Why doesn't every home or large building have a small nuclear reactor like on submarines...

Why doesn't every home or large building have a small nuclear reactor like on submarines? It wouldn't need refueling for 25 years.

Attached: navy-submarine-nuclear-reactor.jpg (1162x956, 202K)

Other urls found in this thread:

imdb.com/title/tt7366338/
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assemblywomen
nti.org/analysis/tools/table/133/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>submarines
>small reactor
user...

because you touch yourself at night

efficiencies of scale

In case someone turned it into a small nuclear weapon. A piece of radioactive material the size of an orange could level a city if used in a bomb

Because every home isnt submerged into liquid cooling

Dirty bomb? Sure. Nuclear bomb, no, it's too complicated.

Because people are retarded. I don't want someone who can't even figure out which end of the spatula is for burger flipping anywhere near a reactor of any kind.

>He doesn't know about cooling towers

Why would every home have a nuclear reactor when it's easier and cheaper to build a single large one to power a whole city?

Plus, the risks involved in speading highly radioactive material all over the place are significant. And then there's the issue of incredibly expensive and large security and cooling systems. And nuclear subs don't exactly have "small" reactors in the sense that you could just put one in your basement.

>He cant afford a pool

Tell me how an RBMK reactor explodes?

The process for creating enriched radioactive material for nuclear bombs is too complex and time consuming. It could still do a lot of damage, mainly through nuclear radiation, but not as a nuclear bomb.

Aren't they the size of a boiler?

>Hey kids, wanna take a dip in our nuclear reactor coolant water?

I don't know exactly how big the reactors are, but you wouldn't need just the reactor itself. You'd need all sorts of cooling equipment, water pipes, shielding, reduntant power and cooling, and so on in order to do it safely.

Friendly reminder that you could be paying cents on the dollar for electricity but retarded soccer moms can't stop crying about MUH CHURN O' BILL as if it was still relevant.

are you a single user or is every pretentious brainlet suddenly into nuclear tech because of chernobyl

for the same reason why you're buying your steak at the supermarket or butcher instead of raising cows for yourself

economy of scale

it's much more efficient to build big reactors and power the grid instead of having decentralized small reactors all over the place

maintanance costs alone would kill that idea immediatly

a centralized approach is economicaly more viable in almost every case

Attached: image.jpg (349x427, 182K)

Free market.
Let the people maintain them, not the government.
I believe in freedom of choice, and I want to be off the grid.

I don’t really care if it gets people to start supporting nuclear again. Greenies are already starting to embrace the idea.

>much more efficient

nobody is concerned with efficiency. nobody.

the only matter of concern is centralisation of power and the rockefeller jews monopolising energy supply to keep us all hooked like a bunch of addicted crackheads. fucking kikes.

What drives me up the wall is the way these people refuse any and all alternatives. They cry that fossil fuels are bad, so we use nuclear. But then they say that's bad too, so we use hydroelectric. But then that's bad too, so we have to use solar and wind, which doesn't even produce electricity reliably enough, so we end up having to use fossil fuels anyways. And then they say solar and wind is bad too because it killed a few birds. At some point we're going to have to start hiring college graduates with degrees in women's studies to pedal bikes to run a power plant, and then they're going to complain about fat shaming and how they deserve better jobs because they worked so hard for their useless, shitty degrees.

i'm not prepared to explain that right now

>suddenly
>due to an event that occurred multiple decades ago

imdb.com/title/tt7366338/

If you seriously can't see the benefits of having fewer nuclear reactors powering multiple household, then you're the one who's retarded.

>sharing a reactor with other houses
sorry, i'm not a communist

my house, my reactor

I should have known there was some stupid daytime television root, my apologies.

Can you overclock a reactor?

If you aren't communist then you have no complaints against someone with a reactor charging to power multiple houses, and the free market fucking you over for being a retard.

>Why doesn't every home
cost

The concept of overclocking doesn't really have any meaning as far as reactors go.

Attached: image.jpg (325x346, 79K)

Could you make a homemade reactor by putting uranium powder on a stove top in a pan, turning the heat on, and then essentially cooking the powder?
Then direct the near endless steam it produces through a tube that powers a steam engine thus powering your house with just a frying pan, some tubes and some uranium?

Are you having a laugh, mate?

Attached: 98842ec503d1b991f76215391f6a7d2e3f0b3e66fff810af7a4a0cbf3f4a3cd1.png (455x285, 118K)

steam explosion

absolutely based user

No.

How would uranium react if you just put it in on a frying pan or an oven?

There's nothing wrong with nuclear power

Attached: 935149.png (520x570, 283K)

Why not have one or several large nuclear reactors that provide power to the grid instead?

What is the advantage of hundreds/thousands of small nuclear reactors?

The problem is the smaller the cross section of the core, the higher the neutron count needs to be, which usually necessitates using particularly nasty things like Pu rather than U-235, and generally speaking it will be quite inefficient. You want it to be big enough to power a few hundred homes rather than one, as it simplifies the neutronics and operation.

>Why not have one or several large nuclear reactors that provide power to the grid instead?
It makes them priority targets, it means that any incident in one of them would bring down the entire power grid.
Smaller ones spread the risk and also mean you can have some out of order and still have a working power grid

This

But what stops a violent incel from exposing his core if the girl next door won't have sex with them?

The real solution is to stop listening to what women say, because it's all nonsensical drivel that matters fuckall. Anyone who reads this should also read this Wikipedia article. Even 2000+ years ago men knew that women were a bunch of shitters.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assemblywomen

Attached: 1558793736641.png (727x1083, 257K)

White heterosexual people are the real threat, incels are irrelevant

It wouldn't at all.

Radiation from uranium used as fuel in atomic plants, or the waste (yellow cake), is radioactive, but nonlethal, unless injected straight inside the body

Yeah, humans are strong

The biggest reactors (RBMK) are 12m in diameter and 7m tall, Typical PWRs are much smaller though, the newest EPR built in France has a vessel 14m tall and 6m in diameter (external value, takes in account the very thick steel walls)

[salil sawarim intensifies]

Attached: REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE (800x750, 91K)

Because as we are seeing now with the baby boomer retirement, the VAST majority of the middle/lower class did a substandard upkeep and maintenance of their properties. Homes are coming on the market that basically haven't been touched since the 70s.

Nuclear power needs round the clock supervision and maintenance to avoid disaster.

What if you boil the powder?

best post

Attached: 444344.jpg (205x215, 22K)

>Let the people maintain them, not the government.
I agree with you on the principal but this principal with nuclear energy? hell no.

>monopolising energy supply

i agree and like I said a while ago on /sci/:

solar is the way to go, some months ago I got a little 500 watt/hour "station" to experiment and get used to solar generation, it works really nice, I think the future will be one "solar power station" for every home, every one of us should own our own electricity production, it doesn't get more capitalist than this! and I love it.

Attached: installation_70dd17cb-548f-4f94-b4a2-4034cb9a8d95_grande[3].jpg (500x500, 26K)

Kill yourself

The fuel is expensive
The fuel is hard to get rid of
There needs to be a highly pressurised flow of water
There needs to be humans watching it at all times in case something goes wrong and the whole town is irradiated
There needs to be sufficient shielding
You also need a turbine making it fucking loud
All this equipment if fucking expensive and every single thing about a reactor makes it awful for domestic use

Bro I don't want that shit near me. KYS

>There needs to be a highly pressurised flow of water
Depends, you can get away with liquid sodium metal or NaCl/NaF but that introduces its own design constraints and concerns

>You also need a turbine making it fucking loud
Not if you go for thermoelectric generation but the efficiency goes down significantly

you might power you low energy cuckshed on 5kW peak
but seriously, that's not even enough to run a stove or heater or maybe it is enough
on a cloudless summer day

despite the main consumer is (heavy) industry that requires power round the clock (or suffer critical plant damage)
good luck powering all that on Unstable wind / solar

>humans cant even build reliable computers/phones/cars
>people mess up every day in every field of work
>sugeons slip, doctors misdiagnose, engineers misplace, electricians mismeasure.

The human is flawed and so is it's creation.
You expect a average human being to manage their own personal nuclear reactor when people can't even open a greasetrap on their sink?

Based libertarian-capitalist poster.

if you're using a thermocouple then the startup cost would be in the millions for the amount of fuel you'd need

Also my point was where are you going to get the water from, replacing it with sodium salts will just kill it

Survival of the fittest.

Russia only needs to target one of those and you have a chain reaction Hans.

Why isn't there a nuclear powered airliner that carries thousands of people? Think a cruise ship in the sky.

>map of France
>"Hans"
>muh Russia

America : the post

But can every home afford to pay for 25 years worth of not-so-cheap power in advance?

Just like Chernobyl explosion wiped out half the USSR. Moron.

>implying hans doesn't run the NWO EU which will rely on nuclear energy backed socialism to send in more afrikangs

The only people who shill nuclear on Jow Forums are germans.

Have you watched Hunt for Red October? Of course you can!

RTGs are but power output is like ~100W.

Attached: 011616_1958_Aderelictli6.jpg (1160x870, 150K)

Germany shut down most of their nuclear plants and instead built a new gas pipeline with Vlad like the cucks they are

Hopefully Vlad shuts off the Brap pipe once they full remove dependencies on coal.

Positive void coefficient.

And the cost of power is 1000x the usual. That's why you only ever see these in locations where refueling is virtually impossible, such as bumfuck nowhere in siberia or in open space, which is pretty much equivalent.

this is great since i have a business plan for uranium paint to make nurseries glow in the dark

Perfect for that new Intel CPU.

> instate proto-communist reforms that ban private wealth and enforce sexual equality for the old and unattractive
how could one man so accurately describe modern day?

Attached: ad51b15d9a583bf50c54df84a39c39f2.png (1920x1080, 2.43M)

>Tell me how an RBMK reactor explodes?
Lies.

>size of an orange
user, you need about 15kg of U235 or 52kg of U237 to sustain a chain reaction, and logically you would need even more mass the lower is the law of the radiactive material.

Meanwhile the Chinese don't give two fucks where they take their power from.
Obviously you would expect people to learn to not make the same mistakes as Chernobyl and Fukushima and reinforce the security of the plants and protocols on what to do if something bad happens.

The peak electricity draw of a house is only ever going to be the AC + Washer&Dryer + Kitchen appliances + 1.1kilowatt (for lights, TVs, devices, etc.) And this should come in at about 5-7.5Kilowatt depending on the house size.

You could contain a 5 kilowatt reactor in a room the size of a small garage, in a sub-basement floor, and due to the small size of a 5Kw reactor, the worst that will happen is the heatsoak from the nuclear pile heats up the house a few degrees.

The only problem I have is the complexity for a self-maintaining, self-regulating reactor can't possibly be built mechanically sound. There's no way any reactor could work for 25+ years without the machinery that regulates the power output breaking/needing service, and I'm talking in statistical MTBF spread over 100 million homes.

>reinforce the security
Security in the physical sense has never been an issue. Security in any high tech industry is always about the technical side. See here > nti.org/analysis/tools/table/133/

Now, if by "security" your ESL-addled brain meant "how safe the reactor is built", Fukushima and Chernobyl are literally two examples of retarded people being retards.

Call it 10KiloWatt peak and we have an agreement.

Because women haven't changed a bit. The only thing that changed is that men got weak and failed to put checks on the walking bags of emotion known as women. Making women "equal" is how you destroy a civilization. This was common sense until about 60 years ago. About a century ago, certain subversive elements got into financial and government institutions.

Attached: 1552290938179.jpg (1200x1697, 285K)

Ecclesiazusae isn't directly about women or communism, it's a comedy about weak men running the show while the strong men are dying off from excessive years of war.

If the line in wikipedia about women praying to Athena and men praying to Apollo didn't help you see then nothing will. You should have learned in history class - the Greek deities were prayed to by everyone for their respective area of god-governed life. A man would pray to Athena just as much as his wife would for the health of their baby in the womb.

The quips at the end of the wikipedia articles (the young, good looking man getting torn apart by multiple women and the middle-aged, successful man walking around with many girls) are a joke. It's a joke play. The women infiltrating the assembly are representing effeminate men ("an unprecedented turnout of shoe makers")

hypothetically speaking how hard is fission to start? dirty bombs are way scarier than nukes.

>hypothetically speaking
Good news!
People figured that math out over a hundred years ago!

it could've. the series is very close to what actually was happening, the scale of procedures is way smaller in a movie though
and people were asked to volunteer too politely, nobody asked that way if asked at all.

I'm not asking how to do that with help of professionals with tools for it, i'm asking if you can do that in a basement with no proper tools

>expects the proper outcome without the proper equipment
Are you retarded or....?

because chernobyl

>how hard is fission to start?

It's very easy to start but very hard to keep going long enough to cause a big explosion.

Once you have a chain reaction the heat generated quickly vaporizes the remaining fuel and drives it apart stopping the chain reaction again.

proper outcome in this case would be a dirty "bomb", making a city inhabitable would be quite scary

no there actually isn't.
I just don't like the idea of nuclear fallout.

They actually tried that but the shielding was too heavy.

Please don't bait that kind of crowd here (the feminist) or this board will go to shit just like the others.