
The vents at Sarrack’s plant require electricity to open—which is exactly what workers at Fukushima didn’t have when the plant was smashed by a quake and tsunami. No juice and no vents means a buildup of dangerous gasses—and then your plant explodes. Twice. Sarrack foresaw this happening in the US, the New York Times reports, and turned to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. They didn’t agree with his (correct) critique, prompting him to flee the industry altogether in dismay.
So what does Sarrack think would avert a Fukushima repeat? How do we replace the GE-manufactured vents with something safer? Take the human element out of the equation. He believes
“A passive system, like one using a rupture disk, would work better and could be set to rupture at a pressure just slightly less than the pressure at which the containment would rupture. In those cases, he said, venting is always preferable; the releases of radioactive materials during deliberate venting are expected to be lower than those resulting from explosions.”
At any rate, the lesson here is to listen to your engineers. I doubt there can be such a thing as too much consideration when it comes to keeping nuclear plants from exploding. [NYT]



















Ryan
Friday, May 20, 2011 at 9:53 AMLike most things in life its a cost/benefit tradeoff. Luckily meltdowns are spectacularly rare, and don’t necessarily mean releases or death. It remains one of the safest forms of power at our disposal.
matt
Friday, May 20, 2011 at 10:28 AM“Fukushima exploded because of those same vents.”
also, because of an earthquake and tsunami of biblical proportions…
I think its only fair to remember that it wasn’t exactly caused by a technician spilling his coffee on a control panel or something…
stupid
Friday, May 20, 2011 at 1:08 PMExactly – it’s unfair to expect Nuclear Reactors to not explode whenever a natural disaster occurs.
Lillee
Friday, May 20, 2011 at 11:09 AMDon’t worry, Homer will press the “Mo” button
Crowknee
Friday, May 20, 2011 at 2:42 PMBoy – even in such an enlightened age, it seems people still have strange views.
“It remains one of the safest forms of power…”
“… unfair to expect Nuclear Reactors to not explode whenever a natural disaster occurs”
We have the technology to power 95% of Australian power through renewable resources (wind, solar, tidal) right now – why in the hell would nuclear power even rate a mention.
“Cost/benefit tradeoff”?? I wonder if it were your children or family that lived near a plant whether you would be so quick to defend such abysmal failures of a regulartory body.