What effect would a nuclear reaction have on an atomosphere suffering from the effects of greenhouse gases?

Question

My worst fear is that with the coming reliance on nuclear power then there would be an increased chance of a meltdown somewhere on this planet - i was wondering if those 'greenhouse gases' could contribute to the resulting explosion.

Answer 1

Well, actually, the more we rely on nuclear power, the less we rely on the sources of energy that result in the devastation of our atmosphere.
Also, meltdowns aren't nearly as explosive as a nuclear bomb, and are mostly problematic due to the radiation that's released.
And if there were ever enough nuclear bombs dropped to impact the environment significantly, then greenhouse gases will be the LAST thing anyone will be fretting about.

Answer 2

No.

Your worst fear is completely unfounded. The only meltdown at a civilian power reactor that had off site effects was unit 4 at Chernobyl (and it's debatable whether that should be classified as a civilian facility) which was a Soviet designed reactor prone to instability (the US had banned reactors of similar design back in the '50's), with no containment structure and a serious design flaw in the control rods. It was also doing a test right in the middle of a Xenon transient that makes the reactor harder to control, when things started to get out of a hand the reactor entered into prompt supercriticality at which point it basically becomes uncontrollable, something that a western reactor (or the other type of Soviet, now Russian reactor which is based on the most common type of western reactor) can't do.

The only western civilian power reactor to meltdown was Unit 2 of Three Mile Island which was written off but didn't kill or injure anyone because of the containment structure (which Chernobyl lacked).

Since those accidents procedures for operating nuclear power plants have been improved to reduce the chances of another such incident happening (and there are big economic incentives not to meltdown a billion dollar reactor). The old RBMKs still left (a lot of them including Chernobyl have since shut down) have all had significant safety upgrades to make them more controllable (and fix the control rod flaw that caused the Chernobyl meltdown) and are also operating under stricter rules to keep the reactor from entering the hard to control states so even the most dangerous nuclear reactors on the planet will probably never meltdown again.

Even if a nuclear power plant did melt down CO2 (cause of most global warming) doesn't exactly burn very well (it's used in fire extinguishers for a reason).

Answer 3

A meltdown and a nuclear explosion are very different things.

In a meltdown the core of a reactor effectively melts, the consequence of which is the release of huge amounts of radiation should containment and safety measures fail. The danger from this comes from the radiation itself and not any effect it would have on the climate.

A nuclear explosion would be a different matter, this would result in substantial quantities of particulate matter being thrown into the atmosphere. In time this matter would dissipate out of the atmopshere but during it's residency period it would block out some sunlight. It would be a very small amount and the effect in the climate would be negligible. To have a noticeable effect would require a major nuclear exchange with numerous nuclear explosions.

To put it into context, if one explosion put 40 million tons of material into the atmosphere there would need to be 1000 of them to equal the volume of material added through other human sources each year.

Conversely, the effect that global warming would have on a nuclear explosion would be very small. The prevailing weather conditions at the time of an explosion would be of great significance - a cold, damp, foggy, calm day would contain the radiation much more efficiently than a bright and breezy day where the radiation would be dispersed over a much larger area.

Answer 4

First of all although your question is valid, your imaginary planet, I would venture to say is very much imaginary. Regional concentrations of gases are known to exist however, and the Great Red Spot on Jupiter is a primary example. The implication from your question is that all greenhouse gas is CO2. This is not true. There are many other greenhouse gases CH4 is a primary example. Some greenhouse gases are stronger than others meaning that for the same amount of gas the heating effect is larger. Since stronger greenhouse gases do exist, and you have conditioned your question on the equality of the mass, a greenhouse gas that is stronger than CO2 for the same amount of molecules, will produce great heating effect if the strength of the other greenhouse gas is greater than the ratio of a mole of the specified other greenhouse/ the mole of CO2, there would be a heating effect greater than that produced by the same mass of CO2, if the ratio of the respective moles exceeds the inverse. Given the same mass of CO2 a gas with twice the molecular weight of CO2 would contain one half as many molecules. The heating effect to be greater than that of CO2 would have to be greater than 2.

Answer 5

nuclear reactors do not have nuclear explosions, it is not possible. A meltdown is not an explosion, the accident at chernobyl was caused by a steam(H2O) explosion. No, greenhouse gases will not contribute to any exlposion.

Answer 6

Yes i think so.
And many big business people think of profit than looking after the earth balance. They are so blind of earning profit that one day all of this will be gone with all the living. We have already damage the earth for thousand years, how can we keep up cleaning the mess can we clean the earth under a 100 years from now? But i am looking forward at the year 2029 if i am still standing?It is a judgment day if the asteroid will hits the earth or just passes by? Some people can be at moon in that time? but we never know maybe it hits the moon ho knows? When it hits the earth i have already felt that all human heart will be in one and that is the very last of them all and that is love.

Answer 7

I don't think you should be worrying about greenhouse gases. You should be worrying about the fallout which will kill you a lot quicker than global warming.

Answer 8

if you really want to know about the nuclear reaction then go to library and read more about nuclear reaction, weapon, etc.

Answer 9

Only way to know is to blow something up. probably nothing though.