To: HiTech RedNeck
Isnt the point that, if it DOES fail it will drain away into the holding tank.
These schemes always look good on paper. Lewis Strauss, head of AEC in the 50's, said nukes would make electricity "Too cheap to meter." We'll all have flying automobiles before that happens.
17 posted on
09/11/2015 10:24:28 AM PDT by
867V309
(Trump: Bull in a RINO Shoppe)
To: 867V309
Oh, it ought to be tested well in a lab. But to simulate failures shouldn’t be hard.
20 posted on
09/11/2015 10:26:34 AM PDT by
HiTech RedNeck
(Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
To: 867V309
Nukes were to prove to have the big problem that the radioactivity corroded the equipment making it easier to behave less than perfectly.
If someone has come up with a better solution to the problem of failing, which not a whether question but a when question, it deserves respect. If it is expected to melt down upon failure, and it is designed to catch the meltdown if it does, then we have a promising design. Don’t try to evade the failure mode; instead harness it.
22 posted on
09/11/2015 10:29:54 AM PDT by
HiTech RedNeck
(Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson