Beaucaire
Topic Author
Posts: 3888
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 4:48 am

Swedish Nuclear Reactor Incident..

Fri Aug 04, 2006 7:07 pm

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...
 
Halcyon
Posts: 1622
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 4:47 pm

RE: Swedish Nuclear Reactor Incident..

Fri Aug 04, 2006 7:12 pm

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 avatar
nighthawk
Posts: 4767
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2001 2:33 am

RE: Swedish Nuclear Reactor Incident..

Fri Aug 04, 2006 7:17 pm

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.
 
User avatar
AirPacific747
Posts: 9259
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:52 am

RE: Swedish Nuclear Reactor Incident..

Fri Aug 04, 2006 7:23 pm

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]
 
Beaucaire
Topic Author
Posts: 3888
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 4:48 am

RE: Swedish Nuclear Reactor Incident..

Fri Aug 04, 2006 7:34 pm

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 avatar
AirPacific747
Posts: 9259
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:52 am

RE: Swedish Nuclear Reactor Incident..

Fri Aug 04, 2006 7:37 pm

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
 
Matt27
Posts: 2070
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2003 9:53 pm

RE: Swedish Nuclear Reactor Incident..

Fri Aug 04, 2006 7:54 pm

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.
Man ska inte dricka rödvin i en vit hall.
 
User avatar
nighthawk
Posts: 4767
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2001 2:33 am

RE: Swedish Nuclear Reactor Incident..

Fri Aug 04, 2006 7:56 pm

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.
 
User avatar
AirPacific747
Posts: 9259
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:52 am

RE: Swedish Nuclear Reactor Incident..

Fri Aug 04, 2006 8:03 pm

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
 
rolfen
Posts: 1539
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 6:03 am

RE: Swedish Nuclear Reactor Incident..

Fri Aug 04, 2006 8:11 pm

Extremely safe...
hah
rolf
 
Thom@s
Posts: 11674
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2000 2:03 am

RE: Swedish Nuclear Reactor Incident..

Fri Aug 04, 2006 8:15 pm

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?"
 
NoUFO
Posts: 7397
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 7:40 am

RE: Swedish Nuclear Reactor Incident..

Fri Aug 04, 2006 8:28 pm

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
 
md80fanatic
Posts: 2365
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 11:29 pm

RE: Swedish Nuclear Reactor Incident..

Fri Aug 04, 2006 8:35 pm

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 
 
NoUFO
Posts: 7397
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 7:40 am

RE: Swedish Nuclear Reactor Incident..

Fri Aug 04, 2006 8:43 pm

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 avatar
nighthawk
Posts: 4767
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2001 2:33 am

RE: Swedish Nuclear Reactor Incident..

Fri Aug 04, 2006 8:54 pm

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.
 
md80fanatic
Posts: 2365
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 11:29 pm

RE: Swedish Nuclear Reactor Incident..

Fri Aug 04, 2006 9:01 pm

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
 
Doona
Posts: 3382
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 9:43 am

RE: Swedish Nuclear Reactor Incident..

Fri Aug 04, 2006 9:04 pm

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 avatar
AirPacific747
Posts: 9259
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:52 am

RE: Swedish Nuclear Reactor Incident..

Fri Aug 04, 2006 9:05 pm

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]
 
Doona
Posts: 3382
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 9:43 am

RE: Swedish Nuclear Reactor Incident..

Fri Aug 04, 2006 9:13 pm

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.
 
md80fanatic
Posts: 2365
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 11:29 pm

RE: Swedish Nuclear Reactor Incident..

Fri Aug 04, 2006 9:14 pm

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 
 
SK A340
Posts: 829
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 2:44 am

RE: Swedish Nuclear Reactor Incident..

Fri Aug 04, 2006 9:16 pm

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 avatar
AirPacific747
Posts: 9259
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:52 am

RE: Swedish Nuclear Reactor Incident..

Fri Aug 04, 2006 9:17 pm

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]
 
NoUFO
Posts: 7397
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 7:40 am

RE: Swedish Nuclear Reactor Incident..

Fri Aug 04, 2006 9:18 pm

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
 
Beaucaire
Topic Author
Posts: 3888
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 4:48 am

RE: Swedish Nuclear Reactor Incident..

Fri Aug 04, 2006 9:26 pm

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...
 
Rj111
Posts: 3007
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:02 am

RE: Swedish Nuclear Reactor Incident..

Fri Aug 04, 2006 9:51 pm

Had the reactor melted wouldn't the lead and concrete sheilding protected us from any harmful emmissions?
 
NoUFO
Posts: 7397
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 7:40 am

RE: Swedish Nuclear Reactor Incident..

Fri Aug 04, 2006 10:27 pm

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 24):
Had the reactor melted wouldn't the lead and concrete sheilding protected us from any harmful emmissions?

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!
I support the right to arm bears
 
Derico
Posts: 4206
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 1999 9:14 am

RE: Swedish Nuclear Reactor Incident..

Fri Aug 04, 2006 11:17 pm

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 saves river habitats (less hydros), birds (less wind stations), etc.

Two new nuclear plants are supposed to come online in Argentina in the next couple of years.
My internet was not shut down, the internet has shut me down
 
CPDC10-30
Posts: 4681
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 4:30 pm

RE: Swedish Nuclear Reactor Incident..

Fri Aug 04, 2006 11:34 pm

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



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

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

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 containment that make make even a worst case meltdown unlikely to release radioactivity outside the building. Anyone comparing this to Chernobyl has no idea what they are talking about.

Nuclear power doesn't make economic sense in all cases. But for energy poor countries such as the UK, Japan, China etc it needs to be an important part of the power generation mix. It isn't perfect, but it does have a pretty damn good record of producing clean and safe energy. It isn't fair to let the faulty design and deliberate circumventing of safety procedures at Chernobyl to tarnish nuclear power as a whole.
 
Alessandro
Posts: 4962
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 3:13 am

RE: Swedish Nuclear Reactor Incident..

Sat Aug 05, 2006 1:06 am

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 be restarted if theres a different government in september.
From New Yorqatar to Califarbia...
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Swedish Nuclear Reactor Incident..

Sat Aug 05, 2006 1:08 am

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 pumps inoperative, there are only two pump redundancies, so the reactor was shut down.

Let's say another pump failed (an independent three-pump failure having a probability less than an ETOPS-equiped aircraft having a double engine failure). The reactor would have immediately scrammed, and everything would have been fine. The reaction would stop and the reactor would be cool.

Had all four pumps failed, simultaneously, at high power, the reactor would scram. While the heat would increase with no pumping, the core would still be flooded with water.

And here's where the inherant safety of the BWR comes into the mix. With a PWR, you'd have steam in the system - something that's very dangerous, likely to over-pressure the reactor and blow the roof off (like Chernobyl). A BWR is designed to operate in that state constantly, so even with a significant increase in steam caused by flooding the reactor with water, containment would be assured.

This can be compared to two out of four hydraulic systems on a 747 failing, the aircraft returning to the airport, and the media screaming that the passengers were minutes from death.
Your bone's got a little machine
 
David L
Posts: 8547
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: Swedish Nuclear Reactor Incident..

Sat Aug 05, 2006 1:13 am

Quoting CPDC10-30 (Reply 27):
It isn't perfect, but it does have a pretty damn good record of producing clean and safe energy. It isn't fair to let the faulty design and deliberate circumventing of safety procedures at Chernobyl to tarnish nuclear power as a whole.

 checkmark 

I'm surprised no-one's brought up the Three-mile Island Minor Glitch.  Smile
 
agill
Posts: 939
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2004 4:49 am

RE: Swedish Nuclear Reactor Incident..

Sat Aug 05, 2006 1:50 am

Quoting SK A340 (Reply 20):
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.

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 demands  Smile SAP must hate this
 
yooyoo
Posts: 5686
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2003 5:01 am

RE: Swedish Nuclear Reactor Incident..

Sat Aug 05, 2006 2:01 am

Quoting Nighthawk (Reply 7):
and it stated in the doc that WTC was designed to withstand a hit from a 747.

And they withstood the impacts from the airliners.
I am so smart, i am so smart... S-M-R-T... i mean S-M-A-R-T
 
Boeing Nut
Posts: 5078
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2001 2:42 am

RE: Swedish Nuclear Reactor Incident..

Sat Aug 05, 2006 3:53 am

Quoting YooYoo (Reply 32):
Quoting Nighthawk (Reply 7):
and it stated in the doc that WTC was designed to withstand a hit from a 747.

Incorrect. Boeing 707's at approach speeds.

[Edited 2006-08-04 20:54:29]
I'm not a real aeronautical engineer, I just play one on Airliners.net.
 
David L
Posts: 8547
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: Swedish Nuclear Reactor Incident..

Sat Aug 05, 2006 4:07 am

Quoting Boeing Nut (Reply 33):
Incorrect. Boeing 707's at approach speeds.

Thank you - that's what I thought the architect said. Approach speeds and approach fuel loads.
 
CptGermany
Posts: 85
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:50 am

RE: Swedish Nuclear Reactor Incident..

Sun Aug 06, 2006 7:43 am

Quoting Boeing Nut (Reply 33):
Incorrect. Boeing 707's at approach speeds.

 checkmark  and it wasn't full of fuel.

Quoting CPDC10-30 (Reply 27):
It isn't perfect, but it does have a pretty damn good record of producing clean and safe energy.

It is safe to a certain degree. There is always a calculated risk of a system failing catastrophically, regardless of a how much redundancy is built into it. Furthermore, nuclear power is not clean! There is a substantial amount nuclear waste, which needs to be handled very carefully and has a slow rate of decay!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 8 guests