Atomic power gets bad press. What is wrong with putting uranium metal in pellet form into a reactor?eccentrically1 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 09, 2022 1:57 pm Chernobyl lost power this morning. Only enough fuel for generators for 48 hours to power critical safety systems. Same 210 staff has been there 2 weeks. Something is going to give very soon,
We all know metal when red hot burns. So flowing air over it is fine. What can go wrong?
Ho so we use uranium the has been burned (uranium oxide) and we put them in solid tubes.
Great what happens when they melt? So that possibility will never happen.
How much are we paying these clowns?
There you are with a big pool of critical mass.
Let's stick graphite rods between the tubes. After all graphite does not burn does it?
Are these the same clowns who filled a cabin with 100% oxygen?
How did that go?
Those dodge subs let's use water to cool the reactor. How use these on land next to water; Drinking water.
Time to bang both your heads together. You should have two you mutant clowns.
So bangs go another reactor. Have we not learned? The industry never learns it just repeats.
Can atomic power exist that does not go bang, create a big critical mass pool or pollute the air and water?
Yes but while we employ an industry of clowns it will not happen.
Bon voyage