Display:
... it's "normal" operation that is. Another Chernobyl can still happen (and it almost did last month). Until that possibility exists (and it still does, even though it's very low), I personally wouldn't spend money on nuclear power.
by toyg (g.lacava@gmail.com) on Mon Aug 14th, 2006 at 05:55:22 AM EST
Chernobyls sure can happen, but they can't happen in Swedish reactors. As a matter of fact, they can only happen in Chernobyl (RBMK) reactors. Don't believe everything the clueless journalists tell you.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Mon Aug 14th, 2006 at 07:56:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That is quite correct, but other type of accidents can happen.

We had a hightemperature gradient incident in Oskarshamn in the late 90ies not to mention that crow that knocked out two reactors in Forsmark some week ago.

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!

by A swedish kind of death on Mon Aug 14th, 2006 at 01:04:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ok, so what is the failure mode of Swedish reactors?

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Aug 14th, 2006 at 01:43:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Where do you live that you don't spend money on nuclear power? France sells quite a lot of it in Europe...
by asdf on Mon Aug 14th, 2006 at 09:28:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
to its dismay... it is forced to import peak power.

The joke goes: the swiss buy the cheap french offpeak power, use it to pump water up their dams, and then sell that electricity back to the french at the highest price.

Rien n'est gratuit en ce bas monde. Tout s'expie, le bien comme le mal, se paie tot ou tard. Le bien c'est beaucoup plus cher, forcement. Celine

by UnEstranAvecVueSurMer (holopherne ahem gmail) on Mon Aug 14th, 2006 at 11:39:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Last month, a pressurized water reactor at Forsmark shut down and went into emergency cooling mode.  Even without any sort of cooling it would have taken at least three days until a meltdown could occur, and that's a meltdown, not a blowup like in Chernobyl.

However, the cooling system worked (only half of it, but it was overengineered so that half of it is enough anyway), so that wasn't even close to a meltdown.  After 20 minutes, the emergency was over and the reactor went into regular hot standby.

Exactly one nutjob went around telling everyone that this was close to a meltdown and had they waited another 10 minutes (as is custom in such a situation) everybody would have died (and then some).  It is completely beyond my comprehension, why the press is only listening to the nutjob and not the scores of engineers who testify to the contrary.

You don't need to believe me.  Just research PWRs for yourself a bit.  You'll find that there is absolutely no way (physics ensures that, and physics isn't even turned off on weekends) that one could melt within 30 minutes or even 30 hours.

by ustenzel on Thu Aug 17th, 2006 at 09:37:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Welcome to ET, ustenzel!

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 17th, 2006 at 09:46:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It was a BWR, not a PWR. :p

And without cooling you get core damagae partial meltdown and stuff within about 2, not 30 hours. These aint passive reactors. But of course, neither are they evil RBMK's.

But of course, it was all blown out of proportion by the media and said nutjob.

By the way, I live 70 km from that plant. No worries for me.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Thu Aug 17th, 2006 at 12:05:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Damn, I stand corrected.  That's what happens when you get incomplete information from Spiegel Online.

Indeed, a BWR is a easier to damage, but "core damage" aka "partial meltdown" is a far cry from Chernobyl... it's also a far cry from release of anything radioactive, and it's the latter that might happen after about three days, unless the containment is cooled.  (Assuming Forsmark has a typical containment, accurate technical information is hard to come by.)

by ustenzel on Thu Aug 17th, 2006 at 05:00:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Forsmark is contained, concrete and and steel and that.
On top of this there is a weakened blast plate in the containment. If temperature and pressure become dangerously high in the containment and venting is needed, the (hopefully slightly) radioactive gas is channeled into a huge tower filled with crushed stone that absorb 99,9 % of the vented radioactivity. All Swedish nuke plants have these, I am not sure if that is usual abroad.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Thu Aug 17th, 2006 at 05:16:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series