3 ms·

Unanswered questions in my mind: i) There does not appear to be any reason to believe that venting the steam would solve the cooling issues, and therefore aver

Unanswered questions in my mind: i) There does not appear to be any reason to believe that venting the steam would solve the cooling issues, and therefore avert damage to the reactor core. Can you more firmly link coolant solutions to a successful cooling of the reactor? ii) Can you more firmly address your assertion that a meltdown requires uncontrolled fission? Doesn't a meltdown simply require enough heat to damage the core and/or fissile material? Meanwhile, the term itself is informal and has no set, specific consensus. Perhaps you can begin by defining what you, specifically, mean by "meltdown"? Thank you.

aperiodic 16y ago
i) You're correct in that venting the steam won't solve the cooling issues. Venting the steam is being considered in order to reduce the steam pressure in the primary system. If the pressure gets too high, then the primary system could rupture, resulting in an uncontrolled release of radiation. ii) I falsely conflated uncontrolled fission with meltdown in my explanation. Meltdown is when the core reaches a temperature at which the control rod cladding (which is probably stainless steel, though I can't confirm that) melts. Uncontrolled fission will result in a spectacular meltdown, as happened at Chernobyl. So, being shutdown is not a guarantee against melting down. However, as long as the core stays submerged, then it should stay cool enough to avoid melting down. I haven't read any reports that the operators are concerned about water level in the core, so a meltdown is unlikely. Worst case, you could open up a valve on the primary and stick a hose in it.
- dmfdmf 16y ago
  The Chernobyl accident was a power excursion during low power operation (high void coefficient region) that lead to a steam explosion. The core was not melted but was literally blown sky high because there was no containment building.

aperiodic 16y ago

i) You're correct in that venting the steam won't solve the cooling issues. Venting the steam is being considered in order to reduce the steam pressure in the primary system. If the pressure gets too high, then the primary system could rupture, resulting in an uncontrolled release of radiation. ii) I falsely conflated uncontrolled fission with meltdown in my explanation. Meltdown is when the core reaches a temperature at which the control rod cladding (which is probably stainless steel, though I can't confirm that) melts. Uncontrolled fission will result in a spectacular meltdown, as happened at Chernobyl. So, being shutdown is not a guarantee against melting down. However, as long as the core stays submerged, then it should stay cool enough to avoid melting down. I haven't read any reports that the operators are concerned about water level in the core, so a meltdown is unlikely. Worst case, you could open up a valve on the primary and stick a hose in it.

dmfdmf 16y ago
The Chernobyl accident was a power excursion during low power operation (high void coefficient region) that lead to a steam explosion. The core was not melted but was literally blown sky high because there was no containment building.