Just how long does it take to cool a reactor?

[suityou01]

I mean perlease I can understand there are chain reactions after withdrawing the rods from the core, sure enough. And that those chain reaction take time to subside, but this type of reactor is supposed to be "safe" in that it is not Chernobyl.

Remove rods, cool core while chain reactions die down, then pop off to the pub when it is job done.

The very fact we are still talking about melt downs days later makes me think we are not being told the whole truth. Either (as the tin foil hat brigage would have us think) this is staged, or they have tried to prioritise the health of the reactors versus shutting them down and doing the best for the populous.

Perhaps someone on here can comment? Is this dragging on too long?

[AtW]

A couple years apparently if all is normal...

[MarillionFan]

A couple years apparently if all is normal...

WHS

Even spent rods have to cooled for many years to go.

Think of it like a really smelly tulip. It's terrible to start with, you have to use lots of spray in the bathroom. It's really bad in there and if you leave the door open it's going to waft into the hallway and up the stairs. Of course it stinks at a distance but doesn't make your eyes water unless you get close. After a few days and you still haven't flushed the main house is OK, but if you're close it's pretty bad. After a few months, it's only bad real close up.

Just hope the toilet never explodes!

hth

MF

[TimberWolf]

Even when most of the chain reactions have stopped, they take a few days for residual reactions to peter out and the fuel rods to cool down, for which the pumps have to be running, which they aren't. But even had they reached that stage they'd have needed some sort of cooling IIUC for a long time, as evidenced by the rods in the cooling tanks causing fresh alarm - and there are a lot of those - 600,000 I hear! But if the rods are a sticky mess at the bottom of the containment vessel, or beyond, who knows when they will cool. I don't think anyone does. Nuclear is so safe this kind of thing doesn't happen often enough to find out

[AtW]

All this makes a mockery of "safe shutdown in event of earthquake etc"... so long as plenty of water available to cool stuff, otherwise disaster even for "used" stuff!

Even if it was free energy it would be too expensive risk - ban all nuclear (apart for military nukes which are still necessary and don't require that many plants on a seaside).

[MarillionFan]

All this makes a mockery of "safe shutdown in event of earthquake etc"... so long as plenty of water available to cool stuff, otherwise disaster even for "used" stuff!

Even if it was free energy it would be too expensive risk - ban all nuclear (apart for military nukes which are still necessary and don't require that many plants on a seaside).

Seriously. Your last few days of 'devils advocat' is playing a bit thin.

At the end of the day, until someone comes up with a proper energy source(and I mean a cool Star Trek type) then Nuclear is the most cost effective. The concept of safe? Well let's define that shall we. Radiation can destroy life in high dosages. Man is invasive on every part of the planet, like a plague of insects. 7 Billion and rising.

Forget Nuclear power. It's over population of the planet that is the real issue.

[TimberWolf]

Seriously. Your last few days of 'devils advocat' is playing a bit thin.

At the end of the day, until someone comes up with a proper energy source(and I mean a cool Star Trek type) then Nuclear is the most cost effective. The concept of safe? Well let's define that shall we. Radiation can destroy life in high dosages. Man is invasive on every part of the planet, like a plague of insects. 7 Billion and rising.

Forget Nuclear power. It's over population of the planet that is the real issue.

You seem awfully sensible tongight, if that doesn't seem like an insult.

This might put things into perspective, assuming we don't wake up tomorrow to find Japan uninhabitable. Not so long ago we were setting of nuclear bombs in the atmosphere willy nilly for the fun of it, big ones too, and I'd image (pure guesswork) that these were dirtier than nuclear reactor meltdowns. I think we all carry radiative caesium in our bodies from those helicon days, plutonium too probably.I think Japan got hit by a couple.

[AtW]

Nuclear is the most cost effective.

It's not - even before this disaster which would undoubtedly push up insurance rates, reduce scale of builds (and thus increase cost of building less reactors) was not much lower than gas/reasonably clean coal, I mean like 15-20% difference - **** nuclear for such a small saving especially given that you'd need to have 100% of all power made by nuclear to get 15-20% cheaper energy, I repeat it **** it.

Price of uranium ain't cheap either, though it might be now since there will be less buyers. Frankly this whole "peaceful" nuclear tulip appeared because of desire to build nuclear weapons and having "peaceful" element was a way to shift costs to taxpayer without directly calling it military spending, clever trick that worked nicely some decades ago, but right now nuclear chickens are coming home to roost.

[MarillionFan]

You seem awfully sensible tongight, if that doesn't seem like an insult.

Bought a home gym. Bought a cross trainer(now fixed). Worked out for an hour and a half. Had soup. Not drinking. Can't bloody sleep!

[suityou01]

Bought a home gym. Bought a cross trainer(now fixed). Worked out for an hour and a half. Had soup. Not drinking. Can't bloody sleep! :tantrum:

My mate Tim (of the Cheshire mansion fame) could not sleep after stopping drinking. He could not sleep unless he had a few beers. The outcome was that he had a mild alchohol dependancy. He had to go through many sleepless nights and sweats to overcome the addiction.

Given the stress he has been under it was always on the cards.

Perhaps you have the same thing?

No bad thing to admit it, just good to recognise it and deal with it.