Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Swedish Nuclear Reactor Incident..  
User currently offlineBeaucaire From Syria, joined Sep 2003, 5252 posts, RR: 24
Posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1524 times:

That was a close call - two out of four pumps to provide cooling into the core of a Swedish reactor failed due to a construction-default.
Considered to be extremely safe ,all of Sweden's nuclear plants have to be checked and modified.
If the two remaining pumps would have failed as well ,the core would have melted and a desaster in the scale of Chernobyl hit Europe .

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1409304.ece


Please respect animals - don't eat them...
35 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineHalcyon From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1523 times:

Here in America we are entering the "second age" of nuclear power, with plants opening again all over the US...it does make me nervous. The ones in the NE and FL really get to me.

User currently offlineNighthawk From UK - Scotland, joined Sep 2001, 5157 posts, RR: 33
Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1518 times:

Quoting Beaucaire (Thread starter):
That was a close call - two out of four pumps to provide cooling into the core of a Swedish reactor failed due to a construction-default.
Considered to be extremely safe ,all of Sweden's nuclear plants have to be checked and modified.
If the two remaining pumps would have failed as well ,the core would have melted and a desaster in the scale of Chernobyl hit Europe .

The control rods would have dropped, killing off the reaction and averting any problems. No big deal.



That'll teach you
User currently offlineAirPacific747 From Denmark, joined May 2008, 2409 posts, RR: 24
Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1507 times:

Quoting Beaucaire (Thread starter):

Luckily, Barsebäck on the other side of Øresund was shut down after pressure from the Danish government.

It did make me nervous how easy it has been before september 11 to hijack a plane from CPH and hit the nuclear powerplant not more than 20 kilometers away from Copenhagen.

[Edited 2006-08-04 12:25:35]

User currently offlineBeaucaire From Syria, joined Sep 2003, 5252 posts, RR: 24
Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1494 times:

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 3):
It did make me nervous how easy it has been before september 11 to hijack a plane from CPH and hit the nuclear powerplant not more than 20 kilometers away from Copenhagen.

But aren't reactors build to sustain an impact of a commercial jetliner??
The dangers are comming rather from within the reactors,as the most recent example shows.Officials will rarely tell you the full truth in order to calm public opinion.
I still think nuclear energy is sustainable provided the latest safety technology is implemented in all plants.Storage of burnt fuel cells and nuclear waste remains the issue !



Please respect animals - don't eat them...
User currently offlineAirPacific747 From Denmark, joined May 2008, 2409 posts, RR: 24
Reply 5, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1490 times:

Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 4):
But aren't reactors build to sustain an impact of a commercial jetliner??

I'm not sure, that's why I was nervous about it. I guess you're probably right


User currently offlineMatt27 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1475 times:

Quoting Nighthawk (Reply 2):
The control rods would have dropped, killing off the reaction and averting any problems. No big deal.

Exacty, the 'incident' is not really a big deal here.

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 3):
Luckily, Barsebäck on the other side of Øresund was shut down after pressure from the Danish government.

Ummm...no. They closed Barsebäck because of years of domestic debates and the requests from the Danes didn't really have anything to do with that decition. Barsebäck is the smallest plant in Sweden and it was the first to be closed because of that.


User currently offlineNighthawk From UK - Scotland, joined Sep 2001, 5157 posts, RR: 33
Reply 7, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1475 times:

Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 4):
But aren't reactors build to sustain an impact of a commercial jetliner??
The dangers are comming rather from within the reactors,as the most recent example shows.Officials will rarely tell you the full truth in order to calm public opinion.
I still think nuclear energy is sustainable provided the latest safety technology is implemented in all plants.Storage of burnt fuel cells and nuclear waste remains the issue !

Yes, they are. However a month before September 11 I watched a documentary about the twin towers, and it stated in the doc that WTC was designed to withstand a hit from a 747.

However with a nuclear reactor, the majority of it is underground, even then its incased in about 10 foot of reinforced concrete, so chances are an impact would do next to no damage to the reactor itself. However any cooling pipes would be wiped out, and whether the rods will drop automatically or not is another matter.

I lived less than 2 miles from a nuclear plant all my life, and it doesnt bother me one bit. Its closed now, but I really hope they build another on the same site. However thats a different thread.



That'll teach you
User currently offlineAirPacific747 From Denmark, joined May 2008, 2409 posts, RR: 24
Reply 8, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1471 times:

Quoting Matt27 (Reply 6):

Ummm...no. They closed Barsebäck because of years of domestic debates and the requests from the Danes didn't really have anything to do with that decition. Barsebäck is the smallest plant in Sweden and it was the first to be closed because of that.

Okay, but that was not my original point. The point was that i'm glad that it is closed now  Smile


User currently offlineRolfen From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 1809 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1462 times:

Extremely safe...
hah



rolf
User currently offlineThom@s From Norway, joined Oct 2000, 11953 posts, RR: 46
Reply 10, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1458 times:

Swedes... I knew they'd be the end of us all...

Thom@s



"If guns don't kill people, people kill people - does that mean toasters don't toast toast, toast toast toast?"
User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7957 posts, RR: 12
Reply 11, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1448 times:

Quoting Nighthawk (Reply 2):
The control rods would have dropped, killing off the reaction and averting any problems. No big deal.

From what I have heard "killing" the reaction wasn't the problem, cooling was. They shutdown Forsmark after a short circuit, and only 2 pumps designed to cool the - already inoperative - reactor worked. Are you really so naive to think that the control rods drop and that thing is dead and cold after that?

As for Oskarshamn, only one out of three reactors could withstand the Forsemark incident.

But it's "no big deal", right?



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineMD80fanatic From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2660 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1443 times:

Quoting Halcyon (Reply 1):
Quoting Beaucaire (Thread starter):
That was a close call - two out of four pumps to provide cooling into the core of a Swedish reactor failed due to a construction-default.
Considered to be extremely safe ,all of Sweden's nuclear plants have to be checked and modified.
If the two remaining pumps would have failed as well ,the core would have melted and a desaster in the scale of Chernobyl hit Europe .

The control rods would have dropped, killing off the reaction and averting any problems. No big deal.

 checkmark  checkmark  checkmark 


Exactly. The pumps are not the main reaction moderator, as most believe. Their purpose is to carry heated, pressurized water to the steam generators to make electricity. Chernobyl was a water-moderated reactor IIRC, and this pump issue would have been a big deal had it happened there.

What we have here are media scare tactics, nothing more.



I wonder if the petroleum industry is somehow behind this report?  scratchchin 


User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7957 posts, RR: 12
Reply 13, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1435 times:

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 12):
The pumps are not the main reaction moderator, as most believe

Who?

Again: the control rods moderate but you still need pumps to cool the reactor even after shutdown. If that's not going to happen, it's possible that the reactor starts to melt, although that may not be inevitable.

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 12):
Chernobyl was a water-moderated reactor IIRC

No, that was a graphite moderated reactor.

[Edited 2006-08-04 13:49:11]


I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineNighthawk From UK - Scotland, joined Sep 2001, 5157 posts, RR: 33
Reply 14, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1420 times:

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 13):
Again: the control rods moderate but you still need pumps to cool the reactor even after shutdown. If that's not going to happen, it's possible that the reactor starts to melt, although that may not be inevitable.

No reaction = no heat generated.

Kill the reaction and the reactor will soon start to cool off.



That'll teach you
User currently offlineMD80fanatic From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2660 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1415 times:

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 13):
Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 12):
The pumps are not the main reaction moderator, as most believe

Who?

Again: the control rods moderate but you still need pumps to cool the reactor even after shutdown. If that's not going to happen, it's possible that the reactor starts to melt, although that may not be inevitable.

Two pumps should be sufficient to provide enough water flow once the rods are dropped. The "rods" are able to completely absorb all excess neutrons when fully extended.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 13):
Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 12):
Chernobyl was a water-moderated reactor IIRC

No, that was a graphite moderated reactor.

Thank you, my mistake.  Smile


User currently offlineDoona From Sweden, joined Feb 2005, 3771 posts, RR: 13
Reply 16, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1414 times:

This happened last week? Wow, never even heard of it...

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 8):
The point was that i'm glad that it is closed now

Hey, just because you've covered every flat inch of your country (which is really pretty much everywhere) with wind power stations, it doesn't mean that the rest of us have... I like our nuclear power, and we need it.

Quoting Matt27 (Reply 6):
Ummm...no. They closed Barsebäck because of years of domestic debates and the requests from the Danes didn't really have anything to do with that decition. Barsebäck is the smallest plant in Sweden and it was the first to be closed because of that.

 checkmark  We had a public referendum about the nuclear power issue back in the '80s, and it turned people didn't want the nuclear power anymore... Seems like opinion is swinging now, however.

Sure, the Danes were standing at the front door, kicking and screaming about it, but since when does Sweden make decision based on what Denmark wants?

Cheers
Mats



Sure, we're concerned for our lives. Just not as concerned as saving 9 bucks on a roundtrip to Ft. Myers.
User currently offlineAirPacific747 From Denmark, joined May 2008, 2409 posts, RR: 24
Reply 17, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1414 times:

Quoting Doona (Reply 16):
Hey, just because you've covered every flat inch of your country (which is really pretty much everywhere) with wind power stations, it doesn't mean that the rest of us have... I like our nuclear power, and we need it.

Well Sweden is so much bigger than Denmark, therefore you have so much more space to build windmills on. What are you waiting for? Help boosting our economy even more by buying our windmills!

Quoting Doona (Reply 16):
Sure, the Danes were standing at the front door, kicking and screaming about it, but since when does Sweden make decision based on what Denmark wants?

I don't know since when but Barsebäck is closed now which everyone here on this side of the "pond" is happy about  Smile
..most people anyway :P

[Edited 2006-08-04 14:08:09]

User currently offlineDoona From Sweden, joined Feb 2005, 3771 posts, RR: 13
Reply 18, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1395 times:

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 17):

Well Sweden is so much bigger than Denmark, therefore you have so much more space to build windmills on. What are you waiting for? Help boosting our economy even more by buying our windmills!

Have you actually seen Sweden? North of Skåne, there is only forest. Trees, everywhere! All the way up to the Arctic. Trees or mountains. And as soon as you get up north of Bohuslän, there are Norwegian mountains that block pretty much all the wind. And down here were it's flat and tree-less, we grow all the food, the space is needed. So a dramatic increase when it comes to wind power is unlikely... plus, the damn things drive down the property values!

Cheers
Mats



Sure, we're concerned for our lives. Just not as concerned as saving 9 bucks on a roundtrip to Ft. Myers.
User currently offlineMD80fanatic From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2660 posts, RR: 9
Reply 19, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1395 times:

Quoting Doona (Reply 16):
Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 8):
The point was that i'm glad that it is closed now

Hey, just because you've covered every flat inch of your country (which is really pretty much everywhere) with wind power stations, it doesn't mean that the rest of us have... I like our nuclear power, and we need it.

I like your nuclear power too.  Smile I wish we could convince our leaders to do the same...to go predominantly nuclear. But alas, the majority likes to put oilmen into power....  banghead 


User currently offlineSK A340 From Sweden, joined Mar 2000, 845 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1391 times:

Quoting Beaucaire (Thread starter):
two out of four pumps to provide cooling into the core of a Swedish reactor failed due to a construction-default.

They didn't fail, two started as normal, which covered 100% of the power needed. The other two had to been started manually, which means that after 23 minutes the cooling system had 200% of the power needed. But I can assure you that the green hippies and red commies sure screams alot now of how unsafe the nuclear power is and they want to shut it down ahead of schedule.

Quoting Beaucaire (Thread starter):
all of Sweden's nuclear plants have to be checked and modified

No, only four of ten reactors

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 8):
The point was that i'm glad that it is closed now

I'll be glad when you shut down your coal and/or oil plants.

/Micke


User currently offlineAirPacific747 From Denmark, joined May 2008, 2409 posts, RR: 24
Reply 21, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1391 times:

Quoting Doona (Reply 18):
Have you actually seen Sweden? North of Skåne, there is only forest. Trees, everywhere! All the way up to the Arctic. Trees or mountains. And as soon as you get up north of Bohuslän, there are Norwegian mountains that block pretty much all the wind. And down here were it's flat and tree-less, we grow all the food, the space is needed. So a dramatic increase when it comes to wind power is unlikely... plus, the damn things drive down the property values!

What do you think Denmark looked like before it was turned into farms? Anyway this is probably too complicated to discuss.

On a sidenote, there are bad things about windmills as well. They scare away the birds and other animals, and they can be noisy too. In the end I am still happy that we don't have nuclear power here

Quoting SK A340 (Reply 20):
I'll be glad when you shut down your coal and/or oil plants.

Me too!

Loosen up a little guys and let's have a good discussion

[Edited 2006-08-04 14:21:14]

User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7957 posts, RR: 12
Reply 22, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1386 times:

Quoting Nighthawk (Reply 14):
No reaction = no heat generated.

Yeah, I'm aware of that.  Yeah sure

Quoting Nighthawk (Reply 14):

Kill the reaction and the reactor will soon start to cool off.

But probably not soon enough to keep the reactor from melting.

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 15):
Two pumps should be sufficient to provide enough water flow once the rods are dropped.

In this case two pumps were sufficient. Had that happen in Oskarshamn, only one reactor (out of three) would have been able to withstand the remaining heat.



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineBeaucaire From Syria, joined Sep 2003, 5252 posts, RR: 24
Reply 23, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1373 times:

Geothermal Electricity is for me the ultimate energy of the future - although wind ,piezo-electric and tidal -technologies are not at all at the end of their development potential.
The nuclear lobby is unfortunately too strong to allow substantial research and investments into those energies. Many countries have geology profiles that would allow Geo-thermal applications but nobody tries it ...



Please respect animals - don't eat them...
User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1347 times:

Had the reactor melted wouldn't the lead and concrete sheilding protected us from any harmful emmissions?

25 NoUFO : That's how it was planned - just like it was planned that four pumps will pump water into the reactor. Btw: At first NONE of the four pumps worked!
26 Derico : Go nuclear power! I for one would rather have nuclear power, and to tell Arab and Venezuelan oil, Bolivian natural gas, to f-off. Furthermore, it save
27 CPDC10-30 : Sorry, but that just isn't true. A shut down reactor still needs to have heat removed from it. However, the Swedish reactor in question has containme
28 Alessandro : Well, this is the result of underfunding of the nuclear industry since the 1970ies in Sweden. As for Barseback nothing is written in stone, it could b
29 777236ER : Let's get things straight, at no time was a core meltdown close to occuring. The reactor would be able to run with one pump inoperative. With two pump
30 Post contains images David L : I'm surprised no-one's brought up the Three-mile Island Minor Glitch.
31 Post contains links and images Agill : http://www.gp.se/gp/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=361&a=289114 Well who would have guesed. But since most people want to keep it we can only hope they make the
32 YooYoo : And they withstood the impacts from the airliners.
33 Boeing Nut : Incorrect. Boeing 707's at approach speeds.[Edited 2006-08-04 20:54:29]
34 David L : Thank you - that's what I thought the architect said. Approach speeds and approach fuel loads.
35 Post contains images CptGermany : and it wasn't full of fuel. It is safe to a certain degree. There is always a calculated risk of a system failing catastrophically, regardless of a h
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Boyscout Attempts To Build A Nuclear Reactor posted Sun Jul 20 2003 16:24:43 by Bobrayner
Bomb The North Korean Nuclear Reactor posted Sat Dec 14 2002 20:38:33 by Twaneedsnohelp
Indo-US Nuclear Deal - Reactions posted Sat Dec 9 2006 10:57:38 by HAWK21M
Senate Endorses India Nuclear Deal posted Fri Nov 17 2006 04:38:43 by Aseem
Man Arrested With $78,000, Nuclear Info posted Thu Nov 16 2006 19:15:02 by Jetjack74
Federline Unleashes Nuclear Option Sex Tapes posted Wed Nov 15 2006 02:55:23 by Dougloid
A Fully Nuclear Iran posted Wed Nov 15 2006 00:38:29 by Allstarflyer
Kim Jong Ill Regrets Nuclear Tests posted Fri Oct 20 2006 12:26:23 by VHVXB
Did North Korea Conduct Second Nuclear Test? posted Wed Oct 11 2006 02:00:19 by AerospaceFan
N Korea Conducted A Nuclear Test? posted Mon Oct 9 2006 04:53:42 by Dtwclipper