9/11 style plot but over the skies of Western Europe since their a lot more nuclear reactors in large cities.
Let’s say a hijacked airliner from London to Abu Dhabi was crashed into a reactor near Paris at maximum speed…would the plane be able to enter the core? I heard that nuclear reactors are much more reinforced than buildings so what exactly would happen to the plane?
If it did cause damage, what extent would the damage be?
They’ve actually tested this. The answer is no, an airplane crashing into a nuclear power plant won’t breach the containment.
The problem is not with the containment vessel. It’s the spent fuel pools which may have as much more more fuel in them, and the fuel also contains a lot of degraded products which are worse in ways.
This was the major concern at Fukushima. One of the reactors was actually undergoing maintenance and all of the fuel from the reactor was stored in the spent fuel pools.
The spent fuel pools are not protected nearly as well. In the GE(?) design used in Fukushima, there was simply the outer building. After the built up pressure blew holes in the roof, they were attempting to add water to the pool by dropping it from a helicopter.
When I was researching the issue in the wake of the Fukushima incident, I found a number of unclassified white papers online outlining that as a concern of terrorist attacks.
Yeah, it’s not the containment vessel that’s the issue, it’s the surrounding facilities.
In addition to fuel rod storage, you have to be concerned about the damage a plane crash might do to the control facilities. Will the operators be able to safely shut down the reactor to a stable state? Things like that.
The fuel from a plane can cause a massive, spreading, fire that can take out a lot of wiring even if somewhat shielded in conduit.
Will they still be alive?
I believe all but the oldest nuclear reactors are designed to ‘fail gracefully’ to a stable, safe state.
But that’s a human design, and there could be bugs in it. Not really completely testable except in a real emergency. And at least twice, an unanticipated item has caused failure. I haven’t seen any figures on how many times reactors have been successfully stabilized under crisis situations – there have probably been a lot more of those.
They were simulating an industrial accident at Chernobyl, and did it too well.
You remember how certain hijacked airliners were crashed into certain buildings not too long ago, and the fuel in the airliners (which had just taken off and thus full of the stuff) burned and burned and burned until the internal support structures weakened enough that the buildings came tumbling down? Remember that? You’ll have to take into account the gigantic fire that will be the result.
Some of this may be true for some power reactors, but there are quite a number of research reactors around the globe and believe me, a Cessna could breach the core.
I worked at one for a number of years and the building itself was just a normal steel and brick building, like anything built a half century ago.
Research reactors also won’t have nearly as much material.
How much material is too little to be of concern?
Presumably an amount that would make other potential terrorist targets much more dangerous.
Frankly, I’m more concerned with medical isotopes winding up in regular junkyards by accident. There have already been instances of that happening, and people dying as a result. Rummaging through junkyards for dirty bomb materials is arguably easier than hijacking an airliner these days.
Not an nuclear engineer but my dad is, so I asked. At the Bruce Nuclear Power Plant, where he worked, crash away, it was engineered just for that. It would make one hell of a mess but the reactor faces would be fine and you’d end up the douse tank.
I had forgotten that. Yes, indeed.
As a side note, terrorists able to take over an airliner could probably use the same squad of terrorists to destroy a reactor’s cooling systems.
I’ve read several references to the fact that when routing the backup power wires, the physical proximity of the wires and switches tend to be close. If the terrorists knew where to set their explosives, just one bomb could destroy the primary and secondary cooling systems and put the reactor core on the path to melt-down. As Fukishima has shown, some older designs have containment flaws and it is possible for the containment to be melted or over-pressured through.
I don’t know how many armed guards are on a typical plant, but if the plant isn’t guarded by more than a couple, and the terrorists start with the initiative, a full squad armed with AK-47s, and have spent some time practicing, I would assume they could storm the place successfully.
Or, far more easily, they could probably just smuggle a bomb past security as an insider.
At least he didn’t say “need answer fast”.
To be fair, while the Chernobyl RBMK reactor was obviously unsafe, “they” proceeded to disable safety systems and withdraw control rods which hardly simulates a loss-of-coolant accident or a terrorist attack.
Oh, there are a LOT of armed guards at nuclear facilities, and they practice for such events. I don’t think a rag-tag group of terrorists would stand a chance.