C4 news - Deliberate lies or just too stupid to report things accurately?

#1
The Royal Navy is to stop using nuclear reactors in it's new submarines which are of a similar design to those at the Fukushima plant. C4 news and the Guardian revealed this month that a Ministry of Defence report had concluded that the reactors used in the Trident fleet of nuclear submarines were potentially vulnerable to accidents that could cause quote multiple fatalities among submarine crews.The Government has now decided that a safer type of reactor will be used in the submarines that will eventually replace Trident.
This is what Jon Snow said on tonight's C4 7 o'clock news. Useless twats or lying twats?
 
#4
The gist of the story is true: a MoD report, lead by a Cdre RN, concluded that PWR2 does not meet modern nuclear safety standards - primarily because it relies on active cooling measures i.e. if you loose all electrical power in the boat the coolant system will no longer work. There is/was a debate to put PWR3 into SSBN(F) and the A-Class replacements, which relies on passive cooling systems i.e. it doesn't matter if you've lost every bit of power on the boat, by design it will fail "safe".
 
#5
The gist of the story is true: a MoD report, lead by a Cdre RN, concluded that PWR2 does not meet modern nuclear safety standards - primarily because it relies on active cooling measures i.e. if you loose all electrical power in the boat the coolant system will no longer work. There is/was a debate to put PWR3 into SSBN(F) and the A-Class replacements, which relies on passive cooling systems i.e. it doesn't matter if you've lost every bit of power on the boat, by design it will fail "safe".
I read the report. All the submarines I have served on have emergency cooling systems which have no reliance on electrical power, operating purely by convection (with the necessary valves being operated hydropneumatically). I think you too have misunderstood what was actually in that report.
 
#6
The gist of the story is true: a MoD report, lead by a Cdre RN, concluded that PWR2 does not meet modern nuclear safety standards - primarily because it relies on active cooling measures i.e. if you loose all electrical power in the boat the coolant system will no longer work. There is/was a debate to put PWR3 into SSBN(F) and the A-Class replacements, which relies on passive cooling systems i.e. it doesn't matter if you've lost every bit of power on the boat, by design it will fail "safe".
You have no idea how PWR2 actually works then and with your statement are as bad as C4 news. Even PWR1 has a passive cooling system!
 

wave_dodger

MIA
Book Reviewer
#8
Anyone read the article online (will google later) about future reactors possibly shifting away from uranium to thorium. Really interesting article in an area I know zero about. I didn't realise that (according to article) there is less than 80 years supply of useable uranium left whereas thorium exists in abundance and is often a by product of heavy metal mining. It then went on to state that a huge positive of thorium reactors is that they could be used to destroy radioactive waste. The killer fact to my simple mind was that if Thorium overheats the future reactors have plugs that melt and the liquid fuel simply drains away and is not activley emitting radiation.

Safe nuclear does exist, and China is leading the way with thorium - Telegraph

Apparently the technology to create a thorium reactor was previously thought to be too difficult and hence expensive
 

diesel

Lantern Swinger
#9
Anyone read the article online (will google later) about future reactors possibly shifting away from uranium to thorium. Really interesting article in an area I know zero about. I didn't realise that (according to article) there is less than 80 years supply of useable uranium left whereas thorium exists in abundance and is often a by product of heavy metal mining. It then went on to state that a huge positive of thorium reactors is that they could be used to destroy radioactive waste. The killer fact to my simple mind was that if Thorium overheats the future reactors have plugs that melt and the liquid fuel simply drains away and is not activley emitting radiation.

Safe nuclear does exist, and China is leading the way with thorium - Telegraph

Apparently the technology to create a thorium reactor was previously thought to be too difficult and hence expensive
I read somewhere that with Thorium (which is toxic) there is no Plutonium and therefore no weapons. So they went for Uranium. :plotting:
 

Subsunk

Lantern Swinger
Book Reviewer
#10
I read somewhere that with Thorium (which is toxic) there is no Plutonium and therefore no weapons. So they went for Uranium. :plotting:
True - a lot of work is going into generation 4 nuclear plants which cannot be weaponised and make better use of potential fuels.

Channel 4 is boldly flying the flag for crap journalisism standards. Every time a new plant design comes on line with a greater margin of safety by design, all previous types by default apparently become dangerous ticking time bombs.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
A Miscellaneous 0
Shakey Miscellaneous 0
pussercdo Miscellaneous 0

Similar threads

Latest Threads

New Posts

Top