| ▲ | fwipsy 3 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
https://www.nuclear-power.com/nuclear-power/reactor-physics/... Can someone check my understanding: Control rods are suspended above the reactor as a sort of a "deadman's switch" - if a loss of power occurs, they will drop into the reactor core to limit reactivity. As a result, sometimes control rods will drop into the reactor accidentally. In these cases, the automatic system may withdraw other rods in order to maintain power output. However, this may overshoot the target power output or create a localized, dangerous "hot spot" elsewhere in the reactor core. In order to avoid this, in this case, the operators chose to insert other control rods instead of trying to stabilize the reactor under load. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | mlyle 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yup. Often one rod fully in is no big deal -- it has been analyzed and you keep operating. But no one has certified to run the reactor with a few rods fully in. The control systems are designed to err on the side of dropping the rods -- a failure to insert a rod is a lot worse than inserting one accidentally. So now they figure out why this happened while the reactor is in standby. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | solarkraft 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> sometimes control rods will drop into the reactor accidentally. In these cases, the automatic system may withdraw other rods in order to maintain power output So this suggests that the dead man's switch has an automated anti-dead-man's switch that may result in more danger? It'd be an interesting design choice, but defendable, if the "accidental dropping" rate is too high. Safety wise, it would seem more sensible to try to keep the automatic drops unchallenged and try to prevent the conditions that make it happen. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||