Display:
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