SkyscraperCity Forum banner

New UK nuclear plant sites named

53K views 206 replies 61 participants last post by  sponge_bob 
#1 ·
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-13887579




New UK nuclear plant sites named

Ministers have announced plans for the next generation of UK nuclear plants.

The government confirmed a list of eight sites it deems suitable for new power stations by 2025, all of which are adjacent to existing nuclear sites.

The sites are: Bradwell, Essex; Hartlepool; Heysham, Lancashire; Hinkley Point, Somerset; Oldbury, Gloucestershire; Sellafield, Cumbria; Sizewell, Suffolk; and Wylfa, Anglesey.

The announcement comes three months after the Fukushima disaster in Japan.

The future of nuclear as a power source for countries around the world was called into question after the disaster which occurred in March when a Japanese earthquake and tsunami rocked the reactors at Fukushima, leaving radioactivity leaking from the plant.

The proposals for new UK nuclear power plants are part of a series of national policy statements on energy which have been published following a public consultation.

'Affordable energy'

The plans will be debated and voted on in Parliament, but ministers are hopeful that, with a pro-nuclear majority in the Commons, they will win the argument.

Energy Minister Charles Hendry said: "Around a quarter of the UK's generating capacity is due to close by the end of this decade. We need to replace this with secure, low carbon, affordable energy.

"This will require over £100bn worth of investment in electricity generation alone. This means twice as much investment in energy infrastructure in this decade as was achieved in the last decade."

Mr Hendry said industry "needs as much certainty as possible to make such big investments," adding that the plans "set out our energy need to help guide the planning process, so that if acceptable proposals come forward in appropriate places, they will not face unnecessary hold-ups".

Hinkley blockade

Andreas Speck from Stop New Nuclear - an alliance of eight groups opposed to the plants - said campaigners had expected the government to go ahead with its plans despite Fukushima.

"It was always clear," he said.

But Mr Speck said Stop New Nuclear would continue to oppose the plants "more than ever" and would blockade the Hinkley Point site on 3 October.

EDF Energy has already submitted planning applications to the West Somerset District Council for preparatory work on the planned new reactor at the site.

If EDF could be made to abandon its plans at Hinkley, the alliance hoped work at the other proposed sites would also be stopped, Mr Speck said.

"We believe the nuclear programme is not safe - and Fukushima is the latest example of that - but it's also not needed," he said.

Mr Speck said power could be generated without the use of nuclear energy, which he said was expensive and provided too few carbon reductions.

Friends of the Earth said the UK's energy needs could be met through "clean renewable power".

"After five decades of nuclear power the industry still needs huge public subsidy, while solar is set to operate without taxpayer support within a decade - even in cloudy Britain," spokesman Simon Bullock said.

"The Government is obsessed with putting a new nuclear millstone around Britain's neck."

Divisive issue

The issue of nuclear power divided Conservatives and Liberal Democrats when they entered government together.

The coalition deal allowed a Lib Dem spokesman to speak out against any new nuclear plants, while Lib Dem MPs could abstain on the issue.

However, Lib Dem Energy Secretary Chris Huhne has since given his backing to new reactors.

He stressed that they would not be subsidised by the taxpayer, although MPs have warned that reform of the electricity market could favour nuclear power and amount to a hidden subsidy.

The new reactors are designed to maintain electricity supplies and cut greenhouse gas emissions.


 
See less See more
2
#7 ·
That may be true but given how hard it is to get anything even remotely controversial built in the UK at the moment can you really blame them? The planning rules need changing so that vital infrastructure projects can't be so easily blocked or we risk having no power because nimby's object to all forms of power generation.
 
#3 ·
Interesting definition of "disaster". Last time I checked, nobody died* at Fukushima. Yes, it coughed and spluttered a bit, but nothing that can't be repaired in a reasonable time. Even the two meltdown failed utterly to produce the necessary media-friendly death tolls.

In the meantime, a major earthquake and tsunami killed thousands, destroyed billions of Yen in ports, shipping, tankers, (how much pollution will those have caused?), refineries, chemical plants, not to mention the likelihood of deaths or serious injury caused by having to clean that mess up.

But apparently, when a 40-year-old nuclear power plant designed for a much small seismic event breaks a bit, yet fails utterly to directly kill a single fucking soul, it's a "disaster" too? Fucking hypocrites.

And the greenies can shut the hell up too. Seriously: when was the last time the UK suffered a massive earthquake and tsunami? And who in the hell is going to build a brand new nuclear power station to a forty-year-old design?

France has been exporting nuclear energy to the UK and Italy for decades. How much safer does nuclear need to get?



* Before anyone jumps on this: one worker was killed by the seismic event. Another died later, of natural causes.
 
#5 ·
Interesting definition of "disaster". Last time I checked, nobody died* at Fukushima. Yes, it coughed and spluttered a bit, but nothing that can't be repaired in a reasonable time. Even the two meltdown failed utterly to produce the necessary media-friendly death tolls.

^ You talk as if Fukushima is somehow a minor event that's over and done with.


http://aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2011/06/201161664828302638.html

"Fukushima is the biggest industrial catastrophe in the history of mankind"
-- Arnold Gundersen, former nuclear industry senior vice president.

"We have 20 nuclear cores exposed, the fuel pools have several cores each, that is 20 times the potential to be released than Chernobyl."

In the US, physician Janette Sherman MD and epidemiologist Joseph Mangano published an essay shedding light on a 35 per cent spike in infant mortality in northwest cities that occurred after the Fukushima meltdown, and may well be the result of fallout from the stricken nuclear plant.

"We are discovering hot particles everywhere in Japan, even in Tokyo," he said. "Scientists are finding these everywhere. Over the last 90 days these hot particles have continued to fall and are being deposited in high concentrations. A lot of people are picking these up in car engine air filters."

"Units one through three have nuclear waste on the floor, the melted core, that has plutonium in it, and that has to be removed from the environment for hundreds of thousands of years," he said. "Somehow, robotically, they will have to go in there and manage to put it in a container and store it for infinity, and that technology doesn't exist. Nobody knows how to pick up the molten core from the floor, there is no solution available now for picking that up from the floor."

...

Vast area of Japan contaminated

Japan is dangerously contaminated by radioactivity over a far larger area than previously reported by TEPCO and the central government according to new reports from multiple sources. The prefectural government of Iwate released new data that shows radioactive contamination of grass exceeds safety standards at a distance of 90 to 125 miles from the damaged Fukushima nuclear power plants.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/...,-Vast-Area-of-Japan-Contaminated?via=siderec






Michio Kaku: Cleanup will take 50 to 100 years





And the greenies can shut the hell up too. Seriously: when was the last time the UK suffered a massive earthquake and tsunami?
Earthquakes and tsunamis are the only possible thing that could cause a meltdown?

How about deliberate human action? i.e. terrorism or sabotage.


How much safer does nuclear need to get?
4th generation nuclear plants, which are probably 20+ years away.
 
#4 · (Edited)
2 recieved lethal radiation doses and 45 died at the local hospital (Mainichi) from dehydration and abandonment when the evacuation order was given due to radiation risk.
Three reactors suffered meltdown, a 4th suffered explosions and fire. They cant even access two of them three months later because radiation is still too high, their all still leaking. Food grown in the entire province was destroyed due to dangerous levels of contamination and drinking water was flown in from China. it will take 10 years to make safe the fuel rods and 100 years before the sites completley decontaminated.
 
#8 ·
you cannot deny that there is massive over reaction to anything radiation related, most likely due to the a bombs. not to say that these nuclear plants are not dangerous and should have very tight controls, it should stay that way.

the petrol in our cars is way more harmful in total. ffs i bet even mobility scooters kill more each year than nuclear meltdowns.

build them!
 
#9 ·
More people died in Chernobyl due to the reaction of the 'greens' that from the nuclear fall out.

Let me explain.

The number of direct linked deaths to Chernobyl is in the tens, it is very very low. There was a very low increase in cancers etc from the fall out.

Yet, because of all the hype from the greens about how 'scary' it was, alcoholism and drug use in that part of the world rocketed - they all thought that they would die. Many many more people died as a result of the drug and alcohol abuse than the radition.


If the greens etc had come out and said don't worry, the effects will be minor, many lives would have been saved.
 
#12 ·
Possibly.

The problem with extracting energy from the tides (or wind farms, or solar power) is that the energy is supplied at the whim of natural forces, rather than when it's actually needed.

It's a little-publicised fact that most of these technologies require either some form of power storage system, or a backup generation plant (usually fossil-fuelled), if they are to be of much real-world use beyond greenwashing.

Tidal energy would work well with a hydro-electric plant: the tidal energy pumps the water back up to the reservoir, which acts as a giant, water-based "battery" to store that energy until it's actually needed. This does, however, have inherent limitations: there are only so many suitable sites for a reservoir large enough to make the system viable. In the UK, most are already taken.

Solar power is getting there, but the current panel designs are still inefficient and expensive. Buying now would be like buying a Betamax video recorder: it'll work, but you may well find yourself lumbered with yesterday's technology much sooner than you expected.

Photovoltaic power is much more viable in countries like Italy, where electrical power supplies to the home have never been high: a typical rural or suburban home only gets 3kWh at the door; even most city apartments get just 6kWh. For Italians, who already have to pay through the nose as much of their electricity is imported, photovoltaics make a lot of sense. As do solar heating panels—the hot water variety.

Compare with the UK, where 10kWh or more (I've seen 20kWh!) is common. Solar heating panels have some benefits, but, again, the climate isn't really suited, and Britons are used to being able to not having to switch off the washing machine before switching on the electric kettle.

Geothermal energy is something Italians (like the Icelanders) are also spending lots of R&D money on as they have the geology for it. Nuclear isn't really an option given the seismically active land and the lack of suitable sites.

Wind power's benefits are dubious at best. Europe has actually seen periods of no wind at all—a recent one lasted 11 days. As with tidal energy, it needs a storage or backup generation system to make it truly viable. The only reason we're seeing wind turbines being built in the EU at all is entirely because the taxpayer subsidises them to a quite shocking degree.

The UK does have a lot of tidal anergy available to it, but there are always knock-on effects with any technology: Tidal barrages may cause problems with local marine ecology, for example.

In short: climates vary, and each will have an ideal mix of energy generation solutions. One size will not fit all, despite the US-biased documentaries implying the contrary. Watching some of these programmes, anyone would think the US was the only nation on the planet, and that every nation had a climate like southern California, and a convenient desert on its doorstep.

The UK is actually well suited to nuclear energy. It is geologically stable, surrounded by oceans, and is also not prone to tidal waves caused by undersea earthquakes either. The French have been using nuclear energy for generations now, with no notable ill-effects; it makes sense for the UK to follow their example.
 
#14 ·
The grid can't ask a nuclear station to shutdown in periods of low demand (well it can, but it'll be expensive if it does). It's more or less a base load station. If a nuclear station is tripped unexpectedly, then nearby stations will also be tripped.

Nuclear power generation coupled with strategic renewables is the answer to Britains low carbon energy generation.

This makes sense especially as the carbon floor tax comes into play.
 
#15 ·
nuclear and wind are two things we can be good at, but we need something more.

as said, nuclear cant turn off, and wind happens when it wants to.

surely tidal power is very reliable though? we know exactly when and where and how high all tides are, surely the actual weather effect on tides is minimal and the moon is the main player.

the answer is probably pan european sharing, spain and north africa can give us some solar power when europe has no wind maybe?
 
#16 ·
When I was young and idealistic I was anti-nuclear. I then slowly came to accept nuclear power as a risk that was managed to acceptable levels. But seeing what hapened in Japan when it all goes wrong has pushed me firmly back into the anti-nuclear camp.

Incidentally I live in an area (Eastern Cardiff) that was flooded in 1607 by a Tsunami that killed around 2,000 people, with wave hights estimated at 6m. If the same wave happened today it would kill at least 10 times that number and would also swamp Hinckley Point nuclear reactor, which is less than 20 miles from Cardiff, and could lead to the evacuation of all of South East Wales.

It is not a risk that is worth taking.:bash:
 
#17 ·
Tell us about the risks of the other technologies.

How many people die mining the coal for power stations?


What about the deaths mining the ores for the metals for the windmills?


It's amazing how people forget that no power production is risk free.


Anway, the tsunami in Cadriff 400 years ago would have been orders of magnitude lower than that in Japan, plus now we have seen what happened in Japan we can design out the problems that they experienced there.
 
#18 ·
Risk management is all about assessing the probability of an event happening and the consequences of that event.

In the case of a coalmining accident, the probability is relatively high, but the consequences are relativley low, say:

1 fatality event ocurring 1/year
10 fatality event ocurring 1/100years
But no event having impact outside of immediate area. Coal mining only affects those directly involved.

But in the case of nuclear, the probaility is relatively low, but the potential consequences are huge, and more importantly the effects have an impact well beyond the immediate activity and affect innocent bystanders.

And if the Japanese did not prepare properly for the effects of a Tsunami, then what chance do you think the UK nuclear industry has considered it.

The risk assesment for nuclear installations in UK must include an assesment of risk from Tsunami - not as a theoretical possibility, but as a proven historical event!
 
#19 ·
ps - the event in Severn Estuary 400 years ago was on the same scale as the recent Japanese tsunami. It killed 2,000 in what was then low populated rural areas in south Carmarthenshire, South Gwent and north Somerset. The same wave today would devastate Llanelli, south & east Cardiff, Newport on the Welsh side, and Avonmouth and Weston Super Mare on the English side, and the death toll would be in the tens of thousands.
 
#22 ·
There are currently two potential nuclear catastrophes brewing in the USA.

One involves the Los Alamos plant which is threatened by wild fires.

The other is at Calhoun were a plant has been flooded by the Missouri river.

Both of these should have been fully anticipated in disaster planning but appear not to have been.
 
#23 ·
There are currently two potential nuclear catastrophes brewing in the USA.
Bad planning, perhaps, but it's unfair to blame nuclear energy technology specifically for the failings of the planning and inspection process. It's amazing how often people forget that someone has to approve these things before they get built; you can't just rock up with a JCB wherever you damned well please and start a-buildin'.

A fossil-fuelled generating plant wouldn't come out of a wildfire or flood smelling of roses either. Especially if that fossil fuel is oil.

And, for every "OMG! NUKES!" post, I raise you a Bhopal and a Buncefield. I've got plenty more where those came from. Bhopal actually killed quite a lot of people when it went pear-shaped, and is still causing headaches today.

As I've pointed out before: NOTHING is 100% safe. Even wind farms have killed people! There is risk in everything we do.
 
#24 ·
We need far more nuclear stations - enough to eliminate fossil fuel usage. Built to far higher standards and semi submerged to make them visually appealing and for safety.

Building stations in tidal-wave and earthquake zones is just plain silly. International laws should prevent this.

The spent fuel should be put in tropical forests to make them grow. Radiation promotes plant growth which improves the climate.
 
#27 · (Edited)
I relocated last week, but am still awaiting the broadband connection. (I only got a phone line installed yesterday, but it's not live yet.) I've been accessing the internet over my phone's GSM connection—a technology that makes old-school dial-up look like broadband by comparison. I'm barely getting 1KB/s.

So you'll forgive me if I save looking up tidal lagoons until later.

Then again, carving up chunks of coastline for storing water seems unlikely to be popular with the conservation people, who will doubtless insist that their precious little birdies won't be able to find anywhere to kip or shag without us humans helping them out with leaflets written in duck, goose and heron, and publicly-funded Mating Guidance Counsellors. This is despite the demonstrable fact that birds never had any trouble finding new migration and nesting sites before the advent of guilt-tripping celebrities and telethons.

Once you take into account the endless litigation these people like to throw around, I suspect nuclear power may actually prove cheaper than lawyers. :)

Extracting heat continuously from such areas prevents volcanoes and earthquakes.
I'd like to see some solid evidence of that assertion; there hasn't been that much time to make such sweeping assertions; for all we know, geothermal energy may just delay these events, resulting in fewer, but more powerful quakes and eruptions. We're talking geology here, a field not known for its speed.

Nevertheless, if it's true, this is a good thing, surely? I'm sure Italians would be more than happy to have less seismic activity rattling their churches about.

Naples has (a) proven itself unable to take out the trash for two years now (despite the option of just chucking it all into one of Italy's multiple active volcanoes[*]), and (b) recently admitted that, if Vesuvius were to erupt, they'd only be able to evacuate about half a million people at best.

I can't wait for the day a scientist announces a mad plan to plug Etna's burping and burbling magma into the Italian electricity grid.


[*] (Hey, it's a free trash incinerator! Why not? The last thing you're going to worry about when the lava flows through your apartment building is whether it contains basalt or used cereal packets.)
 
#31 ·
I have doubts about the viability of the Cardiff-Weston barrage, and would be more in favour of building the smaller Shoots barrage, which would then be supplemented by two or three tidal lagoons further downstream.

With a little more effort the Shoots barrage could also incorporate a railway crossing to replace the ageing Severn Tunnel.
 
#34 ·
RWE and E.On halt UK nuclear plans at Wylfa and Oldbury

There has been a setback to the government's plan to attract investment in new nuclear power stations.

That is after RWE Npower and E.On announced they will not develop new nuclear power projects in the UK.

The two were planning to invest in new plants in Anglesey and Oldbury, near Bristol, under a joint venture called Horizon Nuclear Power.

The government says it is disappointed but there remains "considerable interest" in the project.

The firms say that raising finance for power projects has become difficult.

RWE has also been hit by costs associated with decommissioning nuclear power plants in Germany. Last May Germany decided to close down its nuclear power stations by 2022, following the disaster at Japan's Fukushima nuclear facility.

'A big deal'

The two German firms formed Horizon Nuclear Power, which is based in Gloucester, in 2009.

It was working on plans for new nuclear power stations at Wylfa on the Isle of Anglesey and at Oldbury-on-Severn in South Gloucestershire.

Malcolm Grimston, an associate fellow at the Chatham House think tank, said: "It's a big deal that they are pulling out. If you look at the utilities in Europe then they are two of the biggest. There aren't that many huge players out there who could take over."

...

The Prospect union, which represents some of the 120 highly-skilled employees working at Horizon's headquarters in Gloucester, as well as staff at the existing Wylfa site, expressed concern about the broader economic consequences.

"At a time when we face the closure of several large coal-fired power stations between now and the end of 2015, the Horizon venture was to be a major contributor in achieving a new UK fleet of nuclear power stations to provide a secure low-carbon energy supply for the future," said Mike Clancy, general secretary-designate of Prospect.

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-17546420







:| :| :|
 
#35 ·
By all means employ the private sector to operate the stations - as franchisees, but lets be honest the only way this works as a 'private sector' enterprises is if the state takes on the legacy costs (and that is just not fair if these are private concerns) but the downsides are too grim to be left to the free market.

The main problem with nuclear power is that there seems to have never been a standard 'model t' design that revolutionizes the tech, does not require huge ongoing investment to maintain them and takes into account the legacy downsides - I have heard of thorium reactors - no waste, do they work?

I also question where they are built - remote locations. Surely they can be built nearer to where the power is required so that the waste heat can be put to productive use.
 
#36 ·
The government is still holding on to this carbon capture concept for gas/coal power stations by pumping it under the north sea. As far I knew zero of these types are planned and most coal plants are shutting down. Government needs a little more invention than 'errrr Nuclear' and if that fails.... 'we'll just use new gas plants and maybe pump the carbon under the North Sea' Why not follow Germany's and Denmarks lead? Pump more Money into Solar and wind? Our current government is pulling money out of solar, they need a serious rethink on the whole policy.
 
#37 ·
... Why not follow Germany's and Denmarks lead? Pump more Money into Solar and wind? Our current government is pulling money out of solar, they need a serious rethink on the whole policy.
The simple answer to the question "why not?" is that the sun doesn't shine at night and the wind blows only on the days it chooses to.

Contrastingly, tidal power, with which Britain is nearly uniquely blessed in the whole world, does not have such problems, the moon is regular as clockwork and will be for the hundreds of years of life that marine civil constructions have.

So why not do tidal power? The answer is that no-one else already has and British political courage is purely historical.

So Japanese nuclear and American fracking it shall be.
 
#39 ·
From building....
Hinkley nuclear plant could be delayed by two years

Client EDF claims restrictions on lorry movements could hold up completion of the project

The construction of the UK’s first nuclear power plant could suffer a delay of up to two years if caps on lorry movements by local authorities aren’t lifted, client EDF Energy has claimed.

Nearly all road deliveries to the costal site in Somerset earmarked for the proposed £10bn new Hinkley plant, have to pass through the village of Cannington, which sits between Hinkley Point and the M5 - the nearest motorway.

EDF estimates that a limit of 318 lorry movements a day through the village, enforced by the local authorities, would significantly delay completion of the scheme and wants to see the cap increased to 750 daily movements when construction begins.

However, West Somerset Council, Somerset County Council and Sedgemoor District Council are refusing to lift the cap, which also limits the number of movements at peak times to 24 an hour, until a bypass around the village is built.

The councils say they are already receiving complaints from local residents about noise and disturbance caused by the number of lorries coming through the village to support site preparation works, currently being carried out by Kier BAM.

EDF has agreed to construct the bypass but this will not be completed until at least 19 months into the main phase of the project, which would start next year if the firm is granted permission to build by the Planning Inspectorate.

In a written answer to questions from the Planning Inspectorate, EDF said the existing cap would not only delay completion of the project by between 21 and 24 months but also increase costs.

It said: “The delay would also defer the savings of some 10 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per annum, as a result of not being able to displace fossil-fuelled generation that would otherwise be needed. Delay, of course, would also extend the overall period of local disruption caused by the construction of Hinkley Point C.”

It added: “EDF Energy respectfully suggests that such a delay cannot be justified by the short-term impacts in Cannington.”

http://www.building.co.uk/news/sect...could-be-delayed-by-two-years/5035825.article
 
#41 ·
Just to address a few points:

Since Fukushima there has been a full review of the AGR and PWR fleet in the UK (and I'm sure the remaining Maxnox reactors have had one too) which is available to view via EDF Energy. Disaster management has been thoroughly looked at and there are several upgrades taking place across the fleet in order to address immediate concerns. Further to that there has been an ongoing seismic upgrade programme for a number of years now across all sites.

Submerging a reactor is bad news, aside from anything else you then need to submerge the turbine hall and deal with the knock-on effect of local water table seepage into the buildings. Then there's the added cost of lifting gear used to perform maintenance and such. As they are usually build in coastal areas that's also going to be really bad news in the event of flooding.

On the subject of remote locations, there are two reactors in Hartlepool and four in Heysham. The main problem with building near built up areas is the issue of exacuation and crisis management should an off-site nuclear emergency ever occur which is a hugely varying term for the degree of danger the surrounding area may be in. Basically, any site incident that releases or has the potential to release any amount of radiation across the site boundary must be declared as an off-site nuclear emergency. Imagine the panic that could be caused from a potentially very minor event.

CHP is certainly possible as it has been done in Russia but it's also the issue of trying to get people to accept it having come from a nuclear power station. You can seperate streams all you like but some people will still be convinced that it will give them cancer because their mate with the tinfoil hat said so. There is also the issue of electrical efficiency being lost with CHP being utilised (steam is bled off at a higher temperature so cannot be used for generation) however that is usually made up for by overall efficiency being improved.
 
#44 ·
Since Fukushima there has been a full review of the AGR and PWR fleet in the UK (and I'm sure the remaining Maxnox reactors have had one too)
Surely just Sizewell B then?


Japan's knee jerk reaction is amazing. They sustained a good track record with nuclear power generation. Rather than learn from operational experience on the event (which the Nuclear industry relies heavily upon) they'd rather shut perfectly operable stations down.

Reading a scientific report earlier, it was argued in a situation like the one faced by Japan a PWR may have had a lesser side effect to the tsunami. However I'm tad skeptical - emergency diesel generators for a PWR would be under the same risk as those for a BWR if they aren't located in the correct place.

In the UK when considering locations Squirrelking has it spot on. The low risk of an off site nuclear event must be taken into consideration.
 
#42 ·
Japan has shut down its last operational reactor now, they were supposed to be restarted after inspections but no local authorities have granted permissions for restarts.

Back in the UK theres been a huge number of bidders for the Horizon site and reactor project EON cancelled from Russia, the Middle East, China, USA. In all theres been five bids for the future reactor with the winner to be the one which can build it the fastest.
 
#43 ·
Japan is being absolutely ridiculous. I'm dreading summer, electricity is going to be super unreliable.

Annoys me so much how over blown the Fukushima stuff was. The media loved to rant and rave about nuclear apocolypse whilst ignoring the real major disaster of the tsunami .
 
#45 ·
Generally considered safer as the opposite effect to Fukushima, if there was a failure and the water boiled off unlike Fukushima theres no chance of a meltdown as without water the reaction actually stops (it even slows down the hotter the water). So unless it was submerged in heavy water it would fail safe.
 
#46 ·
In a PWR/BWR if there is a loss of coolant accident (LOCA) there will be a partial meltdown at least.

PWRs are designed such that the hot and cold legs of the reactor are above the fuel, meaning the reactor cavity and internals are always submerged in water. However when there is loss of pressure (due to a LOCA), thermodynamics states the boiling temperature will plummet. At an operating temperature of over 300 degress C, the reactor will quickly boil off any remaining coolant, and a meltdown may start. However before anything becomes a LOCA the defence in depth will stop it. For example the station automatic control system (SACS) will automatically trip the reactor if ideal operating conditions are not met.
 
Top