5 ms·

I really would like to know the solution for how to prevent nuclear meltdown induced by a hostile airstrike to the cooling system, generators, electric grid, or

I really would like to know the solution for how to prevent nuclear meltdown induced by a hostile airstrike to the cooling system, generators, electric grid, or the reactor itself. For the pedantic nuclearphiles, it doesn't have to be an airstrike. Domestic terrorism is a real thing as well.

fennecfoxen 4y ago
it's called "negative void coefficient"!
- acidburnNSA 4y ago
  That won't prevent afterglow heat from causing problems if all cooling systems are lost. https://whatisnuclear.com/decay-heat.html https://whatisnuclear.com/decay-heat.html
mrosett 4y ago
Huh? What air force has the motivation and ability to destroy a nuclear power plant but not the ability to just drop a nuclear weapon?
- jsiaajdsdaa 4y ago
  I would refer you to the Taliban's air force.
  - hedora 4y ago
    What air force? You mean the 1 to 3 pilots that used the anti-hijacking doors to help them commit suicide by intentionally crashing passenger airliners? It’s a stretch to blame the taliban for that, and 9/11 was over twenty years ago.
    - jsiaajdsdaa 4y ago
      The Taliban has gained control of helicopters that were left behind during the US' retreat from the country. Additionally, they seem to have a budding relationship with China, who are capable of manufacturing more advanced aircraft.
- simulate-me 4y ago
  Canada, and basically any other non-nuke country bordering a country with nuclear power plants.
  - mrosett 4y ago
    I guess that the scenario where Canada chooses to launch airstrikes against the US and is able to do so successfully just doesn't get much weight in my risk modeling. And in that scenario, things are very bad whether or not Canada has nuclear power plants to target...
    - perardi 4y ago
      I suspect they mean “what if someone attacks the nuclear plants in southern Ontario”. Which, I don’t exactly know Canada-US defense agreements, but given we share assets like NORAD—I assume an attack on southern Ontario would be tantamount to declaring war on the US, which would probably go poorly for everyone. EDIT: Oh, strike that, they literally mean Canada attacking the US, which is the stupidest idea I’ve heard in a while.
      - simulate-me 4y ago
        I was responding to someone who asked "Who could strike a nuclear power plant who couldn't use a nuclear bomb." Canada is a very valid answer to that questions. No one is talking about the likelihood of such an event.
      - colechristensen 4y ago
        NATO article five, an attack on any member is to be considered an attack on all members.
- thehappypm 4y ago
  9/11 comes to mind.
s5300 4y ago
“Let’s for sure kill the climate making earth uninhabitable by its current fauna within or not far after our lifetimes because of the small chance somebody might be a terrorist” Haven’t looked in a while, but I’m pretty sure a Fukushima every month of our life (and onward) is much less worse than current coal consumption.
- thehappypm 4y ago
  I don’t agree with this reduction. Fukushima showed us even a well-run developed country can have a nuclear disaster.
acidburnNSA 4y ago
Airstrike protection is built into the regs. You just make the containment super strong. This is partly why the big new build AP1000s in Georgia are behind schedule. An older and perhaps more beautiful solution is to put the reactors fairly deep underground, or underwater. Sadly, underground construction is extra pricey. EDIT: I was thinking of aircraft impact here rather than hostile military attack. Defending against hostile military attack is not built into the regs.
- magicalist 4y ago
  > This is partly why the big new build AP1000s in Georgia are behind schedule. "partly" seems like it's doing a lot of work in this sentence.
  - acidburnNSA 4y ago
    Not really, if you talk about aircraft impact only. https://www.ans.org/news/article-1646/root-cause-of-vogtle-and-vc-summer-delays/ https://www.ans.org/news/article-1646/root-cause-of-vogtle-a... Hostile military airstrikes are another thing entirely, that's true. See edit above.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      "Partly" because the more substantial problem is garden-variety corruption, a problem for all big reactor projects in the US.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - acidburnNSA 4y ago
        I think it's just garden-variety megaproject contracting and supply chain issues mostly. https://assets.sourcemedia.com/8c/d8/6686933e49518782cdc7cc1b577f/bechtel-report-on-v.C.%20Summer%20nuclear%20project%20020516.pdf https://assets.sourcemedia.com/8c/d8/6686933e49518782cdc7cc1...
Dylan16807 4y ago
It's straightforward to prevent any ill effects from the cooling or generators or grid being hit. Reactor buildings themselves are extremely sturdy already. And if you do serious damage to the reactor it'll probably spread out the fuel so nothing particularly bad happens before you can do cleanup. And how much safer than coal does it have to be, anyway? Coal kills so many people.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Coal is on its way out, so it is not a meaningful standard for comparison.
  - gryph0n 4y ago
    Reality does NOT agree https://www.iea.org/news/coal-power-s-sharp-rebound-is-taking-it-to-a-new-record-in-2021-threatening-net-zero-goals https://www.iea.org/news/coal-power-s-sharp-rebound-is-takin... https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/energy/india-s-coal-demand-to-increase-to-1-5-billion-tonnes-by-2030-economic-survey-2021-22-81393 https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/energy/india-s-coal-dema...
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      It remains a fact that operating a coal plant costs substantially more than getting the same power from wind. So, continued operation of coal plants depends on uneconomic behavior, typically via cultural inertia or domination by entrenched interests. Of course that is always possible, but it is disfavored.
Manuel_D 4y ago
You could make the same arguments about dams. A much better argument, in fact, since it's actually happened before [1]. But few are seriously considering dismantling hydroelectric facilities. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chastise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chastise
- thehappypm 4y ago
  That’s not really an answer though. Thing A being a security point of failure doesn’t justify Thing B being one.
hedora 4y ago
Um, have you looked up what would happen if an oil refinery got hit by terrorists? The death toll would be much higher than a nuclear meltdown. Anyway, we know how to build nuclear plants that are physically incapable of melting down. Also, foreign and domestic(1) terrorist organizations are largely funded by oil (and, since I count putin as a terrorist, gas and coal) magnates. Rapid nuclearization (and renewable energy roll outs) cuts the funding. (1) Fox News, etc are clearly recruitment tools for right wing domestic terrorist groups. Even if you disagree, my point on foreign terrorists still holds.
BuyMyBitcoins 4y ago
I don’t know “the solution” but all of the scenarios you’ve mentioned have definitely been examined by the operator of the plant and by the military/homeland security department of whichever nation the plant belongs to. They are definitely aware of the danger and have corresponding contingency plans.
- nomel 4y ago
  > They are definitely aware of the danger and have corresponding contingency plans. If this pandemic has taught me anything, it's that contingency plans are put together with great effort and careful thought, and are then placed into a filing cabinet somewhere.
XorNot 4y ago
Physically exploding the reactor core might make a mess, but other then a very small amount of radioactive dust, the pieces, consisting of heavy uranium, would be scattered over a small area around the plant, and promptly stop reacting because there wouldn't be any neutron moderator or enough proximity for them to trigger additional fission. Meltdowns are hard to cause, because once the reactor slags itself it also stops reacting because it's destroyed its moderator. You're probably thinking of "what if Chernobyl?" and the issue there is that it took genuine, sustained effort to create Chernobyl, and a reactor design that could do it: Chernobyl's big problem wasn't a meltdown (3 mile island was a meltdown) it was a steam explosion beneath the reactor, and then the subsequent graphite fire which spread radioactive particulates over the surrounding area. No practical air strike is going to create a Chernobyl equivalent explosion - there's not enough energy in explosives to do it.
- KennyBlanken 4y ago
  > Meltdowns are hard to cause, because once the reactor slags itself it also stops reacting because it's destroyed its moderator. You don't need a "meltdown". All four of Fukashima's active reactors exploded after the cooling systems lost power. They had been automatically SCRAM'd when the earthquake hit and had been cooling for a while before the tsunami hit and destroyed the generators, but reactors take months to 'cool down.' https://youtu.be/saM85y8lFm4?t=1997 https://youtu.be/saM85y8lFm4?t=1997 One of the spent fuel storage pools at Fukashima was still generating 3MW of thermal heat at the time of the disaster. Waste fuel that hadn't been in the reactor for months. It came within one degree Celsius of its safe storage temperature - 85 degrees. Its normal operating temperature was 30 degrees. > Physically exploding the reactor core might make a mess, but other then a very small amount of radioactive dust, the pieces, consisting of heavy uranium, would be scattered over a small area around the plant, "Small area"? The Fukashima explosion has left an area around the size of Tokyo proper uninhabitable in one of the most expensive, constrained real estate markets in the world.
AareyBaba 4y ago
This video (llinois EnergyProf) covers the accident scenarios for nuclear power https://youtu.be/c1QmB5bW_WQ?t=453 https://youtu.be/c1QmB5bW_WQ?t=453 Short answer, the design is such that reactor shuts down automatically with loss of cooling.

fennecfoxen 4y ago

it's called "negative void coefficient"!

acidburnNSA 4y ago
That won't prevent afterglow heat from causing problems if all cooling systems are lost. https://whatisnuclear.com/decay-heat.html https://whatisnuclear.com/decay-heat.html

mrosett 4y ago

Huh? What air force has the motivation and ability to destroy a nuclear power plant but not the ability to just drop a nuclear weapon?

jsiaajdsdaa 4y ago
I would refer you to the Taliban's air force.
- hedora 4y ago
  What air force? You mean the 1 to 3 pilots that used the anti-hijacking doors to help them commit suicide by intentionally crashing passenger airliners? It’s a stretch to blame the taliban for that, and 9/11 was over twenty years ago.
  - jsiaajdsdaa 4y ago
    The Taliban has gained control of helicopters that were left behind during the US' retreat from the country. Additionally, they seem to have a budding relationship with China, who are capable of manufacturing more advanced aircraft.
simulate-me 4y ago
Canada, and basically any other non-nuke country bordering a country with nuclear power plants.
- mrosett 4y ago
  I guess that the scenario where Canada chooses to launch airstrikes against the US and is able to do so successfully just doesn't get much weight in my risk modeling. And in that scenario, things are very bad whether or not Canada has nuclear power plants to target...
  - perardi 4y ago
    I suspect they mean “what if someone attacks the nuclear plants in southern Ontario”. Which, I don’t exactly know Canada-US defense agreements, but given we share assets like NORAD—I assume an attack on southern Ontario would be tantamount to declaring war on the US, which would probably go poorly for everyone. EDIT: Oh, strike that, they literally mean Canada attacking the US, which is the stupidest idea I’ve heard in a while.
    - simulate-me 4y ago
      I was responding to someone who asked "Who could strike a nuclear power plant who couldn't use a nuclear bomb." Canada is a very valid answer to that questions. No one is talking about the likelihood of such an event.
    - colechristensen 4y ago
      NATO article five, an attack on any member is to be considered an attack on all members.
thehappypm 4y ago
9/11 comes to mind.

s5300 4y ago

“Let’s for sure kill the climate making earth uninhabitable by its current fauna within or not far after our lifetimes because of the small chance somebody might be a terrorist” Haven’t looked in a while, but I’m pretty sure a Fukushima every month of our life (and onward) is much less worse than current coal consumption.

thehappypm 4y ago
I don’t agree with this reduction. Fukushima showed us even a well-run developed country can have a nuclear disaster.

acidburnNSA 4y ago

Airstrike protection is built into the regs. You just make the containment super strong. This is partly why the big new build AP1000s in Georgia are behind schedule. An older and perhaps more beautiful solution is to put the reactors fairly deep underground, or underwater. Sadly, underground construction is extra pricey. EDIT: I was thinking of aircraft impact here rather than hostile military attack. Defending against hostile military attack is not built into the regs.

magicalist 4y ago
> This is partly why the big new build AP1000s in Georgia are behind schedule. "partly" seems like it's doing a lot of work in this sentence.
- acidburnNSA 4y ago
  Not really, if you talk about aircraft impact only. https://www.ans.org/news/article-1646/root-cause-of-vogtle-and-vc-summer-delays/ https://www.ans.org/news/article-1646/root-cause-of-vogtle-a... Hostile military airstrikes are another thing entirely, that's true. See edit above.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    "Partly" because the more substantial problem is garden-variety corruption, a problem for all big reactor projects in the US.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - acidburnNSA 4y ago
      I think it's just garden-variety megaproject contracting and supply chain issues mostly. https://assets.sourcemedia.com/8c/d8/6686933e49518782cdc7cc1b577f/bechtel-report-on-v.C.%20Summer%20nuclear%20project%20020516.pdf https://assets.sourcemedia.com/8c/d8/6686933e49518782cdc7cc1...

Dylan16807 4y ago

It's straightforward to prevent any ill effects from the cooling or generators or grid being hit. Reactor buildings themselves are extremely sturdy already. And if you do serious damage to the reactor it'll probably spread out the fuel so nothing particularly bad happens before you can do cleanup. And how much safer than coal does it have to be, anyway? Coal kills so many people.

ncmncm 4y ago
Coal is on its way out, so it is not a meaningful standard for comparison.
- gryph0n 4y ago
  Reality does NOT agree https://www.iea.org/news/coal-power-s-sharp-rebound-is-taking-it-to-a-new-record-in-2021-threatening-net-zero-goals https://www.iea.org/news/coal-power-s-sharp-rebound-is-takin... https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/energy/india-s-coal-demand-to-increase-to-1-5-billion-tonnes-by-2030-economic-survey-2021-22-81393 https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/energy/india-s-coal-dema...
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    It remains a fact that operating a coal plant costs substantially more than getting the same power from wind. So, continued operation of coal plants depends on uneconomic behavior, typically via cultural inertia or domination by entrenched interests. Of course that is always possible, but it is disfavored.

Manuel_D 4y ago

You could make the same arguments about dams. A much better argument, in fact, since it's actually happened before [1]. But few are seriously considering dismantling hydroelectric facilities. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chastise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chastise

thehappypm 4y ago
That’s not really an answer though. Thing A being a security point of failure doesn’t justify Thing B being one.

hedora 4y ago

Um, have you looked up what would happen if an oil refinery got hit by terrorists? The death toll would be much higher than a nuclear meltdown. Anyway, we know how to build nuclear plants that are physically incapable of melting down. Also, foreign and domestic(1) terrorist organizations are largely funded by oil (and, since I count putin as a terrorist, gas and coal) magnates. Rapid nuclearization (and renewable energy roll outs) cuts the funding. (1) Fox News, etc are clearly recruitment tools for right wing domestic terrorist groups. Even if you disagree, my point on foreign terrorists still holds.

BuyMyBitcoins 4y ago

I don’t know “the solution” but all of the scenarios you’ve mentioned have definitely been examined by the operator of the plant and by the military/homeland security department of whichever nation the plant belongs to. They are definitely aware of the danger and have corresponding contingency plans.

nomel 4y ago
> They are definitely aware of the danger and have corresponding contingency plans. If this pandemic has taught me anything, it's that contingency plans are put together with great effort and careful thought, and are then placed into a filing cabinet somewhere.

XorNot 4y ago

Physically exploding the reactor core might make a mess, but other then a very small amount of radioactive dust, the pieces, consisting of heavy uranium, would be scattered over a small area around the plant, and promptly stop reacting because there wouldn't be any neutron moderator or enough proximity for them to trigger additional fission. Meltdowns are hard to cause, because once the reactor slags itself it also stops reacting because it's destroyed its moderator. You're probably thinking of "what if Chernobyl?" and the issue there is that it took genuine, sustained effort to create Chernobyl, and a reactor design that could do it: Chernobyl's big problem wasn't a meltdown (3 mile island was a meltdown) it was a steam explosion beneath the reactor, and then the subsequent graphite fire which spread radioactive particulates over the surrounding area. No practical air strike is going to create a Chernobyl equivalent explosion - there's not enough energy in explosives to do it.

KennyBlanken 4y ago
> Meltdowns are hard to cause, because once the reactor slags itself it also stops reacting because it's destroyed its moderator. You don't need a "meltdown". All four of Fukashima's active reactors exploded after the cooling systems lost power. They had been automatically SCRAM'd when the earthquake hit and had been cooling for a while before the tsunami hit and destroyed the generators, but reactors take months to 'cool down.' https://youtu.be/saM85y8lFm4?t=1997 https://youtu.be/saM85y8lFm4?t=1997 One of the spent fuel storage pools at Fukashima was still generating 3MW of thermal heat at the time of the disaster. Waste fuel that hadn't been in the reactor for months. It came within one degree Celsius of its safe storage temperature - 85 degrees. Its normal operating temperature was 30 degrees. > Physically exploding the reactor core might make a mess, but other then a very small amount of radioactive dust, the pieces, consisting of heavy uranium, would be scattered over a small area around the plant, "Small area"? The Fukashima explosion has left an area around the size of Tokyo proper uninhabitable in one of the most expensive, constrained real estate markets in the world.

AareyBaba 4y ago

This video (llinois EnergyProf) covers the accident scenarios for nuclear power https://youtu.be/c1QmB5bW_WQ?t=453 https://youtu.be/c1QmB5bW_WQ?t=453 Short answer, the design is such that reactor shuts down automatically with loss of cooling.