Global Feed Post Login
Replying to Avatar vinney...axkl

Well the first one would be complete apocalypse (or at least the end of electricity), so pricing it in won't be pretty.

Transformers get fried, replacements take years to manufacture. Nuclear power plants cannot cool themselves in grid failure and need constant diesel deliveries for backup generators. Try keeping diesel flowing in the chaos of a nationwide blackout (not to mention the fairly low stockpiles eventually dry up).

So before long you have a national blackout AND nuclear meltdowns.

Literal apocalypse. Just takes one big solar storm.

GN sleep tight!

nostr:nevent1qqspum6942hw06p89wzcqsvgtf5ykk45evmqtxz2f25494qxuevk2qgpzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumt0wd68ytnsw43z7q3q699t5u65fsejvjj5eh6vjd2lj4l8dv0ppssl3dk4ytes33344r4sxpqqqqqqztzuted

Avatar
Low Information Voter 1y ago

The radionuclides that generate more heat than can be passively removed in older designs are also the ones with half-lives of less than a day.

The operators don't need diesel forever, even two days is likely enough to prevent meltdown.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
vinney...axkl 1y ago

That's good news!

Though I'd say that 2 days still sounds problematic in a widespread grid down situation. I think most local stockpiles account for that. (I hope)

Thread collapsed