3 ms·

It's a PWR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beznau_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Technical_specifications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beznau_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Tec... A

by guscost 10y ago

It's a PWR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beznau_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Technical_specifications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beznau_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Tec... A PWR isn't going to "blow up" when it gets too old, or at all really. Chernobyl, the only large-scale plant to ever actually blow up, had a crazy dangerous design compared to any of these older reactors (and you're not kidding about them being old, they are seven years older than Chernobyl).

Natsu 10y ago
Incidentally, you can find a more complete discussion on PWR stability as compared to Chernobyl here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressurized_water_reactor#Moderator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressurized_water_reactor#Mode...
maxerickson 10y ago
11 Chernobyl type reactors are still in operation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK (some of the design problems have been addressed in the still operating reactors)
- guscost 10y ago
  Oh wow, hope the retrofits are safe enough.
- m_mueller 10y ago
  Looking at the chain of events during the tests that lead to the accident I'd say it was mostly human error as well as the flawed hierarchical structure of soviet organisation. The critical reactor design flaws were all accounted for in protocols that were not followed by the higher up being present against the strong advice of the engineers. Had these been followed, nothing would have happened, although there is one flaw they probably didn't account for: the power spike during control rod insertion, which has been fixed with an updated control rod design and protocols. I'd argue that any reactor design that doesn't just allow to be shut down and walked away from, is inherently unsafe - it's just that RBMK have far worse consequences when humans screw up, which can be seen as their fundamental flaw, they basically miss a safety net in the form of an auxillary containment. Fukushima showed what could happen in reactors like the ones used in Switzerland - IMO that's way more manageable than climate change, although the question remains whether 'china syndrome' is possible and how such a true worst case would look like. I once did some rough calculations on how much radioactive material is present in typical reactors, and it's really quite staggering - dispersed in bad ways you basically get lethal doses for hundreds of millions of people. So the only sane way forward IMO is to finally replace all these old designs with ones that have passive cooling systems in an emergency, meanwhile passing housing laws for new houses that require a certain percentage of solar roof, x amount of kWh battery per inhabitant as well as the ability to feed the grid from both roof and battery in order to create a stable renewable grid. Unfortunately no green party is pragmatic enough - their anti nuclear stances mean that we'd have to increase carbon reliance before being able to decrease it, which poses IMO greater dangers than even the worst case imaginable with nuclear. Therefore I'd rather vote for those who want to keep nuclear rather than those who promote renewables.
  - lucaspiller 10y ago
    I can't find a source for it now, but I remember reading about an incident at Ignalia-1 in Lithuania, that foresaw the design issues that caused the Chenobyl incident a few years before. Apparently it was reported, but the Soviet leadership decided not to do anything about it and keep it secret. Even though Ignalia-2 had the most advanced safety features of any RBMK reactor, a condition of Lithuania's EU membership was the plant be shutdown. As such the Baltic states have been very dependant on Russia for energy since the shutdown. Belarus is in the process of building a plant on the Lithuanian border. Although it's PWR and has many safety features RBMK didn't have, thanks to politics the lack of transparency over safety issues is rather concerning: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/09/belarus-under-fire-for-dangerous-errors-at-nuclear-plant https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/09/belarus-under-...
    - m_mueller 10y ago
      Soviet administration is kind of hard to wrap my head around. You'd think that (1) no financial incentives (ideally) and (2) accountability based on 'see you in the Gulag' if something goes wrong, would lead to people being more transparent about risks - but it seems the opposite happened! Is it because those who have to bear the risks (e.g. RBMK on-site engineers) aren't the same who'd pass on information through the administrative chain? Was the main thing missing free information flow? Could communism work if all economic/infrastructure/administration units would just be forced to publish all their data in raw form, so other people could analyse it and make better decisions?

by guscost 10y ago

Natsu 10y ago

Incidentally, you can find a more complete discussion on PWR stability as compared to Chernobyl here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressurized_water_reactor#Moderator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressurized_water_reactor#Mode...

maxerickson 10y ago

11 Chernobyl type reactors are still in operation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK (some of the design problems have been addressed in the still operating reactors)

guscost 10y ago
Oh wow, hope the retrofits are safe enough.
m_mueller 10y ago
Looking at the chain of events during the tests that lead to the accident I'd say it was mostly human error as well as the flawed hierarchical structure of soviet organisation. The critical reactor design flaws were all accounted for in protocols that were not followed by the higher up being present against the strong advice of the engineers. Had these been followed, nothing would have happened, although there is one flaw they probably didn't account for: the power spike during control rod insertion, which has been fixed with an updated control rod design and protocols. I'd argue that any reactor design that doesn't just allow to be shut down and walked away from, is inherently unsafe - it's just that RBMK have far worse consequences when humans screw up, which can be seen as their fundamental flaw, they basically miss a safety net in the form of an auxillary containment. Fukushima showed what could happen in reactors like the ones used in Switzerland - IMO that's way more manageable than climate change, although the question remains whether 'china syndrome' is possible and how such a true worst case would look like. I once did some rough calculations on how much radioactive material is present in typical reactors, and it's really quite staggering - dispersed in bad ways you basically get lethal doses for hundreds of millions of people. So the only sane way forward IMO is to finally replace all these old designs with ones that have passive cooling systems in an emergency, meanwhile passing housing laws for new houses that require a certain percentage of solar roof, x amount of kWh battery per inhabitant as well as the ability to feed the grid from both roof and battery in order to create a stable renewable grid. Unfortunately no green party is pragmatic enough - their anti nuclear stances mean that we'd have to increase carbon reliance before being able to decrease it, which poses IMO greater dangers than even the worst case imaginable with nuclear. Therefore I'd rather vote for those who want to keep nuclear rather than those who promote renewables.
- lucaspiller 10y ago
  I can't find a source for it now, but I remember reading about an incident at Ignalia-1 in Lithuania, that foresaw the design issues that caused the Chenobyl incident a few years before. Apparently it was reported, but the Soviet leadership decided not to do anything about it and keep it secret. Even though Ignalia-2 had the most advanced safety features of any RBMK reactor, a condition of Lithuania's EU membership was the plant be shutdown. As such the Baltic states have been very dependant on Russia for energy since the shutdown. Belarus is in the process of building a plant on the Lithuanian border. Although it's PWR and has many safety features RBMK didn't have, thanks to politics the lack of transparency over safety issues is rather concerning: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/09/belarus-under-fire-for-dangerous-errors-at-nuclear-plant https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/09/belarus-under-...
  - m_mueller 10y ago
    Soviet administration is kind of hard to wrap my head around. You'd think that (1) no financial incentives (ideally) and (2) accountability based on 'see you in the Gulag' if something goes wrong, would lead to people being more transparent about risks - but it seems the opposite happened! Is it because those who have to bear the risks (e.g. RBMK on-site engineers) aren't the same who'd pass on information through the administrative chain? Was the main thing missing free information flow? Could communism work if all economic/infrastructure/administration units would just be forced to publish all their data in raw form, so other people could analyse it and make better decisions?