Eskom says one Koeberg reactor at 6%

kilo39

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
5,425
Koeberg is of the same type as Three Mile Island...

I doubt if anyone would like to hear of a major problem - a nuclear disaster is a real disaster.

Any safety officer in industry will tell you that when the minor incidents start to increase, the more serious ones will follow.

All these minor incidents at Koeberg is building up to a massive increased risk of a catastrophe.
Except Koeberg was built by the French (and they have nuclear reactors on practically every street corner it seems) whereas 3 Mile was built by americans (and we all know what they prefer to use nuclear power for.)

Would think this 6% issue is to do with the new (refurbished) turbine (well we thought we could fit it in there somehow) - perhaps it is missing a bolt?

:sick:
 

kaspaas

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2003
Messages
3,739
this article was published on monday... the reactor should be back up to full power today.

do yourself a favour and go for a tour at koeberg. it will change your mind about the safety of nuclear power stations.
I agree - a well managed nuclear reactor is extremely safe.

But the recent spate of incidents places a question mark over the well managed

A a merely managed nuclear reactor is a catastrophe waiting to happen.
 

Skeptik

Banned
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
6,592
Most nuclear power stations are designed to provide power even if they are shut down completely. This is because they need to provide power to the water pumps (and keep the lights on) as a safety critical measure. The reactor stays pretty hot once the rods have been lowered, so it can heat water easily and provide the generators with steam. It doesn't mean the reactors are dangerous, just that the station relies on its own power.
 

rwenzori

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
12,358
Maybe it is a testament of nuclear power plant safety that there hasn't been any major emergencies at Koeberg.
One hopes they have their act together. Personally I feel that humans should just keep far away from nuclear technologies, as they seem incapable of handling them responsibly. Take a look at the US Nuclear Regulatory Authority event logs - almost every day there is some stuff-up or some issue:

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/event/

For nuclear weapons stuff-ups see:

http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/issues/accidents/index.htm

Other stuff-ups at:

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/index.html

Anyone for radiotherapy:?

A 15-year-old female patient was receiving radiation therapy for a tumor at Beatson Oncology Centre in Glasgow. She was given 17 treatments over a period of time with the first on 5 January. As a result of human error, all 17 treatments were far in excess of the prescribed dose (one report states the doses were 65% too high). The error was not identified until after all treatments were administered, shortly before the patient was informed on 1 February. Symptoms as of early February 2006 included large sores on the scalp and ears and permanently higher than normal body temperature. The total dose was reported as potentially fatal; the localized dose to the brain and neck posed a risk of brain damage, paralysis, or death through damage to blood vessels in nerve tissue
 

bekdik

Honorary Master
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Messages
12,859
The "yet" is the key word. Its bad enough having incompetent people running your power grid, when it starts to involve nuclear its even more scary.
Its scary when incompetent people run anything ...
 

Reason

Active Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Messages
40
Actually you want scary.

This is scary.

Koeberg is the same type of reactor as Chernobyl.

In South Africa there are prevailing winds that move over the country from South West.

Koeberg is in the South West. Koeberg goes Chernobyl. Suddenly Aids, BEE & AA are not that big problems anymore.

Yay! Problems solved, (or not, as the case may be)
 

Alan

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
62,183
One hopes they have their act together. Personally I feel that humans should just keep far away from nuclear technologies, as they seem incapable of handling them responsibly. Take a look at the US Nuclear Regulatory Authority event logs - almost every day there is some stuff-up or some issue:

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/event/

For nuclear weapons stuff-ups see:

http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/issues/accidents/index.htm

Other stuff-ups at:

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/index.html

Anyone for radiotherapy:?
Very interesting.

Thanks
 

Syndyre

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 26, 2006
Messages
16,822
Problem is a lot of dodgy stuff probably doesn't have evidence associated with it. Still makes it hard to believe though.
 

Rkootknir

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
1,113
Hmmm. :confused:

Where Chernoblyl amd Three Mile Island the same type. If not, who to believe?
All three mentioned: Koeberg, Three-Mile Island & Chernobyl were \ are PWRs (Pressurised Water Reactors).

Chernobyl used the RBMK design which was developed and only used in the USSR. The other two use the more common PWR design (it's the most used reactor design in the world).
 

kaspaas

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2003
Messages
3,739
A nuclear reactor requires what is called a "moderator" to slow down neutrons to a speed at which U235 can actually "catch" them and split up and release more fast neutrons (and lots of heat).

The Chernobyl design used a massive graphite block as moderator (with many high pressure water pipes running through this block to cool it down). There are many references why the Chernobyl design is an accident waiting to happen (It does produce lots of Plutonium however!) (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK for more information)

The Westinghouse design (of which Koeberg is a derivative) uses water as moderator. (see http://www.nucleartourist.com/type/pwr.htm)

The nice thing about the Westinghouse/Koeberg design is that if you loose your coolant, the chain reaction fails. It is also designed that the higher the temperature of the water, the lower the neutron moderation efficiency - or in simple terms - if the water heats up, the reactor is self adjusting to reduce its energy generation.

Chernobyl and Koeberg can't be mentioned as being of the same design at all.

I'm in favour of nuclear power stations provided they are well managed.

But there are too many indications that Koeberg is no longer a well managed nuclear facility.
 
Last edited:

Reason

Active Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Messages
40
Ah, my bad.

Sorry.

But still I am not happy with the idea of living upwind of a reactor that had to shut down what was it? Three or four times last year?

PS What do we do with the plutonium produced at Koeberg if I am not mistaken about that as well?
 
Top