Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
The leaked German study on vulnerability to airplane crashes names release of radioactivity due to falling concrete as the smaller risk, and an airplane fuel fire inside the containment as the bigger one. Then you can get to a zirconium fire.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Mar 29th, 2011 at 05:01:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't see how jet fuel could enter the containment without breaching the containment dome, which I find it hard to believe would happen.

Spent fuel problems in a BWR is another much greater problem in this scenario. As a matter of fact, I remember how I asked about that very thing on a field-trip to the nuclear plant Forsmark when I was like 17. The guide/expert answered that there was no risk to the reactor if a jet-liner would crash in it, but the spent fuel pools were something else. Then he looked a bit troubled.

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

by Starvid on Tue Mar 29th, 2011 at 05:17:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
breaching the containment dome, which I find it hard to believe would happen.

This is not a question of faith...

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Tue Mar 29th, 2011 at 05:21:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No, it is not. I would love to see a study done on this issue.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Tue Mar 29th, 2011 at 05:23:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Should I translate relevant parts of the leaked German study I referred to?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Mar 29th, 2011 at 05:40:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The leaked memo is here, however, it is more conclusions than details of the simulations, so I rather do a summary.

  • Two independent institutions did simulations, both on Konvoi-type reactors with 180 cm thick protection. One simulation tested three types of passenger jets (B-747, A-320, A-340-600) with various speeds and directions of impact, no such details for the other.
  • Both simulations showed that the Konvoi-type containment would crack but would not allow kerosene in, but the second simulation made an exception for an impact at the rim of the top and sides. Only impacts on the valve compartment would knock out the cooling system, and the control systems would be knocked out, especially of the emergency control room would be hit.
  • Both research groups said that based on these results, the containment of the plants older than the three of the Konvoi class can be assumed unfit to resist an impact even without detailed studies. (These reactors have no protection hull or concrete hulls of 40 to 120 cm thickness.)

The document makes the explicit conclusion that 'the retrofitting of the older reactor buildings is not possible resp. doesn't make sense from technical resp. economic considerations'. Instead they recommend counter-measures in the airplane cabins, and obstacles in the line of flight (concrete pillars).

Meanwhile, I also found a page on another study, the safety of spent fuel storage rooms. It found that one type, which has 1.2 m thick walls, would resist impact, but that of another type, with 70 or 85 cm thick walls and 55 cm thick roof, would not resist impact, however kerosene would supposedly flow out via channels.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Mar 30th, 2011 at 04:35:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series