5 ms·
>There's no reason for 6 foot thick, steel re-barred concrete containment in a negative void coefficient reactor! To contain the steam explosion in the event o
by uvdiv 16y ago
>There's no reason for 6 foot thick, steel re-barred concrete containment in a negative void coefficient reactor!
To contain the steam explosion in the event of a coolant leak. That is, pressurized liquid water at 300 °C flashing into steam as it's depressurized.
- ScotterC 16y agoCoolant leak and steam explosion are in conflict with one a other. What you're referring to is Chernobyl, which had a graphite moderator which allowed for a dramatic increase in power and pressure with no release. Light water plants use water as a moderator and a coolant leak would relieve pressure making a steam explosion unlikely. For example Three mile Island was never in danger of a steam explosion.
- uvdiv 16y ago>Light water plants use water as a moderator and a coolant leak would relieve pressure making a steam explosion unlikely. I mean, the pressure in the containment building. Isn't that the purpose of the containment walls, to withstand steam pressure from a coolant leak? Or am I misunderstanding things. >Coolant leak and steam explosion are in conflict with one a other. My mistake.
- ScotterC 16y agoMy argument is that there is no purpose for the containment walls. They are theoretically yet another barrier to leak of radiation on top of the fuel rods and the piping itself but I would argue this as unnecessary. Chernobyl should have had a containment vessel. This would have averted that disaster. Three Mile Island had a catastrophic systems failure with a partial meltdown yet only 1 inch of the 7 inch thick reactor vessel was affected. Some xenon gas and other radioactive elements were released to the atmosphere but of minimal quantities.
- jacquesm 16y agoIsn't this a gas cooled reactor?
- uvdiv 16y agoYes, the parent brought up PWRs.