OT: Half of France's nuclear reactors out of commission for repair and maintenance

Not when it floods or some oik vandalises it. Easier to secure the steel cylinder in a concrete thing under the ground, but then it is much more prone to a problem in a flood or high water table.

Can't see it being allowed any time soon.

Reply to
4587Joey
Loading thread data ...

Can't see it being allowed, ever! The public are far too scared of anything remotely radioactive to contemplate such a thing, regardless of how flood-proof it could be made, and I have no doubt it could be made perfectly flood-proof with no difficulty. Nuclear submarines manage it!

Reply to
Chris Hogg

Agreed.

But they are manned. These wouldn't be.

Reply to
4587Joey

A steam engine would be quite a lot more compact though.

Reply to
Colin Bignell

So what if it floods. Neither steel, nor glass, dissolve in water.

And an oik would need at least some dynamite to "vandalise" it.

Reply to
Tim Streater

But it would stop working and see the home owner fiddle with it.

Bullshit.

And it is all completely academic anyway, its never going to be allowed.

Reply to
4587Joey

ROD ALERT

Reply to
Andrew

Beware the Rod Speed troll!

Reply to
Chris Hogg

Why ever not? it would be hermetically sealed..

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

If the public are scared of radioactivity then let them die of cold and starvation.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

The risk is terrorists gathering enough material for a dirty bomb.

Reply to
SteveW

Everyone knows you can't cut through structural steel with dynamite - see the film The Bridge At Remagen.

Reply to
Spike

Not really. Dirty bombs are a myth really. a hundred nuclear agas with a pound of whatever really are not going to do nearly as much damage as a ricin type chemical bomb.

Or a few tens of kilos of fertiliser

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

Isn't the long lived radioactive stuff going to require to be scooped up, whereas ricin probably biodegrades?

Reply to
GB

He's not automatically wrong. I think that the idea of providing nuclear reactors to households is going to be hard to sell to government.

Reply to
GB

The longer the half life, the less there is to worry about to a certain extent. If something takes 100,000 years to lose half it's radiation it's not really a danger.

Now if it takes 100 years ...

Reply to
Jethro_uk

In theory, but you still have to have some way of getting the heat into the house and plenty of hermetically sealed stuff doesn't stay that way forever. And like we said, there is no way that it would be allowed anyway.

We have already seen a few examples of radioactive industrial stuff ending up in a scrap yard eventually and that causing problems.

Reply to
4587Joey

No need for that, just have full nukes and use the electricity from that to avoid them dying of cold and starvation.

Reply to
4587Joey

Woddles is too dim to know what that means.

Reply to
Tim Streater

Well that was in relation to oiks, who can't be expected to know that.

Reply to
Tim Streater

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.