Nuclear plant design.

[The_Librarian]

According to Wikipedia, and others, the design of Chernobyl contributed to the disaster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK



Pebble bed reactor :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

The pebble-bed reactor is considered walk-away safe, and that it cannot overheat and burn out like Chernobyl.

However, there's a case in Germany where one such PBR developed problems, one pebble jammed a feeder tube, and released radiation into the environment when the operator broke it trying to remove it.





Makes one wonder how safe nuclear power really is.

What do you guys think?

[Skeptik]

The PBR has not been fully tested. The German one was not even a production one I believe.

So long as Nuclear Energy companies try to downplay/cover up accidents and incidents they will not be fully trusted by the public.

[Highflyer_GP]

Nuclear power is perfectly safe. Chernobyl had bad after effects because it was poorly designed, it didn't have a containment building. Pollution levels are also far less than that of coal power. Tree huggers generally point to Chernobyl in an effort to hinder the progress of nuclear power.

Also the reason why most people fear nuclear power is because they (incorrectly) associate the word nuclear with nuclear weapons.

[Skeptik]

Also the reason why most people fear nuclear power is because they (incorrectly) associate the word nuclear with nuclear weapons.
Errrr... because they are linked!

[Highflyer_GP]

Errrr... because they are linked!
They are linked by the use of uranium. That's where the similarities end. Power reactors use low enriched uranium, typically about 4%. The weapons grade uranium used in atomic bombs is highly enriched, typically greater than 80%. Highly enriched uranium can give rise to a nuclear chain reaction which is responsible for the weapon's destructive power, something that is impossible with low enriched uranium.

It is impossible for any PWR or LWR nuclear reactor to explode like an atomic bomb. This is because in order for an uncontrolled chain reaction to occur that is similar to an atom bomb, the uranium fuel must be extremely enriched, much more than the 4% 235U that is present in regular, commercial nuclear reactor fuel. So, if it can't explode, what does happen in a nuclear reactor? The answer is what is called a meltdown. When a meltdown occurs in a reactor, the reactor "melts". That is, the temperature rises in the core so much that the fuel rods actually turn to liquid, like ice turns into water when heated. If the core continued to heat, the reactor would get so hot that the steel walls of the core would also melt. In a complete reactor meltdown, the extremely hot (about 2700º Celsius) molten uranium fuel rods would melt through the bottom of the reactor and actually sink about 50 feet into the earth beneath the power plant. The molten uranium would react with groundwater, producing large explosions of radioactive steam and debris that would affect nearby towns and population centers.
http://library.thinkquest.org/17940/texts/nuclear_disasters/nuclear_disasters.html

As I mentioned, the Chernobyl reactor was poorly designed. It's common knowledge that the reactors were susceptible to large power surges. The operators also removed too many control rods to boost power output. There was no containment building. etc. Combine all these factors and you have a disaster waiting to happen. If the design is good and regulations are abided by, then it's perfectly safe.

[The_Librarian]

@ Highflyer - I hear you, but factor in Africa, and the human factor, and I think we have the recipe for a disaster...

[PostmanPot]

Has anyone seen the Penn & Teller on this? :cool:

[rwenzori]

Personally I don't think humankind should be allowed to play with any radioactive material. Especially nuclear reactors. You have only to read the numerous accounts on the net of disasters and near-disasters. I did put some choice links in this post:
http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showpost.php?p=740093&postcount=24

LOL - try this one:


April
PHILADELPHIA, PA., U.S.A. - According to an article in the 6 March 1990 Philadelphia Daily News, a nuclear power plant worker was charged with spiking the lunchroom water cooler with radioactive water. (MACE (US) Apr 90; WISE 331/27/4/90).

[The_Librarian]

Personally I don't think humankind should be allowed to play with any radioactive material. Especially nuclear reactors. You have only to read the numerous accounts on the net of disasters and near-disasters. I did put some choice links in this post:
http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showpost.php?p=740093&postcount=24


o.O x20000000


:eek:

[rwenzori]

o.O x20000000


:eek:

Nice sig BTW!!!
:D

[bwana]

I'm happy to have them build a few more nuclear power plants . . . just not too close to me please :o

[The_Librarian]

If they won't build a nuclear plant close to you, they'll build a nuclear waste/fuel processing plant close to you then... :eek: :D

[icyrus]

What are the alternatives for base-load generation capacity?

I think anyone who thinks that coal plants are a better choice than nuclear are unaware of the environmental impacts of coal plants.

[The_Librarian]

What are the alternatives for base-load generation capacity?

I think anyone who thinks that coal plants are a better choice than nuclear are unaware of the environmental impacts of coal plants.

It's a catch-22 situation for sure... one hand coal-based fscks the air quality up, and on the other hand nuclear fscks the water and soil up...

Maybe they should build nuclear power plants on the moon and string a long cable between the moon and earth... :D :D

[Alan]

Maybe they should build nuclear power plants on the moon and string a long cable between the moon and earth... :D :D


Yeah and then when the moon blows up( or even alters it's orbit) we'll all die :o:p

:D

[JTech]

According to Wikipedia, and others, the design of Chernobyl contributed to the disaster.

That is common knowledge


It's common knowledge that the reactors were susceptible to large power surges
Actually they were highly susceptible to instability during load shedding. The load shedding caused the thing to go bonkers and they lost control of the reaction. As we have all observed numerous times, nothing happened at Koeberg, not even a bolt in the rotor affected the nuclear reaction. I consider that quite safe.

The main danger is thus contaimination, not a meltdown.