Minor Explosion In Transformer At Nuclear Reactor In Arkansas; No Effect On Reactors Besides Automat
70 replies, posted
Make titles better next time OP.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;43137889]So it blew a transformer, a problem which is completely unrelated to anything nuclear, and the reactor lost power and scrammed exactly as it's designed to do?[/QUOTE]
Yes.
A detailed explanation of why this is irrelevant for anyone who cares:
All power plants (nuclear, coal, natural gas, etc.) typically rely on "grid power" (e.g. power that can be supplied while the plant is not active) combined with their own power (in the event that they are the only active supply station on their grid) and, in an emergency, backup generators (the things that flooded in Fukushima which caused the plant to lose the last usable power and caused the coolant pumps to fail). This power is used to run control systems, power pumps and various other components, and just generally supply power to the buildings.
This transformer, I believe, was part of a substation that supplied that grid power. I imagine that there are auxiliary systems to continue to provide power to the plant in this situation, and the plant can be self-sustaining since one unit is still running (if all else fails, there are still backup generators). The chances of all three failing in a well designed and maintained plant (e.g. not Fukushima) is negligible.
That said, this is literally the equivalent of a transformer popping in any substation in the world. It's not news in itself. The only news is that one of the units at the plant SCRAM'd properly, which is just a failsafe precaution because the NRC is really paranoid about safety, and rightly so (the U.S. is the largest nuclear power producer by megawatt capacity in the world, and yet we have experienced zero deaths attributed to radiation poisoning through commercial nuclear plants in our history). SCRAMs are really not news either though, since it's really a regular occurrence and is basically the standard way to stop a reactor. There is no risk to performing a SCRAM - despite its name, it basically means "turn it off".
I go to school about 15 minutes west of there there, and there've been a few minor incidents here in the past, but they've always been construction related or completely harmless incidents like this. No worries, really.
8 or 9 months ago, a huge piece of equipment they were hoisting into the cooling towers, the fuckhuge smokestacks, came loose from the crane, and fell through the buildings. There was a huge hole in one of the buildings, and if I remember correctly one of the workers was killed or seriously injured.
[QUOTE=Swilly;43137003]We really need to switch to Thorium, just a safer substance to use, more abundunant and releases a lot more energy.
And then start building those units all over.[/QUOTE]
It was an electrical transformer - aka zero danger and happens every day to the countless transformers worldwide.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;43137018]*Transformer explodes*
Guys, we really need to switch to something different, Nuclear just ain't safe.[/QUOTE]
Thorium [b]is[/b] Nuclear.
[QUOTE=meppers;43137167]guys my car tire just burst we need to switch to horses they're safer[/QUOTE]
Not even. That at least has some (really fucking stupid) sense of logic behind it. In this case, it's more like "Guys my car's tire just burst, time to switch to electric cars."
[QUOTE=yawmwen;43137466]the handling and storage of nuclear waste is a huge problem. our current strategy is to just store it near the power plant until it can get buried under a mountain somewhere remote.[/QUOTE]
We can develop better alternatives
[QUOTE=OrDnAs;43141719]We can develop better alternatives[/QUOTE]
We already did (Gen IV reactors can use current waste reserves as fuel to supply the entire world energy needs for centuries and reduce its dangerous radioactivity timeframe from tens of millions of years to around 300) but thanks to the big anti-nuclear scaremonger push in the late 90s, the US cut funding on its research. Had we gone through with it, IFRs would probably have already been running by now.
I like how people get scared about nuclear power because "OMG RADIATION"
even though coal power plants emit more radiation then nuclear ones as well as causing much more environmental damage.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;43142793]I like how people get scared about nuclear power because "OMG RADIATION"
even though coal power plants emit more radiation then nuclear ones as well as causing much more environmental damage.[/QUOTE]
and the much-loved hydro and solar plants each cause their own issues too
[url]http://powershift.anetce.com/hydropower_pollution.htm[/url]
[url]http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5650[/url]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;43137466]the handling and storage of nuclear waste is a huge problem. our current strategy is to just store it near the power plant until it can get buried under a mountain somewhere remote.[/QUOTE]
yeah again, what is the problem with that? Unless you're talking about issues in the realm of a potential society collapse, and people who emerge after that accidentally finding a very deep and warm cave complex without the understanding of what it might be.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.