4 ms·
This is quite different from Chernobyl, which didn't even have a proper confinement wall. It's unlikely that it can get as bad as Chernobyl was.
by wazoox 16y ago
This is quite different from Chernobyl, which didn't even have a proper confinement wall. It's unlikely that it can get as bad as Chernobyl was.
- JanezStupar 16y agoIt seems that proper containment is gone in this case...
- jessedhillon 16y agoIt seems that what you saw was the building surrounding the reactor being blown up, not the containment vessel, according to news accounts. The containment referred to in this case is a vessel made of a feet-thick layer of concrete surrounding the reactor. This is the final defense if a fuel meltdown occurs: its job is to contain the burning fuel and prevent it from being exposed to the environment. [1] What the GP was referring to is that there was no such vessel at Chernobyl, which was a very old reactor design. Modern reactors are surrounded in such vessels. [2] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Containment_building http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Containment_building [2] Here's some information about the reactor design at Chernobyl: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK#Containment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK#Containment Another interesting read is the story of the Russian engineers who prevented an explosion at Chernobyl by diving into the pool of water beneath the reactor and opening the drainage valves: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Steam_explosion_risk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Steam_explos...
- JanezStupar 16y agoI know the general layout of various types of nuclear reactors. But if the outer building which is supposed to contain everything else blows up - that's not exactly the best case is it?
- vukk 16y ago"... that's not exactly the best case is it?" You could think about the outer building as keeping the rain out, and possibly aeroplanes to some extent. It is not the critical last defence against stuff happening in the reactor, the containment building is. You can bet that the japanese army is keeping any possible threats out of there.
- JanezStupar 16y agoI read somewhere that this design does not have a containment dome. So basically containment wise (in comparison to Chernobil) this reactor is a bit better that it uses reactor containment vessel, but it does not use containment dome. I also read that on TMI a similar hydrogen explosion occurred but it was contained by containment dome.
- neutronicus 16y agoIt doesn't have a concrete containment dome. It's got a steel containment vessel surrounding the main reactor vessel, though.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- runningdogx 16y agoSome reports[1] indicate radioactive iodine and cesium are being detected at monitoring stations. How could that happen if confinement hadn't failed? (fuel rods melting, containment failure of the reactor vessel and/or primary coolant loop, and the obvious lack of a containment building at this point) Based on the description of two-stage containment for BWRs at wikipedia[2], and the video, if that's the containment strategy at Fukushima, it seems the drywell containment structure blew up, since steam being vented into a pool of water shouldn't cause a visible breach. [1] http://e.nikkei.com/e/fr/tnks/Nni20110312D12JF520.htm http://e.nikkei.com/e/fr/tnks/Nni20110312D12JF520.htm [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Containment_building#Boiling_water_reactors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Containment_building#Boiling_wa...
- neutronicus 16y agoChernobyl also was a _bona fide_ reactivity excursion - a nuclear-driven steam explosion literally blew the core apart and spewed radioactive particulates into the atmosphere. This is just built-up decay heat and chemical reactions.