View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Thu Dec 05, 2019 10:19 pm



Reply to topic  [ 2 posts ] 
 Palo Verde Arizona Nuclear Plant - Safety System Review 
Author Message
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 7:40 pm
Posts: 2879
Location: Illinois
Quote:
TONOPAH, Ariz. — For 57 days last year and early this year, one of the reactors at a nuclear plant west of Phoenix kept running after an explosion knocked a backup generator out of service.

If the nuclear plant had lost power from the grid and had a similar failure in its other diesel generator, it would not have been able to cool nuclear fuel in a timely manner, Mathew said. If the fuel can't be cooled, it can lead to radiation releases.

Their analysis showed it was safer to keep the unit running and minimize activity around it, such as other routine tests and maintenance, than to initiate a shutdown, which involves a variety of complicated procedures such as moving fuel rods, they said.


FULL ARTICLE FOUND HERE:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/06/13/nuclear-plant-backup-explosion/394561001/

_________________
MY OUTSIDE RADIATION MONITORING STATION:
South Beloit, Illinois - GMC200 Outside on HEPA air purifier, ground level, facing West.
http://netc.com/chart/view.php?n=1%3AEB5A139C


Wed Jun 14, 2017 4:47 am
Profile
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 7:40 pm
Posts: 2879
Location: Illinois
I find this interesting. So if they did shutdown the reactor, something could have went wrong during that process and then the last remaining diesel generator would have been the only thing keeping the plant from a meltdown. I'm sure there are lots of things that need to happen correctly to safely shutdown a nuclear plant reactor. The article never mentioned what way they would have shut it down either, slowly or using a SCRAM, both of which carry risk. Although just continuing to allow the reactor to run without the 2nd diesel generator as a backup for the cooling systems was risky too.

I hate to say it but I think in this case there was less risk of failure to just allow the reactor to continue to run while repairs were made to the generator. There is so much risk that goes with running a nuclear plant even when everything is working correctly. Nuclear power sucks. I'd prefer the risks of coal powered.

_________________
MY OUTSIDE RADIATION MONITORING STATION:
South Beloit, Illinois - GMC200 Outside on HEPA air purifier, ground level, facing West.
http://netc.com/chart/view.php?n=1%3AEB5A139C


Wed Jun 14, 2017 5:06 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 2 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by STSoftware.