! if this was a nuclear explosion, you'd never have that camera picture as it would have been vaporized.

...And just out of curiosity, where exactly did you hear that reactor 4 had no fuel rods in it? Not trying to be mean, but informative. Please anyone, click the link below and read through it before posting .

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/what-is-the-difference-between-the-nuclear-material-in-a-bomb-versus-a-reactor/
WhiteWeasel

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 532
Reply with quote  #23 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulfsark
 So, to expand upon WhiteWeasel's point, no, it wouldn't be more realistic.

Found it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteWeasel
Reactors will NEVER go off like a nuke.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteWeasel
It's not the density of uranium, it's the purity of the concentration of it's isotope (therfore enrichment) U 235 vs. the amount of normal uranium (U238). With the isotope being the desired stuff. The lower the concentration of U 235, the harder to reach critical mass. There is a point of where there are so few neutrons splitting U 235 atoms, you would need an infinite mass of 5.4% enriched U 235 to achieve critical mass. 

Quote:
Highly enriched uranium (HEU) has a greater than 20% concentration of 235U or 233U. The fissile uranium in nuclear weapon primaries usually contains 85% or more of 235U known as weapon(s)-grade, though theoretically for an implosion design, a minimum of 20% could be sufficient (called weapon(s)-usable) although it would require hundreds of kilograms of material and "would not be practical to design";[4][5] even lower enrichment is hypothetically possible, but as the enrichment percentage decreases the critical mass for unmoderated fast neutrons rapidly increases, with for example, an infinite mass of 5.4% 235U being required.


And yes, I am making the total assumption that we are using 3-4% reactor grade enrichment, but if it is, it would be physically impossible to make it detonate like an atom bomb. 
Code Name D

Registered:
Posts: 99
Reply with quote  #24 
And meanwhile, as there is a heated debate over weather reactors explode or not.  The real question seems to have been forgotten?  Should the reactors explode in SE or not?

Weather is's realistic or not is besides the point. Would it add to survival if it did, and under what conditions?  

The problem here is that reactors don't come at much of a cost.  Sure you need uranium to keep it going, but it doesn't come with any other consequence. Even with 50 years future technology, reactors are going to be a touchy thing and should demand a steady hand and attention to keep working smoothly.  

It's a well established fact that reactors DO in fact explode.  Take a trip to Japan if you don't believe me.  Hell, we have videos on you-tube for crying out loud.  They are not nuclear explosions, true.  But its also a pointless observation in that they do in fact explode. 

But hay, realism only takes you so far in a video game.  The devs always have that writer's license sitting snugly in their pocket that they can whip out any time they wish. 

My opinion is that they should have the potential to explode, and eventually that they will go boom eventually under the right circumstances.  This should force the player to take precautions to guard against the possibility. 

I would argue that a new line could the added in the reactor representing "minimum safe guard."  If damage to a reactor should drop below that line while it is on line, then it should explode with a force equivalent to the amount of uranium it holds in its inventory.  Not a nuclear explosion to be sure, but potentially one that could blow a severe hole in your hull. To guard against this, you could keep only a minimum amount of fuel in the reactor, and shut it down before it goes critical. It might even have a scramble mode (that you could disable if you want to gamble) that will automatically shut down the reactor after too much damage is taken.  

Shutting it down should also take time.  There might be a shut down sequence (basically a timer) in which the reactor needs to be powered by an external source for X number of seconds before it is secured. If damage falls below that line before shut down is complete, you get an explosion.

But this is a worse case scenario. 

A second scenario is if the reactor is overheated or over-taxed.  

Imagine a bar meter registering power.  Two thirds of the meter is green - normal operation.  Our reactor working at 100% and with full health, will operate in the normal green zone.  The renaming third is red, our danger zone.  It only explodes once this meter reaches 100%.  And there are some things you can do to combat this or to reverse the trend. 

A cooling system perhaps.  In fact, a cooling system might let you get more power out of a single reactor, but you have to keep your cooling system working or things go wrong.  This adds risk to the game regarding your design choices.  Reactors are expensive, while cooling systems are cheep. (We have ice now, so we could use a water based cooling system.)  So build one reactor, than build a monster cooling system to keep it in its normal operating temperature, and you can get more power out of just one reactor. 

Over taxing the reactor could also cause it to overheat.  If you try to pull more power than the reactor can supply will cause it to quickly go critical.  Take the reactor off line or reduce the power demand.  Next time add more reactors to the ship or a cooling system.  There should be consequences when you see your power meter turn red.

If you don't like it exploding.  There are still other options we could use.  With volumetric system in place, we could have the reactor fill the compartment with radioactive gasses.  

We could take a page from sim-city where aging or neglected equipment starts to decay in efficiency.  If its over-heating or of less than full health, there could be a probability that one of the reactor components in the assembly could fail and need to be replaced.  The more reactor components that fail, the less power it puts out and the faster it builds up heat.  A new tool can allow us to remove the bad reactor components and replace them with new. We now have radioactive waste that we need to deal with.  Trash, that's an angle SE hasn't explored yet. 

Just some random ideas to put the conversation back on track here. 

 
EternityTide

Registered:
Posts: 85
Reply with quote  #25 
reactors overheating and shutting down, fine.
radiation leak? fine.
meltdown? fine.
But reactors do not and will not explode, no matter how hard you push them. The reactors in SE you build from scratch, so they are not old.
You would not build a system that has the potential to explode, especially not on board a spacecraft.
As I said earlier, the only reason Chernobyl exploded was because it was a godawful design, end of. 
Reactors do not explode. Reactors should not explode. You want them to explode? rig warheads to your engine room.
In 50 years time, they will have developed reactors which have more failsafes than you can count. 
And nuclear reactors are never at critical mass, therefore they CAN never explode in a nuclear explosion.
TL: DR
Your question was "Should reactors explode in SE or not?"
The answer: No, because it is wholly unrealistic, and unbending all of the reasonable fidelity to physics that SE follows to fit this fantasy over nuclear reactors is completely irrational.



Code Name D

Registered:
Posts: 99
Reply with quote  #26 

Quote:
But reactors do not and will not explode, no matter how hard you push them.

Here is video evidence proving you wrong!!!! 

Quote:
The reactors in SE you build from scratch, so they are not old.

 

SE is a video game, your not building squat.

Quote:
You would not build a system that has the potential to explode, especially not on board a spacecraft.

That is why they are called accidents.

Quote:
As I said earlier, the only reason Chernobyl exploded was because it was a godawful design, end of. 

 

So you admit that they do in fact explode?  I wonder how long this epiphany will last.

Quote:
Reactors do not explode.

Not long apparently.

Quote:
Reactors should not explode.

And yet they do.  We have proof.

Quote:
You want them to explode? rig warheads to your engine room.

 

Yay, good idea.

Quote:
In 50 years time, they will have developed reactors which have more failsafes than you can count. 

Again, this is a video game.  Its not even a real reactor – it doesn’t need fail safes.  Its what ever the player and developers want it to be.  It could spit out rainbows and lilies if we had a mind too.

Quote:
And nuclear reactors are never at critical mass, therefore they CAN never explode in a nuclear explosion.

Yes.  And no one has said otherwise.  The past explosions were all cause by hydrogen buildup which can produce a formidable explosion.  And guess what – that is an explosion, it dose damage.  You can quit flogging your strawman any time you wish.  But sooner would be better. 

Honestly, if you are going to hijack this topic every time some one brings it up – you deserved to be ponwed.  Especially when you are so very wrong dude. 

Please.  Relax, and take a few steps away from the flame thrower.  We are NOT talking about real nuclear reactors here.  We are talking about a video game and ways that we might make it more fun for those who play.

All games required risk and the potential for failure, something that SE is sourly lacking.  This is just one avenue among many that could add the element of risk into survival mode.  That is the point of this discussion. 

Your emotional assertion that “reactors don’t explode” is completely irrelevant.  Even if I was to completely grant your point – without contention – it doesn’t address the topic being raised here about making SE a better game.  

Smokey McDoob

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 26
Reply with quote  #27 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Levits
Smokey, take the time to look through Wikipedia or other information outlets. It will help you understand the processes and functions of a nuclear reactor. The uranium used in nuclear reactors is not the same as used in nuclear bombs.

What you see in the images are all based upon a build up of pressure. The nuclear reactor meltdown in Japan certainly had nuclear material in it. From the information that I've heard of it, the nuclear material that was present within the reactor was never retrieved as it has melted its way down into the earth.

I'd just like to point out that Wikipedia is not the Answer to Life, The Universe, and Everything. There is indeed a great deal of information to be found there, but any and all of that information can be changed practically in an instant.

It used to be said, 'Don't believe everything you see on TV.' Well, don't believe everything you see on the internet. And, the same goes for me, in many ways. One must consider the source of any information they find.

Believe me, I have indeed done a lot of research on reactors, and such, and I can agree that in normal circumstances, reactors do not explode. Then again, there's a video linked just a bit further back in the post, showing a reactor doing just that, under abnormal circumstances. Look closely at the second half of the video. You will see a bright orange flash. That's not steam. And I don't believe that a hydrogen explosion could have that devastating an effect. If it could, I would imagine Three Mile Island should have been much worse than it was. Not to mention the completely ignored shape of the cloud, which looks quite similar to what one might see in nuclear weapons testing videos. It is reasonable to consider that it might be some other kind of explosion.

I'm pretty sure the deciding factor in why the cores have not been retrieved is the high level of lethal radiation that surely surrounds the vicinity. I truly hope that it has not actually melted 'down into the earth'! I think 'China Syndrome' (no racism intended) is the term used for that kind of situation, and believe me, it's not good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Levitz

...And just out of curiosity, where exactly did you hear that reactor 4 had no fuel rods in it? Not trying to be mean, but informative.


I cannot say where I found this information, because I don't remember specifically. But I believe even official sources said that R4 was in the refuelling cycle during the event.

I really hope this doesn't hijack the thread again, but I felt compelled to address a message directed specifically at me.

EvilDylan

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 51
Reply with quote  #28 
No.
Just... no.
HunterX

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 103
Reply with quote  #29 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Code Name D

Quote:
But reactors do not and will not explode, no matter how hard you push them.

Here is video evidence proving you wrong!!!! 





You call that an explosion? I've seen sugar make a better explosion, SUGAR! For those of you don't know, powdered sugar is quite volatile. And lets not mention fertilizer, because it makes "your" explosion look like Child's play.[wink] 





Code Name D

Registered:
Posts: 99
Reply with quote  #30 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterX
Quote:
Originally Posted by Code Name D

Quote:
But reactors do not and will not explode, no matter how hard you push them.

Here is video evidence proving you wrong!!!! 





You call that an explosion? I've seen sugar make a better explosion, SUGAR! For those of you don't know, powdered sugar is quite volatile. And lets not mention fertilizer, because it makes "your" explosion look like Child's play.[wink] 



And when sugar plants explode, a 200 mile area becomes a noman's land?  And how about grain dust from corn or wheat.  That's been known to level a silo or two. 
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:


Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!