answersLogoWhite

0


Best Answer

Designers try to establish the probability of such an event at less than 10-6 per annum, ie for any one reactor only one such event in 1 million years of operation. However this clearly depends on being able to predict failure rates of critical components such as the pressure vessel. We have an example of a catastrophic failure in the Chernobyl case, and there it is obvious that the designers had not anticipated all the ways that the plant could fail, and the failure rate for that design is too high. It is not being built any more, and in fact that design has not been built anywhere except in the former Soviet bloc.

User Avatar

Wiki User

14y ago
This answer is:
User Avatar
User Avatar

Willem Spiegelberg

Lvl 1
2y ago
iukhygfdsfgjkhl;'lkjhgfdsfghjkl'i
More answers
User Avatar

Wiki User

13y ago

It depends. Most, if not all, nuclear power plants are incapable of exploding in a nuclear fashion. Yes, it is possible to have super prompt criticality, where reactivity, or what we call KEffective is much greater than 1 and the reaction geometry degrades to the point where it can be sustained with only thermal neutrons.

Problem is, that physics intervenes. Fissionable material wants to expand when it is super prompt critical, and the pressures involved are astronomical. The core, in this case, then tends to go sub critical due to prompt dispersal, which is where the core gets suddenly, somewhat explosively, "larger", and the reaction stops.

In order to have a true nuclear detonation, you need to hold the core together long enough for a sizeable portion of the fuel to convert to energy, and that is just not possible with a power plant - a bomb, yes - but not a power plant.

Chernobyl went super prompt critical, and it did explode, but that explosion was not a complete detonation and, again, it just as suddenly went sub-critical due to prompt dispersal.

There are other things involved, of course. You can have a hydrogen explosion, caused by a buildup of hydrogen gas (no, I'm not talking about a hydrogen bomb) due to a high temperature reaction with the zirconium cladding on the fuel pins, such hydrogen then being detonated perhaps by mixing with water. This is what happened recently in Japan.

Even Chernobyl had no nuclear explosion, it did have a strong nuclear energy excursion, but the resulting explosion was still entirely a steam explosion as water in the cooling system and steam generator tanks flashed into high pressure vapor.

Also nuclear explosives operate on fast neutrons, not thermal neutrons, as they have no moderator to slow the neutrons. LLNL tried nuclear explosives with a moderator (Uranium Hydride fuel/moderator) in several tests in the 1950s, they all fizzled. This strongly suggests that any thermal neutron (moderated) reactor is incapable of a nuclear explosion (however fast neutron reactors like breeders might be a different issue).

This answer is:
User Avatar

User Avatar

Wiki User

15y ago

Designers aim at proving a probability for a reactor of 10-6 per annum or less, of a major disruptive accident releasing radioactivity on a large scale. This is done by a thorough fault analysis, and providing extra equipment and inspections where necessary. Of course we rely on them getting it right, but PWR's and BWR's are well enough understood now to be confident. The Russian RBMK design, we know now through the Chernobyl disaster, could not have been so thoroughly designed, and it had inherent faults which were not foreseen when it was built. That type would certainly not be built in the US or W Europe, and I think no more are being built anywhere. However I suppose every country insists on its own independence, and a faulty design could be built somewhere in a country that won't accept IAEA supervision.

This answer is:
User Avatar

User Avatar

Wiki User

14y ago

Chernobyl offers the only example of this happening. It resulted in widespread radiation fall out and the need to evacuate nearby population. On the site itself about 50 people mostly firefighters died soon after. The effects on a wider population are not so clear, and need study over a long period. Needless to say, the plant itself is a permanent and complete write off.

This answer is:
User Avatar

User Avatar

Wiki User

14y ago

Not necessarily, and not in a nuclear explosion - the explosion would be chemical or from steam.

Like many industrial plants, there are ways a nuclear plant could have an explosion. The explosion could even be very destructive, as the one at Chernobyl was. But even the Chernobyl Disaster did not involve a nuclear explosion. Nuclear material was blown out of the plant, but the motive force was chemical and steam.

A nuclear explosion is not something that is likely to happen by accident. There is a common idea that it is easy to build a nuclear bomb and that all you need to do to get a bomb is put together a critical mass. This idea is not true, however. Getting a critical mass together is not enough - it must be held together long enough to explode instead of just popping apart into a number of subcritical masses. It is not something that could happen accidentally at a nuclear plant.

This is not to say that a chemical or steam explosion at a nuclear plant would not be destructive. Again, looking at Chernobyl, the amount of radioactive material released was considerable, and the damage done was enormous. In fact the value of the economic loss has been estimated as high as a trillion 1995 U. S. dollars.

This answer is:
User Avatar

User Avatar

Wiki User

12y ago

In the history of Nuclear Power there have been 3 explosions inside the containment dome. All of these were because of the release of hydrogen (a very explosive gas) because the core of the nuclear reactor was not cooled by a steady stream of pure water. Free Hydrogen was released in all 3 of these incidents because residual cooling water in the reactor was effectively ionized by the fission process and was turned into a vapor of Hydrogen and Oxygen and ignited by the electical circuits inside the reactor. The three incidents occured in SWG-5 (General Electric) prototype Naval Reactor, Idaho in 1955, Pripyat Reactor 2 (MK-1000 Soviet Union) Chernobyl Ukraine 1985 and the Fukushima reactors 1, 3,4,5,6 (also General Electric) in 2011. Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania (1979) did not suffer an explosion such as this because it was constantly monitored.

This answer is:
User Avatar

User Avatar

Wiki User

13y ago

Yes, but the most likely event is an ordinary industrial accident rather than a nuclear one.

Yes it is possible to die from a nuclear power plant explosion (many have already), but first you must understand that a nuclear plant explosion is not a nuclear explosion. To get a nuclear explosion the nuclear fuel must be rapidly assembled from a subcritical configuration to a very supercritical configuration then hit with a precisely timed pulse of neutrons from a neutron source. This "assembly" must complete in a time on the order of 1ms, which can only be done with explosives. There are no such explosives in a reactor. If a reactor core does go somewhat supercritical, it will simply melt (because the coolant can't carry the large heat pulse away fast enough) reducing itself back to a subcritical state.

The most common type of nuclear plant explosion is a steam explosion which is caused by flash boiling. In one reactor in the 1950s they were doing a refueling operation and had a steam explosion inside the fuel rod assembly being worked on, which propelled a rod out the top of the reactor into the area where the workers were. One worker was impaled on the rod and lifted to the ceiling, where the rod imbedded itself. That worker died of the traumatic physical injury as a result of the explosion. The other workers received enough radiation dose from that rod and the radioactive steam that they could not return to work for a few months, none of them died (the company was required to pay them while not working). The Chernobyl explosion in 1986 was also a steam explosion. Nobody died from physical injuries caused by the explosion, but all the firefighters died from radiation exposure that would not have occurred if not for the explosion and graphite fire that followed.

Another type of nuclear plant explosion is a hydrogen gas explosion which is an ordinary hydrogen/oxygen explosion. This only occurs in water cooled reactors using zirconium clad fuel pellets when the fuel rods overheat because of inadequate cooling. The overheated zirconium reacts with the water releasing hydrogen gas, if enough collects and a spark occurs it explodes. The Three Mile Island accident in 1979 resulted in a significant amount of hydrogen collecting in the reactor, but luckily no explosion resulted. Nobody died from TMI, but some could have.

Unfortunately in the nuclear plant problems Japan has had since the big earthquake, several plants have experienced explosions. We probably won't know what types they were, their severity, or if anyone died and how, from them for some time.

This answer is:
User Avatar

User Avatar

Wiki User

12y ago

Chernobyl in Ukraine, 1986.

This answer is:
User Avatar

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: Will a nuclear power plant blow up if it catches fire?
Write your answer...
Submit
Still have questions?
magnify glass
imp
Related questions

What year did the Chernobyl nuclear power plant blow up?

1986


What date did the nuclear power station blow up?

31st February :-)


The worst nuclear power accident in world history occurred at?

Japan (Fukashima Plant I). Four Reactors blow and melt down. Radiation spread throughout all of Japan.


Can a power plant can explode like a nuclear weapon?

No, a nuclear weapon needs a specific geometry to detonate, and it has to be held in this position by very high explosives to keep it in this shape. In a nuclear reactor, if the reactor core goes critical then the force of the expanding coolant will blow the reactor apart, preventing a nuclear blast.


Does nuclear energy blow up?

No. Define "blow up". Power plants have malfunctions that can kill people, unrelated to nuclear fuel. Nuclear elements can be arranged to blow up but you have to get everything exactly right. More danger exists from exposure to the fuel, if it has been activated.


What is good about nuclear fields?

Because you can blow people with the nuclear powers


What accidents might occur from working in coal power stations?

For one, the coal power station might blow up if it gets too hot, obviously causing an accident. Basically, a coal power station worker's biggest worry is if it will blow up. GO NUCLEAR ENERGY AND BARACK OBAMA


Which country did the Chernobyl power plant blow up in?

Current day Ukraine. But in 1986 when it happened it was considered the Soviet Union


Is this how you spell exsplod?

No, that is not correct.The correct spelling is explode.For example:They watched the bomb explode from a distance.The nuclear plant was about to explode.


Why is it dangerous to use nuclear power to make electricity?

Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Radioactivity, nuclear wastes that will be around for hundred or thousands of years, power plants that can blow up easy if you don't know what you are doing, nuclear material that can be stolen and be used to make atomic weapons. All nuclear power does is to boil water and make steam. There are far easier, less dangerous, or expensive ways to make steam. Restrict nuclear power to aircraft carriers, submarines and deep space satellites that go away from the sun (and out of the range of solar panels).


What would happen if there were Nuclear membrane in a cell?

it will blow up


Can 1 nuclear missile blow up a country?

of course not