[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 1.36 MB, 1447x819, nuke.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10495043 No.10495043 [Reply] [Original]

Nuclear power plant vs nuclear submarine
Which produces more radiation or poses the greater threat to its surroundings if something were to go wrong?

>> No.10495080
File: 606 KB, 1128x523, hmb-1-from-bay-ship-and-yacht.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10495080

Assuming a static, traditionally-built NPP. This is because the submarine can be lifted into a containment box and safely towed to a secure area for deconstruction. The US itself did this in 1974 when it raised the Soviet diesel-electric submarine K-129 in the Hughes Mining Barge (pic related), a submersible drydock previously built for geological research with the Hughes Glomar Explorer. The US Navy likely has contingency plans to do it with their submarines should they suffer an accident, if only so that Russia or China do not salvage them first.

This is why the US government decided to transition the entire nuclear industry into Small Modular Reactors starting in the mid 2020s, so that if an accident occurs the reactor can be bottled up and safely deconstructed while the manufacturer sends a replacement unit. Utilities like it because it's more fault tolerant, insurance companies like it because it reduces risk and banks like it because the plant does not have to be fully constructed to begin revenue operations.

>> No.10495084
File: 156 KB, 1000x793, 620441.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10495084

>>10495080

>Assuming a static, traditionally-built NPP. This is because...

*Assuming a static, traditionally-built NPP, the NPP. This is because...

>> No.10495087

>>10495043
A nuclear submarine hands down. Nuclear submarines carry nuclear missiles, which are capable of ending civilization as we know it.

>> No.10495130

>>10495043
Depends on if the sub is russian or not

>> No.10495156
File: 5 KB, 211x239, 92d.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10495156

>>10495087
>Nuclear submarines carry nuclear missiles

>> No.10496651

>>10495080
So the nuclear submarine is safer to use?But which generates or contains the most radiation?

>> No.10496959

>>10496651

probably the submarine since it's reactor is run hotter than a traditional plant so the radiation within has a greater density. The submarine also has lots of radioactive non-fuel substances on board (within the nuclear warheads) and it's reactor probably supports hot loading.

>> No.10496976

>>10495043
The reactors were designed for subs. They were never meant to be scaled up to grid size and therefore they were never safe.

>> No.10498312

>>10495043
The nuclear power plant poses the greater threat, but the chances of that threat eventuating are much smaller.