It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Solar flare could unleash nuclear holocaust across planet Earth, forcing hundreds of nuclear power

page: 2
15
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 
Hi Chadwickus.

I have only one issue with your first post in this thread:




Secondly, if there was a large earth directed CME, large enough to warrant the belief that transformers could be blown, all the power pants (nuclear or not) need to do is shut down before the geomagnetic storm hits.


You can shut down a nuclear power plant before an emergency occurs and still have a meltdown. If cooling water is interrupted after a shutdown occurs, even hours later, the core can still melt. The residual heat in the reactor core and the continued reaction (even with the control rods fully dropped) are enough to melt the core if there is no cooling medium present to carry the heat away.

It is thought (I say thought, because we have no way of confirming what really happened at Fukushima) that the one reactor that was already shut down before the tsunami happened experienced a partial meltdown (#4? maybe?) because cooling water was not present.

Unless of course you were speaking of power pants, of which I have no familiarity at all.

edit on 13-9-2011 by butcherguy because: Just noticed pants.




posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


A fair point.

I read just recently that many nuclear power plants have a gravity system where the rods will drop down into graphite or carbon where the heat can be absorbed during an emergency shut down.

No sources because I haven't actually looked into it myself.

And of course, not all have this system.

I wonder what time frame we're looking at with rods over heating?

I ask because a solar storm typically only lasts for a few hours.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 08:17 AM
link   
I am not sure what to think about this thread and what "is coming" as some are pretty determined the world will be ending soon.

Do I laugh?

Do I run to Outdoor World and get a ton of supplies in case I am lucky enough to survive this "coming event" because my kids depend on ME for keeping them safe!


There is A LOT of information on the net....too much really. Too many opinions and not enough of "true" data/evidence.

I have heard we will get a load of incoming Plasma from the Sun.

I have heard we will be hit by Nibiru, Elenin, Brown Dwarf Star, Another Sun, Meteorites, Asteroids, and I have even heard Jesus is coming and so are the Aliens. This is all speculation based on numerous theories of an Extinction Event.

I hear the Government knows and are building underground bunkers and have been since the 80's when they first learned of the _________________ in our Solar System.

At Least (!!!!) when Y-2K was being hyped that is all there was....Y-2K. This "time" around we have plenty in the works to choose from.

It REALLY is beginning to feel like there is a lot of Dis-Information going around all the time. Maybe even an information war? All of the above?



I really have no idea what to believe and have done research. It seems to me that all scenarios are possible when you find yourself realizing we live in a Universe filled will many possibilities.

I think if my children and I are meant to survive a coming event we will. I simply cannot worry about tomorrow when it hasn't even gotten here yet. I may die today/tonight....so all the worrying would be done for nothing.

If I find myself and or my children injured anyway in the coming events then I may think differently then but I urge all of you.... do not FEAR the unknown. There is simply no need in it. We are ALL destined to perish this body and leave this experience. The how is irrelevant. It will indeed come when the "time" is right.

Peace and love to all of you!!!!!!!!!!xoxoxox

Jenn



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Dalke07
 

I imagine they are prepared for this event; But only up to a point. Since you cannot shut down a nuke plant by flipping a switch-That is it takes a while to bring the core to cooling;- There will not be enough warning from a flare event. Even several days may not be enough warning for a nuke plant. But the pumps must continue and I noticed that little is said about those spent fuel rod pools. Tens of thousands of these rods are all stored "on site" at these plants in coolant being pumped as well. That was a serious problem in Japan. So pumping must continue. and continue, and continue. That would require an energy source. These rods are stored mostly in large cement pools. We all know cement doesn't last for 1000 years but begins to degrade shortly after it is poured. It take years but the rods will last far longer than that cement. I suspect we won't have to worry about it 10 thousand years from now because most certainly there will be an "event" long before that. on the 27th? who knows, but it is only a matter of time. It will happen at some point. Enter all the huge bunkers being built for the elite:. This is a very good thread S&F for you
DH



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 




I wonder what time frame we're looking at with rods over heating?



Core uncovery. In the event of a transient, upset, emergency, or limiting fault, LWRs are designed to automatically SCRAM (a SCRAM being the immediate and full insertion of all control rods) and spin up the ECCS. This greatly reduces reactor thermal power (but does not remove it completely); this delays core "uncovery", which is defined as the point when the fuel rods are no longer covered by coolant and can begin to heat up. As Kuan states: "In a small-break LOCA with no emergency core coolant injection, core uncovery generally begins approximately an hour after the initiation of the break. If the reactor coolant pumps are not running, the upper part of the core will be exposed to a steam environment and heatup of the core will begin. However, if the coolant pumps are running, the core will be cooled by a two-phase mixture of steam and water, and heatup of the fuel rods will be delayed until almost all of the water in the two-phase mixture is vaporized. The TMI-2 accident showed that operation of reactor coolant pumps may be sustained for up to approximately two hours to deliver a two phase mixture that can prevent core heatup."[8] Pre-damage heat up. "In the absence of a two-phase mixture going through the core or of water addition to the core to compensate water boiloff, the fuel rods in a steam environment will heat up at a rate between 0.3 °C/s (0.5 °F/s) and 1 °C/s (1.8 °F/s) (3)."[8] Fuel ballooning and bursting. "In less than half an hour, the peak core temperature would reach 1,100 K (1,520 °F). At this temperature, the zircaloy cladding of the fuel rods may balloon and burst. This is the first stage of core damage. Cladding ballooning may block a substantial portion of the flow area of the core and restrict the flow of coolant. However complete blockage of the core is unlikely because not all fuel rods balloon at the same axial location. In this case, sufficient water addition can cool the core and stop core damage progression."[8] Rapid oxidation. "The next stage of core damage, beginning at approximately 1,500 K (2,240 °F), is the rapid oxidation of the Zircaloy by steam. In the oxidation process, hydrogen is produced and a large amount of heat is released. Above 1,500 K (2,240 °F), the power from oxidation exceeds that from decay heat (4,5) unless the oxidation rate is limited by the supply of either zircaloy or steam."[8] Debris bed formation. "When the temperature in the core reaches about 1,700 K (2,600 °F), molten control materials [1,6] will flow to and solidify in the space between the lower parts of the fuel rods where the temperature is comparatively low. Above 1,700 K (2,600 °F), the core temperature may escalate in a few minutes to the melting point of zircaloy [2,150 K (3,410 °F)] due to increased oxidation rate. When the oxidized cladding breaks, the molten zircaloy, along with dissolved UO2 [1,7] would flow downward and freeze in the cooler, lower region of the core. Together with solidified control materials from earlier down-flows, the relocated zircaloy and UO2 would form the lower crust of a developing cohesive debris bed."[8] (Corium) Relocation to the lower plenum. "In scenarios of small-break LOCAs, there is generally a pool of water in the lower plenum of the vessel at the time of core relocation. Release of molten core materials into water always generates large amounts of steam. If the molten stream of core materials breaks up rapidly in water, there is also a possibility of a steam explosion. During relocation, any unoxidized zirconium in the molten material may also be oxidized by steam, and in the process hydrogen is produced. Recriticality also may be a concern if the control materials are left behind i


LOCA stands for Loss Of Cooling Accident.
LWR stands for Light Water Reactor.
Nuclear meltdowns- Wikipedia



I ask because a solar storm typically only lasts for a few hours.


True enough, but the loss of power could last days or weeks, depending on the severity of the damage from the solar storm and the accompanied loss of infrastructure (not only electrical, but communications and transportation). In my opinion, an EMP attack would have much more drastic consequences for us than a solar storm.


edit on 13-9-2011 by butcherguy because: Trying to clarify.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by Dalke07
 


Two things.

The first is that transformers have exploded at nuclear plants before, there are protocols in place for such an event (solar or otherwise).

Secondly, if there was a large earth directed CME, large enough to warrant the belief that transformers could be blown, all the power pants (nuclear or not) need to do is shut down before the geomagnetic storm hits.



Two things:

1) I want a pair of those power pants.

2) It is completely incorrect that all a nuclear plant needs to do is "shut down before the geomagnetic storm hits". You can not simply "turn off" a nuclear plant, you need to keep it turned off and that takes a lot of power. All nuclear plants have a connection to an off-site power source to run the cooling pumps after they take it offline, they also have on-site generators in the event that connection is disrupted. Even after the fuel is removed from the reactor it must be cooled in large cooling pools for a significant amount of time. Lose that cooling more than just briefly and the reactor and cooling pools heat up rapidly.

It seems a lot of people misunderstand the "spent fuel pools" by spent they mean there is less than the optimal amount of fuel to operate the reactor at the level they want. There is still a significant amount of fuel there, lose cooling and the water boils off and the plant is in trouble very quickly. Think of your car's gas tank, it may be 20 gallons but lets say your fuel pump malfunctions when it gets down to 15 gallons. Your tank is still mostly full but at that point you must replace the "spent" fuel. The difference is that the 15 gallons of gas are always in your tank, the nuclear plant on the other hand replaces everything. It would be like you draining the remaining 15 gallons and replacing all 20 gallons, that 15 gallons would need to be stored somewhere.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Dalke07
 

Why don't they power the coolant rods with the steam power generated by the plant itself? That would seem to be safer and would add redundancy to the system.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by butcherguy
 


A fair point.

I read just recently that many nuclear power plants have a gravity system where the rods will drop down into graphite or carbon where the heat can be absorbed during an emergency shut down.

No sources because I haven't actually looked into it myself.

And of course, not all have this system.

I wonder what time frame we're looking at with rods over heating?

I ask because a solar storm typically only lasts for a few hours.


This is true. Some of the designs do not rely on external electricity for the safeguards.

But they DO rely on having access to water for cooling.
edit on 13-9-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by jonnywhite
reply to post by Dalke07
 

Why don't they power the coolant rods with the steam power generated by the plant itself? That would seem to be safer and would add redundancy to the system.


In most reactors, the coolant is a liquid, and most of those use water as the coolant. Some are light water, some are heavy water. Most of those reactors are PWR's Pressurized Water Reactors, meaning that the water is pressurized to the point that it does not boil at the operating temperatures of the reactor.

The control rods limit the nuclear reaction that is occurring in the reactor. They are solid, usually made mostly of graphite, as it is an excellent neutron moderator. Water is also a good neutron moderator, so loss of coolant water not only means that you are overheating due to inability to remove heat, but also a loss of a means of some moderation of the reaction.

The best means of powering the control rods on a land based reactor is with gravity. It generally available and doesn't fail.
edit on 13-9-2011 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by butcherguy
 


A fair point.

I read just recently that many nuclear power plants have a gravity system where the rods will drop down into graphite or carbon where the heat can be absorbed during an emergency shut down.

No sources because I haven't actually looked into it myself.

And of course, not all have this system.

I wonder what time frame we're looking at with rods over heating?

I ask because a solar storm typically only lasts for a few hours.



The control rods drop down or rise up (depending on the reactor's design) between the fuel rods to stop the reaction but do nothing to mitigate the residual heat. You might be able to lose cooling to the spent fuel pools for a few hours as long as you could keep the water level above the rods. The reactor vessel would be much hotter to start with and wouldn't give you a few hours of wiggle room.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 09:26 AM
link   
This is the latest design being considered by different countries:
me1065.wikidot.com...

Note that it has a passive coolant system. But it STILL requires access to water.

Which implies access to gas or something else to pump the water to the site.
edit on 13-9-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Taupin Desciple
I'm thinking the Amish would do okay for themselves, as would the smattering of peoples who live in self-sufficient communes across the globe.

The icing on the cake: No More War.






...and the meek shall inherit the Earth. Psalms 25:8



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by phishyblankwaters
 


Thank ,and Thank You, and Thank You, I was about to hit this thought, I once watched a plant I was working in go down in a matter of minutes when they dropped the rods. Its a very quick deal, not months. Spent fuel rods can be stored for years in a fuel pool, as long as the wter can be circulated through the cooling tower and back into the pool. Yes, generators for that, and they have large amounts of generator fuel on site usually enough for several years(there ownt be any trucking it in for quite a while.

for the OP, the months and months you are talking about is what takes place when a structured shut down for maint. or repairs takes place or a plant goes down for a permanent closing.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by Dalke07
 




I don't like this but nice to see how mach you trust to your government ..


If I'm not mistaken, nuclear power is typically privatized, therefore "trusting" the government has nothing to do with this.



The first one, what if many nuclear transformers explode at same time or lose electricity caused EQ and tsunamis like other natural extreme events ..
How mach time they can run on diesel generators .. lol


Many have gone at the same time before, often after a large spell of ice and snow.

Diesel generators can be run indefinitely, I lived in towns which were solely powered by diesel generators.



Secondly, you think they close electricity from plant before the geomagnetic storm hits.. o0 ..


Ah...yeah, I do.

It's where the smart money is at.



If they care for anything except extra profit they close them long time ago0 and replaced with clear source energy


Well taking the USA as an example, calls for nuclear power has reduced greatly compared to renewable energy.

Besides, you still need transformers regardless of the source of electricity.



Third one, we all worldwide depend of some government and this is more terrible news ..
If you like that live safe with nuclear energy, but what about all population and all the beauty we have worldwide ..
So the risk of that kind is unacceptable but you and more members support all time nuclear brotherhood ..
You selected very bad way..


Well there aren't very many "clean" energy sources, if any at all if you want to really split hairs....





You forget that the government is responsible for regulating the industry.

While the government relies heavily on revenue raised through the industry via taxes and jobs for the economy, they will turn a blind eye. This is what happened in Fukushima. Safety regulations were ignored by the regulators (government bodies). Tepco has deep pockets and it is too easy to bribe the apropriate officials.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Rossa
 



Yes, generators for that, and they have large amounts of generator fuel on site usually enough for several years(there ownt be any trucking it in for quite a while.

Didn't work out so well at Fukushima. Or TMI.

It is just that pesky problem that even with all of the over-engineered backup systems in place double redundancy, what have you.....

There are still accidents.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   







edit on 13-9-2011 by Dalke07 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shar_Chi
It's pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain that nuke power is pure insanity, and to be honest, this is just the icing on the cake. I'd like to thank General Electric and its sycophant horde for retarding the development of the human race and poisoning the planet Earth. And a shoutout to all the shills who'll spout moronic stats how falling off a ladder is more dangerous than nuke power etc.


Pure stupidity, you offer no stats to support your position, no alternatives to the energy produced by nukes and then you attack anyone who is knowledgeable on the subject as shills. The worst part is you get a bunch of brain dead idiots to support your stupidity with stars. Pathetic !!!!!



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by Dalke07
 


Two things.

The first is that transformers have exploded at nuclear plants before, there are protocols in place for such an event (solar or otherwise).

Secondly, if there was a large earth directed CME, large enough to warrant the belief that transformers could be blown, all the power pants (nuclear or not) need to do is shut down before the geomagnetic storm hits.

Do you know how long it takes to go to cold shut-down? My info suggests MONTHS.




posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 08:11 PM
link   
OR,..
we might not be damaged at all by a solar flare and move through this solar cycle
unscathed. And every nuclear plant would be fine..
huh?
Maybe?



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1   >>

log in

join