| |
| | Nuclear is Our Future: Energy Policy in the Shadow of Chernobyl |
 | | PWRs have a negative temperature coefficient as well, since they slow down on the expansion of the fuel, and a negative void coefficient, since they slow down when they lose the neutron-moderating effect of their cooling water if it boils. |
 | | The net effect of the positive void coefficient and the badly-designed geometry was a positive temperature coefficient (i.e., if the temperature goes up, the reactor speeds up, raising the temperature, making it speed up more, until power is manually reduced or it melts down). |
 | | The positive void coefficient then performed its only good function and lowered the power of the reactor, since higher coolant flow would result in fewer voids, and more control rods were removed to make up for this. |
| blog.niof.org /2006/04/energy-policy-in-shadow-of-chernobyl.html (4524 words) |
|