News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety ... by isatty on Thursday September 03, 2020 @02:47PM (#24367327)
> Accident caused by Communists who did not care about what happened to Ukrainians

There were many such RBMK reactors spread all over the Soviet world that had the same flaws . There are many problems with your summary so can I just recommend that you watch the HBO mini series "Chernobyl" instead? It's a great watch.

Re:Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety ... by read_if_gay_ on Thursday September 03, 2020 @03:31PM (#24367819)
That mini series is indeed a great watch but it's also not exactly factual.
Re:Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety ... by regularfry on Thursday September 03, 2020 @04:20PM (#24368432)
Are there inaccuracies around the portrayal of why and how the reactor failed?
Re:Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety ... by read_if_gay_ on Friday September 04, 2020 @02:25AM (#24372254)
I don’t think there are fundamental inaccuracies about that, but there are many exaggerations about the immediate aftermath. E.g. the fireman’s hand burning from touching a graphite fragment stood out as a particularly egregious one. And it is in fact shown that the disaster was caused by incompetence and carelessness, which does support GGPs point.
Re:Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety ... by core-questions on Thursday September 03, 2020 @03:54PM (#24368117)
Flaws? The meltdown was caused by a deliberate action on behalf of people with control of the plant.

I haven't watched Chernobyl because I prefer to not get my history from television shows with a narrative axe to grind.

Re:Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety ... by regularfry on Thursday September 03, 2020 @04:22PM (#24368452)
My understanding is that those actions were only capable of causing the problems they did because of specific design choices involved in the coolant and moderation systems. Is that wrong?
Re:Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety ... by core-questions on Friday September 04, 2020 @12:07AM (#24371627)
That's not wrong so much as it is a disingenous way of looking at the problem. It's like saying the Titanic only sank because there was no system that prevented them from sailing it into an iceberg; I mean, alright, sort-of true, but sort of a "missing the forest for the trees" sort of take, isn't it?
Re:Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety ... by regularfry on Friday September 04, 2020 @01:10PM (#24376795)
Not really. We understand a lot more about human error now than we ever have, and we design for it. A design which allows for human failure and fails safe is less good than one which does not. It would have been possible at the time to design out those failure modes. Does that not make it reasonable to talk about a flawed design?

I don't know if this bit is true, but specific reference is made in the show to the displacer rods being made of graphite because it was cheaper than an alternative material, which caused a problem because they acted as an accelerant rather than a moderator when the cooling rods were partially inserted. Fine as long as the control rods don't get stuck, or get pushed out by evaporating steam. Again (if true) that's a design choice which made the situation worse than it might otherwise have been. Is that not a flaw?