35,000 pound control box falls at Nuclear power plant.

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The point is that only two things keep the core of the reactor in a manageable temperature range.
One thing is the loop of high pressure water that comprises the primary loop. And if this primary loop
pipe would have been breached by the 35,000 pound weight---all that water in the primary loop would have instantly flashed to steam inside of the containment building. Leaving nothing to cool the reactor. unless the control rods instantly deployed and was able to damp the fusion almost totally before the core warped and prevented control rod movement---I have to conclude this came very close to another Chernoble. And the speed at which core warpage and a subsequent China syndrome can occur can be measured in mere seconds.

Yeah.... right... :roll:. Chernobyl was much different. It was an experiment in stupidity. They had a poorly designed reactor that was prone to problems with plant controllers that violated safety procedures. Read about it.

Wow, LemonLaw talk about ignorant. You basically just said the equivalent of "My uncle stubbed his toe and yelled ouch, thus I have to 'conclude' that he came very close to having another stroke."

hahahaaaaa.....rofl

 

[tomywishbone]

Non-event = No story.

On the other hand; did someone's uncle stubb their toe? I'll call CNN!😀

 

[wirelessenabled]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Yeah.... right... . Chernobyl was much different. It was an experiment in stupidity. They had a poorly designed reactor that was prone to problems with plant controllers that violated safety procedures. Read about it.

All you are saying is that this reactor was not as prone to a Chernoble type of event---and not that it can't occur---try reading up on 3 mile Island---kinda of a very expensive event not as bad as Chernoble either.---------overconfidence kills.

I sure would not want to live anywhere near one of those.

And its probable that the reactor will be down for a very long time.

TMI and Chernobyl have nothing to do with each other. They were completely different situations. The only thing they have in common is that both were caused by operator mistakes/ignorance.

The steam lines on BWR's are not just some little old pipes. They are several feet in diameter and several inch thick steel.

I am a nuclear engineer by the way, ask me any questions if you want.

Why would any engineer suspend a 35,000 lb control panel one foot overhead of a radioactive steam line?

 

[Jeff7]

Sounds like negligence, probably prompted by trying to save a little money.

I support nuclear power, and would like to see breeder reactors to cut down on the amount of radioactive waste, and increase the amount of energy extracted from uranium before it's disposed of. But I really hate to read about people toying around with this stuff. Nuclear reactors are a place where you do NOT EVER want to cut corners and be cheap. If the engineers say it needs to be maintained and inspected, it probably needs to be maintained and inspected.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: wirelessenabled

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Yeah.... right... . Chernobyl was much different. It was an experiment in stupidity. They had a poorly designed reactor that was prone to problems with plant controllers that violated safety procedures. Read about it.

All you are saying is that this reactor was not as prone to a Chernoble type of event---and not that it can't occur---try reading up on 3 mile Island---kinda of a very expensive event not as bad as Chernoble either.---------overconfidence kills.

I sure would not want to live anywhere near one of those.

And its probable that the reactor will be down for a very long time.

TMI and Chernobyl have nothing to do with each other. They were completely different situations. The only thing they have in common is that both were caused by operator mistakes/ignorance.

The steam lines on BWR's are not just some little old pipes. They are several feet in diameter and several inch thick steel.

I am a nuclear engineer by the way, ask me any questions if you want.

Why would any engineer suspend a 35,000 lb control panel one foot overhead of a radioactive steam line?

No s!@#, that's a good question to ask. More so, how did the pipe survive such an impact?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The point is that only two things keep the core of the reactor in a manageable temperature range.
One thing is the loop of high pressure water that comprises the primary loop. And if this primary loop
pipe would have been breached by the 35,000 pound weight---all that water in the primary loop would have instantly flashed to steam inside of the containment building. Leaving nothing to cool the reactor. unless the control rods instantly deployed and was able to damp the fusion almost totally before the core warped and prevented control rod movement---I have to conclude this came very close to another Chernoble. And the speed at which core warpage and a subsequent China syndrome can occur can be measured in mere seconds.

Yet another worthless fear filled post without any basis on reality.
1. Chernobyl did not have a containment building, you know that large concrete thing that goes over the top of the reactor. Because of this the steam explosion was able to rib the roof off and allow radioactive material out. That would NEVER happen at an American plant.
2. Chernobyl is a completely different design, one that used graphite moderators. You?ll have to read the technical details about graphite moderators and all that. But all you really need to know is that graphite is flammable, and it burns very hot and very bright. It took NINE days to put of the main graphite fire in the reactor. Those nine days are when most of the radiation leaked out and did its damage.

I highly suggest you go read about the Chernobyl accident at wikipedia and educate yourself on its details before you go and make another stupid statement like the one I bolded. It is virtually impossible for a Chernobyl type event to happen at an American reactor due to the design differences.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

We're stuck with old nuclear power plants because the silly ignorant public won't allow the utilities to build new modern nuclear power plants--but they still want their power and they'd like to decrease pollution while the nation's population continues to explode and the demand for power increases--go figure.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

For those of you who are interested in Chernobyl, you can find an interesting photo gallery of the ghost lands that surround the plant here. It's an amusing piece that was put together by a Russian woman who enjoys riding her motorcycle through the "wolf's land" and taking photos.

http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/

 

[sierrita]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

For those of you who are interested in Chernobyl, you can find an interesting photo gallery of the ghost lands that surround the plant here. It's an amusing piece that was put together by a Russian woman who enjoys riding her motorcycle through the "wolf's land" and taking photos.

http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/

I've seen this before...it's incredible...thanks for the fresh link.

:thumbsup:

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

We're stuck with old nuclear power plants because the silly ignorant public won't allow the utilities to build new modern nuclear power plants--but they still want their power and they'd like to decrease pollution while the nation's population continues to explode and the demand for power increases--go figure.

Don't forget those that don't want wind turbines installed because they cause climate problems or because they look bad.
The environmental impact from wind turbines absorbing energy from the motion of air molecules is less than that of strip mining for coal, transporting it to power plants, and burning it. And you want things that look bad - I'd sooner look at wind turbines than a coal burning power plant. People want perfect energy. Well fusion power isn't here yet, so either deal with imperfection in the meantime, or switch off your main breaker.

Nuclear power is unsafe if you've got morons running the things, and if you're using bad designs. We know how to design and build reactors to be safe. Now there's the other human factor - operators and tightwad managers. Keep them doing their jobs properly, and we can have safe, clean nuclear power. Build breeder reactors, and we can turn some of the waste into fuel. Sure, it can be used in weapons too, but you know what? If the government really wants to start another arms race and build weapons, they're going to do it anyway, in secret if necessary. Banning breeder reactors winds up being like copy protection or gun control - it only really screws over the honest consumers.

 

[mect]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
TMI and Chernobyl have nothing to do with each other. They were completely different situations. The only thing they have in common is that both were caused by operator mistakes/ignorance.

The steam lines on BWR's are not just some little old pipes. They are several feet in diameter and several inch thick steel.

I am a nuclear engineer by the way, ask me any questions if you want.

Actually, I do have a question. I've read a little bit about Thorium reactors that they're considering building in Norway I believe. They look to be a pretty cool idea. Thorium is 5 times as abundant as Uranium 235, is cheaper to mine, can't be used for weapons as the reaction isn't self sustaining, the waste only has a 500 year half life, in other words it appears to be quite a dream for nuclear power. Because it isn't self-sustaining, there are two methods that have been developed for using it for power. One is to add some Uranium or Plutonium to the mix to add extra neutron emissions to keep the thing going. The advantages of this are you can use it for weapons disposal and current plants can be adapted to run this. The other method is to bombard a lead plate with protons which then emits neutrons to fuel the reaction. Scientists in Switzerland have evidently proposed that this method could supply power at 1/4 the cost of natural gas and 1/3 the cost of coal (if my memory serves me right). I was wondering if you'd heard anything about this or knew any other details. Here's a link to what I've seen.

New Age Nuclear

 

[keird]

To QuantumPion:

In your opinion, is the United States at a point where we can produce safe, low-cost nuclear energy? I've seen reports of new reactor designs that tout these characteristics. Could you briefly describe them?

Edit: Addressed to wrong recipient.

 

[LegendKiller]

What always bothered me about the US reactors is that every one is difference (or nearly so). Many have the same underlying ways of operating, but none seem to have the same standard of construction and such. Shouldn't this be standardized so that reactor professionals can go from one to another with minimal additional training? Standardized parts, training, and people would cut down on costs and ensure best practices are used in all cases.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

We're stuck with old nuclear power plants because the silly ignorant public won't allow the utilities to build new modern nuclear power plants--but they still want their power and they'd like to decrease pollution while the nation's population continues to explode and the demand for power increases--go figure.

If its our population that is the issue behind higher demand then you need to look no further than our immigration policy. Our birth rates are only at replacement level.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
What always bothered me about the US reactors is that every one is difference (or nearly so). Many have the same underlying ways of operating, but none seem to have the same standard of construction and such. Shouldn't this be standardized so that reactor professionals can go from one to another with minimal additional training? Standardized parts, training, and people would cut down on costs and ensure best practices are used in all cases.

Interestingly in France they do have a standard nuclear power plant design. And France gets 75 percent of its electricity from nuclear power.
I would guess the drawback would be if a flaw was found in one plant you might face the decision of closing all your nuclear plants at the same time to fix the flaw versus blacking out the entire country.

 

[Mark R]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
What always bothered me about the US reactors is that every one is difference (or nearly so). Many have the same underlying ways of operating, but none seem to have the same standard of construction and such. Shouldn't this be standardized so that reactor professionals can go from one to another with minimal additional training? Standardized parts, training, and people would cut down on costs and ensure best practices are used in all cases.

This is being addressed.

Rather than individually certify single designs for individual plants, as happened during the 70s. The NRC are now recommending that a single design be submitted for review by individual manufacturers, and that review will be valid for 15 years.

If a company chooses to build a plant for which the design has already been certified - then they can skip the design safety enquiry (which can take 4-5 years) and concentrate on local factors.

The advantages are lower time from applying for construction permit to permit being granted, lower construction time and cost (due to mass production techniques and application of relevant experience), ability to generalise best practice in operation and management once the plant is operational.

3 designs have already been certified: Westinghouse AP600 and AP1000 PWRs and GE ESBWR. 3 more companies are expected to submit designs for inspection during 2007, and it is hoped that certification for those designs will be complete by 2012.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Mark R
3 designs have already been certified: Westinghouse AP600 and AP1000 PWRs and GE ESBWR.

3 more companies are expected to submit designs for inspection during 2007, and it is hoped that certification for those designs will be complete by 2012.

Who would trust inspectors that take 5 yrs to do an inspection?

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Mark R
3 designs have already been certified: Westinghouse AP600 and AP1000 PWRs and GE ESBWR.

3 more companies are expected to submit designs for inspection during 2007, and it is hoped that certification for those designs will be complete by 2012.

Who would trust inspectors that take 5 yrs to do an inspection?

Um... you can't do reactor certifications overnight. You need some time where they are in an operational test phase, and that along can take a few years.

 

[BriGy86]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Probably didnt make the news because it wasnt worth reporting. Nothing outside of the fall happened and the plant is fine and will be fixed. I live about 7 miles from this plant.

While people like techs will make this into a disaster showing nuclear power is dangerous. Most people should recognized this only proves how safe these things are.

you live in MN?

im in maple grove just down 94 😀

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Mark R
3 designs have already been certified: Westinghouse AP600 and AP1000 PWRs and GE ESBWR.

3 more companies are expected to submit designs for inspection during 2007, and it is hoped that certification for those designs will be complete by 2012.

Who would trust inspectors that take 5 yrs to do an inspection?

And Dave shows his ignorance yet again.

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Probably didnt make the news because it wasnt worth reporting. Nothing outside of the fall happened and the plant is fine and will be fixed. I live about 7 miles from this plant.

While people like techs will make this into a disaster showing nuclear power is dangerous. Most people should recognized this only proves how safe these things are.

Would have been great for ratings.

/jaded

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Genx87
Probably didnt make the news because it wasnt worth reporting. Nothing outside of the fall happened and the plant is fine and will be fixed. I live about 7 miles from this plant.

While people like techs will make this into a disaster showing nuclear power is dangerous. Most people should recognized this only proves how safe these things are.

??? When a 35,000 control box situated over a radioactive steam pipe FALLS, in your opinion it shows how SAFE the plant is?
Can you spell brainwashed?

How about not being so stupid you only see something wrong. How about the fact that that pipe withstood the damage? These plants are designed to be tough, mainly because people are stupid. It takes a helluva lot of engineering to circumvent stupid people.


In your case, enough concrete to make the Hoover dam might suffice... but I still think you'd leak out

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: So
Wow, LemonLaw talk about ignorant. You basically just said the equivalent of "My uncle stubbed his toe and yelled ouch, thus I have to 'conclude' that he came very close to having another stroke."

I need help off the floor after that one.


The great thing about idiots (technical or otherwise) on AT is that they go out of their way to prove it

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: keird
To QuantumPion:

In your opinion, is the United States at a point where we can produce safe, low-cost nuclear energy? I've seen reports of new reactor designs that tout these characteristics. Could you briefly describe them?

Edit: Addressed to wrong recipient.

We are and always have been. Uranium is dirt cheap, the expensive part is building the plant to begin with. All (or the vast majority of) nuclear plants in the US are already bought and paid for and are generating big returns for the larger companies that are able to use the economies of scale to manage multiple plants.

As for next generation plants, my favorite design (and the one that has the best chance of being built in the near future) is the GE ESBWR. It is a big-ass (4500 MW!) boiling water reactor that uses natural circulation and passive safety systems. It is designed to be much cheaper to build and operate. I recently had a little training overview of its design features and it is very cool.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: BriGy86

Originally posted by: Genx87
Probably didnt make the news because it wasnt worth reporting. Nothing outside of the fall happened and the plant is fine and will be fixed. I live about 7 miles from this plant.

While people like techs will make this into a disaster showing nuclear power is dangerous. Most people should recognized this only proves how safe these things are.

you live in MN?

im in maple grove just down 94 😀

Albertville, I can see the steam plumes from the coal plant 2 miles from this nuke plant out my back door on a cold day 😉