We can make nuclear reators safer..
A conceptual outline design of reactor container vessel module set taking in to account the recent incident in Japan.
Engr. B Rajaram M.Tech.,F.I.E., F.N.A.E. IRSE (Retd.)
Disasters are natural and unavoidable. With the best of estimates of risks, still a case may arise as in case of Fukushima Japan in 2011, when extraordinary and unprecedented natural disaster occurs, even the best of human designs can give away. The nuclear reactor case is different from other infrastructure cases.
Normal non-nuclear infrastructure or related equipment like bridges, roads, trains or air craft or a ship can cause damage limited to the event. But in case of nuclear reactor , as is seen the radiation hazard and uncontrollable process melting down the core, create situations leading even to quick abandonment safely of the reactor. The containment of radiation becomes a primary concern. Spread by air/water of the radiation has got to be minimised.
A proposal hence is made to construct the reactor building and vessel in such a way that humans get maximum protection in case of failure. Also the proposal is planned to be relatively economical leveraging the inherent strength of earths crust to provide the needed blast resistance and radiation containment.
A schematic diagram is presented.
We can have multiple domes covering the top of the reactor containment vessel.
The above arrangement of three shaft units for each reactor unit become modular in construction.
Advantages are obvious: all the radio-active units are underground and only the non-radio active steam is allowed out.
Security against air attack and access control too becomes much more effective and sound.
Designers get leverage the natural earth cover to augment strength of the container building.
In the worst case scenario abandoning is faster to seal off the radio active area under the ground.
This is just a conceptual outline. Details have to be worked out by nuclear engineers and a brain storming session of all the concerned is suggested.
.
Comments