The art of shutting down a nuclear plant

Feb 13, 2012

Gaëtan Girardin, researcher in nuclear engineering, gives us the key to understanding nuclear reactor safety. While the disaster at Fukushima is at the center of our conversation, the recent and minor incident at the Mühleberg plant (Switzerland) is also discussed.

February the 8th at 1:45 p.m., the nuclear reactor at Mühleberg automatically stopped upon detection of an anomaly. Although not frequent, such events are not exceptional. Gaëtan Girardin, a researcher in nuclear engineering and head of the Crocus reactor at EPFL, will participate on February 22nd in “Science! On tourne”—a series of public dialogues about science. The first lecture is entitled "One Year Later: has Fukushima really changed the game?" He provides us with some techniques to better understand the operation of nuclear plants and, more particularly, the shutdown procedure that was made impossible in Japan.

After Fukushima, people have realized that shutting down a nuclear reactor is not as simple as turning out the lights. Things are a little more complex.
Gaëtan Girardin: That is correct; we need to stop a chain reaction. A is a tank filled with metal bars about the diameter of a pen that contain uranium. This is the nuclear fuel itself. As it decays, the uranium nucleus releases neutrons, which will collide with its neighbors, and so on ... The heat produced by the fission reactions will be used to produce steam, which then turn an electric turbine. This is common to all power plants. To stop the reactor, that is to say to stop the chain reaction, we must act on the production of neutrons, or capture them.

Specifically, how does one proceed?
Between the fuel rods, or sometimes in place of some of them, we introduce bars called "control rods". In Mühleberg, for example, there are ceramic rods inside metal sheaths, which have the property of absorbing neutrons. In other reactors, the system may vary. But the principle remains the same whatever the technology.

In Fukushima, the reaction had yet been properly stopped... 
And this is not sufficient. We know that once the stopped, a reactor still produces about 7% of its operating energy as heat. This may seem trivial, but if you consider the power of a nuclear facility, and the fact that the whole is confined in a small space, there is the potential to seriously damage the materials. We must understand one thing: the heat does not magically disappear. Just as when you turn off an electric stovetop, its temperature does not drop instantly to 20 degrees. We therefore use a water circuit to cool the reactor, especially after it has been stopped. If this is not done correctly, there is a danger that the materials melt: first the fuel rods, then the tank and, finally the concrete containment unit. That is precisely what happened at Fukushima. Following the earthquake, the reactors were shut down correctly, but the tsunami flooded the cooling system and this led to a core meltdown.

At Mühleberg, it was a simple routine check which caused the shutdown.
It appears that the technicians on duty conducted a water test in the wrong place, compared to what was originally planned. I do not know the details of this incident. Maybe this caused a slight change in flow or pressure in one part of the water cooling supply circuits. Whatever the reason, an anomaly was detected by the monitoring system and the reactor was automatically switched off. This is a normal procedure in such circumstances.

Under what circumstances are these systems programmed to shut down?
A reactor is equipped with many security systems that monitor the vital parts of the machine. There are sensitive points, such as the fuel temperature or the flow of water in the cooling circuit. Any damage, however minor, will be detected and analyzed by security systems, and cause a reactor to shut down. It is absolutely essential.

This is not the first time a reactor is shut down automatically. The same phenomenon is quite common.
We should not exaggerate either. The last time in Mühleberg was in 2007—this does not happen every day. In 2011, none of our five reactors were automatically interrupted by the operating system. What strikes me is that these cases are perceived as a problem. In my opinion, it is reassuring that our plants are conceived so that the reactor shuts down by itself at the detection of the slightest abnormality. This shows that safety is never compromised.

Explore further: Artificial 'beaks' that collect water from fog: A drought solution?

Provided by Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne

1 /5 (1 vote)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

No uncontrolled reaction at Fukushima: operator

Nov 03, 2011

The operator of Japan's crippled Fukushima atomic plant Thursday played down fears of an uncontrolled chain reaction at the site, despite the discovery of evidence of recent nuclear fission.

Plutonium in troubled reactors, spent fuel pools

Mar 18, 2011

(AP) --The fuel rods at all six reactors at the stricken Fukushima Dai-ichi complex contain plutonium - better known as fuel for nuclear weapons. While plutonium is more toxic than uranium, other radioactive ...

GE defends nuclear plant design

Mar 18, 2011

General Electric defended its 40 year old Mark 1 reactors at the center of Japan's nuclear crisis Friday, saying that early questions about reactor's safety had long been addressed.

How does a nuclear meltdown work? (w/ Video)

Mar 17, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- When working properly, nuclear reactors produce large amounts of heat via nuclear fission reactions. The heat converts the surrounding water into steam, which turns turbines and generates ...

Small fire stops Swedish nuclear reactor

Oct 23, 2011

A small fire in a turbine hall shut down a Swedish nuclear reactor overnight but the blaze was swiftly extinguished, nuclear power plant officials said Sunday.

Recommended for you

Congress: Safety agency mishandled GM recall

20 hours ago

Both houses of Congress scolded the U.S. highway safety agency Tuesday over its tardy handling of a deadly problem with General Motors cars, questioning whether it is competent to guarantee the safety of ...

Jindal: Obama hasn't done enough to harness energy

Sep 16, 2014

The governor of the state of Louisiana, a possible Republican presidential candidate, said Tuesday that President Barack Obama's administration has become "science deniers," failing to do enough to harness the nation's energy ...

User comments : 2

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Eikka
not rated yet Feb 13, 2012
We know that once the chain reaction stopped, a reactor still produces about 7% of its operating energy as heat. This may seem trivial, but if you consider the power of a nuclear facility, and the fact that the whole is confined in a small space, there is the potential to seriously damage the materials.


And this is one of the reasons why the new generation powerplants like the EPR in Olkiluoto, Finland, are simply too large to be safe. Unfortunately the public and political opposition towards nuclear power forces the industry to build new reactors dangerously large, since they're looking at getting a permit for one reactor after fighting and lobbying for a decade. It has to be big to pay for all the trouble, since the next one might spend 20 years on the drawing board.

It's a bit ironic then that they can't make small, safe, modular reactors because all sorts of greenies oppose them, so they have to make big unsafe monsters.
kaasinees
1 / 5 (1) Feb 13, 2012
" Following the earthquake, the reactors were shut down correctly, but the tsunami flooded the cooling system and this led to a core meltdown."

Shut down correctly means to pump sea water through the reactor and dumping back into the sea? Alright then.