Skip to main content

Bye, Bye, China Syndrome

The most terrifying vision of nuclear power from the ‘70’s was the image of the self-melting radioactive lava from a former reactor core eating its way to China. People seemed to understand it intuitively no matter how over-represented the risk.

The new reactors make that scenario obsolete with a solution that’s “as dumb as a brick” - hire a bunch of boilermakers to lay down a brick patio under the reactor vessel. Of course, one has to use high temperature alumina brick and lay it about 1.5 meters (~5 feet) thick and wide enough to act as a “cookie sheet.” There will be minor specification changes necessary but nothing that the refractory industry can’t handle easily. Alumina brick is already used for lining glass furnances and slag pits.

Yet, I’ve have NEVER heard or read of the nuclear industry mentioning this in public. We engineers know about it but the ramifications of this feature on the public debate haven’t yet been communicated to the world. In my marketing classes at B-school, I was taught to never confuse a feature and a benefit (unintentionally, that is.) Nobody CARES about our firebrick patio, especially if we insist on calling them "passive corium barriers." But tell them that there can never be a China Syndrome in the new designs, that the China Syndrome is obsolete, and you’ve communicated a real benefit.

Technorati tags: , , , , , ,

Comments

Anonymous said…
[antinuke mode]

Aha - you see, the new reactors CAN melt down! Why else would they put this molten core-catcher under the reactor, when earlier builds didn't bother? These ones must be even worse than the last ones!
Bombs, radiation, birth defects, pollution, cancer, bombs! Please give generously!!

[/antinuke]
Kirk Sorensen said…
Or you could use a fluid-fueled reactor where the fuel is in a solution. In those reactors the probability of meltdown is 100%.

In all seriousness, what you're really after is a system to passively remove decay heat after the reactor has shut down. Assuming that you have a core-catcher, everything else must have already failed. Do they plan to embed the core-catcher with active cooling elements or do they assume that the thermal inertia of the core-catcher is sufficient to absorb decay heat? (at some point the thing will come into thermal equilibrium with its surrounding, but at what temperature?)
Joseph Somsel said…
A "core catcher" is, to my mind, the term properly used where criticality is a concern, ie for highly enriched fuel and are usually internal to the vessel. Fermi 1 had a core catcher. For LWRs with their low enrichment, corium can not go critical in any configuration therefore they do not have core catchers.

In any case, the short and sweet message is that the China Syndrome is a thing of the past and not a concern for advanced LWRs.

Let the anti's play defense on highly technical issues this time.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…