Nuclear Power and Chernobyl

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jul 14, 2009
Messages
11,196
Location
NY Capital District
Lately, it's a topic I've been very interested in, more so than in the past. that is to say, Nuclear power. There is a LOT of misinformation, and FUD, surrounding nuclear power. People like to point to 3 mile island, and of course, Chernobyl when speaking out against it. That got me to thinking, and I've spent a lot of time, doing research, documentaries, and reading a lot of literature on it. I'm not a nuclear engineer, at all But Something I do have is a talent to read, and look at something and be able to very quickly and easily grok it. that is to say, inherently understand. I can look at something, and understand how it works.

And what I've found is... People have no idea what they are afraid of. They hear nuclear and think that what happened at chernobyl could happen anywhere. For those who don't know, this is what really caused the disaster at Chernobyl.

The soviet RBMK1000 reactors, like those used at Chernobyl, were actually quite impressive in many ways. They were cheap to build, and easy to operate compared to most other reactors at the time. However, it had some major flaws, that, coupled with operators who weren't aware of those flaws because it was kept hidden, meant that the disaster was inevitable.

Prior to the accident, the operators of the Chernobyl NPP were planning to run a test on the Unit #4 to see how long the turbines would continue to generate power to power the reactors main coolant pumps, before the diesel generators kicked in. For the test, they wanted the reactor to be in a certain power range. As they decreased power by inserting the control rods, a side effect of the design of the reactor meant that with lower power, a certain element was produced that "poisoned" the core, further lowering output.

After a time, the reactor reached a dangerously low ~30MW output, practically in a shutdown state. In order to compensate for this, and try to bring it back up to the roughly 700MW they needed for the test, and to combat the core poisoning, they fully retracted almost all of the 200+ control rods. The design of the reactor was unique, it used graphite as a neutron modulator, along with light water, to keep the reaction under control. This is similar to a Boiling water reactor in terms of operation, but the steam doesn't all go through the generator, some steam and water that go through the steam seperator go back through the main coolant pumps and into the reactor.

The temperature of the coolant inlet greaty affected the power output of the reactor. So at the time the test began, the reactor was very unstable, the control rods fully retracted, the reaction being kept under control by the cooler water, as the steam/heat was being used to drive the turbines.

When they began the test and shut down the turbine, heat was no longer being dissapated by the turbines, and the coolant inlet temperature of the reactor increased dramatically, which in turn increased the reactivity. As this happened, the water in the core started to boil, generating steam bubbles, or "voids"

This is where the design started to get, for lack of a better term, dangerous. The RBMK reactors had a very, very high positive void coefficient. Compare that to pretty much all reactors elsewhere, including our own here in the states. What that means is, as bubbles, or "Voids" are created, the rate of reaction increases, versus in a negative void coefficient reactor, which means that voids DECREASE the reaction. So as the water boiled, the reaction increased, increasing steam generation, a positive feedback loop.

The power output of the reactor increased to ridiculous levels, and the unit operators SCRAMed the reactor, inserting the control rods. This is where the other major flaw of the RBMK reactors lay. The control rods had graphite tips, which cleared water out of the channels as they were inserted. This had the unintended effect of actually increasing the reaction rate in the bottom of the core, which was what caused the initial steam explosion inside the core.

That explosion damaged and cracked the control rods, preventing them from fully inserting, only being inserted partway at the time. The reaction continued to increase as the water boiled away. The pressure inside the vessel grew and grew, until the 1000ton pressure vessel head literally blew off, damaging the building, and exposing the reactor core to the outside. In the explosion, tons of highly radioactive fuel and graphite moderator were scattered, and caught on fire, sending radiation into the atmosphere.

If they had figured out what happened sooner, and had evacuated sooner, it wouldn't have been so bad. But the dosimeters/geiger coutners they had at the time only measued up to 3.6mRoentegens/hr. So they decided that was as high as it was and chose not to inform the public about it. It wasn't until later, after firement and others had died from the radiation trying to put out the fire, that they found out that the radiation levels were actually over 10,000Roentegens/hr.

And thus you have the Chernobyl disaster. It wouldn't have been nearly so bad if the reactor operators had known about the flaws, but they were told that it was perfect and there couldn't be any design flaws. The RBMK1000 was perfect, as far as they knew.

What happened at chernobyl could not happen with our reactors. The designs are very different.


PWR (Pressurized Water Reactor. Most common design these days, and the ones used in Naval Reactors)
student-pwr.gif



Traditional Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) used in a lot of power plants as they are simpler and less expensive than a PWR, but still doesn't have the drawbacks of neutron moderator, and higher positive void coefficient of the RBMK.
student-bwr.gif



Soviet RBMK1000 (Chernobyl Type)
350px-RBMK_reactor_schematic.svg.png


This is what a current RBMK (the remaining units were modified, and there are some still operating today) The giant "circle" in the floor is the top of the reactor containment vessel. It contains the control rods, and gave the reactor the ability to be refueled during operation by pulling the fuel rods out of the top of the channels. That is what was blown off by the steam explosion.
kursknpp3-12.jpg




Thorium Reactor
ThoriumReactor.jpg
 
I think most people in the US would understand that our reactors are safe, will not go Chernobyl or Fukushima, and we have good people that would prevent 3 mile island from happening again.

Most of the opposition is about NIMBY (not in my back yard). Having a nuke plant nearby brings fear even if you know it is 99.99999% safer than air travel or getting into your car everyday. I'm sure we all know it is safer to live near a nuke plant than an oil refinery, but people just fear the uncertain part about super long half life contamination.

The more technical people understand that nuclear as of today is not quite passively safe, and the runaway reaction is what causes a lot of fear, over engineering, over design, and cost overrun. At the moment financially it is not profitable to build a new nuke plant to compete with natural gas plant powered by gas from fracking. The regulation red tape is just too much for any short term elected official want to deal with.

Combine all these, and you'll understand why the majority of nuclear plants are build in China right now, and India is trying to build their own thorium reactors. Also today's challenges is why future plant design is focusing on fast reactor (to burn actinides from existing and future waste, eliminate reprocessing and enrichment, and more efficiency), and passive safety (overheating will stop reaction and will not require external power to cool, eliminate Fukushima type of incidents).

I would not be surprised if China and India will be the first to build them and lead the technology on them. They need a lot of electricity and coal is too dirty to sustain without damaging their citizens' health.
 
To add on to this a little bit, I suppose my laid back view on nuclear power partially stems from that my dad has worked with Nuclear Reactors for over 19 years now. He is a chief in the USN, serving on a Nuclear powered submarine right now. I've spent pretty much my entire life living within a few miles of nuclear reactors. Be it land based ones, or near a Naval base, with submarines and such. I could not be any less worried. I would live right next door to a Nuclear power plant, and wouldn't worry at all.
 
After a 6 month deployment on a nuclear sub, does your mom ask your dad why he glows in the dark ?

LOL. Just kidding.
grin.gif


Nuclear energy is safe... if done correctly.
 
The storage issue of the spent fuel makes nuclear energy seem a little impractical. I would probably change my mind if we had a central storage site like Yucca Mt (except not on a fault line) that would be proven to safely store the stuff for thousands of years without risk of getting into any ground water. (And then you would have to prove it is cost efficient with all the future labor and servicing for the spent fuel.)

Thorium reactors either by them selves, or to burn along with reprocessed spent fuel are an interesting idea. They would also have to be incredibly safe. while the risk of something going wrong is small, when they do go wrong, they can affect hundreds of millions of people, and dozens of generations to come.
 
It just seems like after a sizeable disaster the contingency plan is "it's easier to ask forgiveness than permission". "Our engineers didn't think that scenario over. Sorry." If a nuke goes tango uniform the government and people are left holding the bag.

OTOH the waste products are compact and we can sequester them away better than letting CO2 in the air (or pumping it underground.)

So there's an impact on society like any other power source, and IMO about the same order of magnitude.
 
Quite frankly I didn't read the OP's entire post but read enough to know there's some [censored] propoganda being posted. Bottom line, the Russians used a cheap no containment design, no matter where the final blame is placed, it doesn't change the fact that a sizable portion of the Ukraine has been forever destroyed. Also, the cancer cases that have resulted and families affected is untold and also unknown. Being cavalier about "if this" or "if that" doesn't change the horrible results the people of the Ukraine have and will have to live with perhaps for eternity.

So I couldn't care less who or what gets the final blame, at Chernobyl the results speak much more loudly. Wondering if the "quite impressive" reactor design had also been located in Saratoga County NY if it would so easy to look at Chernobyl in such a detached cavalier manner.

Now with the foolish attempt to use Chernobyl to justify nuclear power out the way, it's true the nuclear power program in the US is entirely different. The US uses a different design which unlike Chernobyl uses containment buildings. And also unlike the Russians, safety is a priority.

The biggest issue as I see it now is storage of the spent radioactive nuclear fuel. Much of it is currently being on site at nuclear power plants around the country. Perhaps the OP could petition the powers that be in Saratoga County to open a permanent storage facility to help remedy the issue. Somehow I'm thinking that wouldn't pass muster, especially in that area.

U.S. storage sites overfilled with spent nuclear fuel
 
USN has a well known history of far more detailed analysis and safety consideration, with all aspects of nuke work going through one office. Plenty of configuration control and conservative engineering is centrally managed.

Not saying that on the commercial/industrial side, there isnt conservative engineering and whatnot, but it isnt done the same way. Apples and oranges.

And there are concerns that have long stood around nuclear power that leave people worried. The cancer rate around the reactor at Brookhaven National Lab comes to mind.

And as sayjac states, the use and lack of reuse of spent fuel is an issue. How often do they refuel a carrier vs a powerplant? How many tons of spent fuel?
 
I think that a nuclear runaway is far from the largest downside. There is the problem of storage (and cost) of the waste. For local people it greatly increases the potential for an attack of some sort on the area. And the cost of the electricity is still not very low, in fact in Wisconsin we are shuttering a nuclear plant this spring because it's too expensive compared to natural gas power.

So yeah, you can design around the disaster problems. But those aren't the only problems. It's also interesting you mention TMI and Chernobyl and leave Fukushima out. Some disasters cannot be designed around. If you are 100 feet underwater pretty much all bets are off.
 
Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
After a 6 month deployment on a nuclear sub, does your mom ask your dad why he glows in the dark ?

LOL. Just kidding.
grin.gif


Nuclear energy is safe... if done correctly. Is how you tell sailor from Russian submarine fleet... turn off lights.
 
Originally Posted By: bepperb
I think that a nuclear runaway is far from the largest downside. There is the problem of storage (and cost) of the waste. For local people it greatly increases the potential for an attack of some sort on the area. And the cost of the electricity is still not very low, in fact in Wisconsin we are shuttering a nuclear plant this spring because it's too expensive compared to natural gas power.

So yeah, you can design around the disaster problems. But those aren't the only problems. It's also interesting you mention TMI and Chernobyl and leave Fukushima out. Some disasters cannot be designed around. If you are 100 feet underwater pretty much all bets are off.
I thought the Japanese reactors were standarde issue Westinghouse designs. Of course WHERE you put them is important.
 
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
but people just fear the uncertain part about super long half life contamination.


Thus demonstrating a LARGE part of the problem...super long half life contamination is not the danger...it's the shorter half life contamination that generates the radiation that is harmful to human life....things like Strontium 90 that has a half life of years...

Super long half lives aren't a big deal...Thorium 232 for example, found in your granite countertops (you know you've got 'em) has a half life of roughly 14 billion years...so, you get a very, very small amount of radiation...

The bananas sitting on that countertop contain some amount of Potassium 40, also radioactive, which has a half life of roughly 1 billion years...so, gram for gram, there are more decays/second in the Potassium than in the Thorium...

Just in case you were worried...you get about 1000 times the radiation from breathing that you do from the Bananas you eat...and if you're a smoker, parts of your lungs are exposed to Polonium 210, as a result of Radon decay, which can be significant in those tissues, but isn't really a big addition to total body radiation exposure...then, there is also radiation from Cosmic sources, which is about 1/3 as much as from breathing air, and about the same as what you get from the ground (worse in some areas because of Radon and other sources)...

So, if you really want to minimize your exposure to radiation, you need to move underground (but not where there is Radon), get rid of all electronics, tobacco and plant products...and stop breathing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation
 
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
but people just fear the uncertain part about super long half life contamination.


Thus demonstrating a LARGE part of the problem...super long half life contamination is not the danger...it's the shorter half life contamination that generates the radiation that is harmful to human life....things like Strontium 90 that has a half life of years...

Super long half lives aren't a big deal...Thorium 232 for example, found in your granite countertops (you know you've got 'em) has a half life of roughly 14 billion years...so, you get a very, very small amount of radiation...

The bananas sitting on that countertop contain some amount of Potassium 40, also radioactive, which has a half life of roughly 1 billion years...so, gram for gram, there are more decays/second in the Potassium than in the Thorium...

Just in case you were worried...you get about 1000 times the radiation from breathing that you do from the Bananas you eat...and if you're a smoker, parts of your lungs are exposed to Polonium 210, as a result of Radon decay, which can be significant in those tissues, but isn't really a big addition to total body radiation exposure...then, there is also radiation from Cosmic sources, which is about 1/3 as much as from breathing air, and about the same as what you get from the ground (worse in some areas because of Radon and other sources)...

So, if you really want to minimize your exposure to radiation, you need to move underground (but not where there is Radon), get rid of all electronics, tobacco and plant products...and stop breathing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation
Electronics? do you know the difference between ionizing radiation and non-ionizing radiation?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: sayjac
Quite frankly I didn't read the OP's entire post but read enough to know there's some [censored] propoganda being posted. Bottom line, the Russians used a cheap no containment design, no matter where the final blame is placed, it doesn't change the fact that a sizable portion of the Ukraine has been forever destroyed. Also, the cancer cases that have resulted and families affected is untold and also unknown. Being cavalier about "if this" or "if that" doesn't change the horrible results the people of the Ukraine have and will have to live with perhaps for eternity.

So I couldn't care less who or what gets the final blame, at Chernobyl the results speak much more loudly. Wondering if the "quite impressive" reactor design had also been located in Saratoga County NY if it would so easy to look at Chernobyl in such a detached cavalier manner.

Now with the foolish attempt to use Chernobyl to justify nuclear power out the way, it's true the nuclear power program in the US is entirely different. The US uses a different design which unlike Chernobyl uses containment buildings. And also unlike the Russians, safety is a priority.

The biggest issue as I see it now is storage of the spent radioactive nuclear fuel. Much of it is currently being on site at nuclear power plants around the country. Perhaps the OP could petition the powers that be in Saratoga County to open a permanent storage facility to help remedy the issue. Somehow I'm thinking that wouldn't pass muster, especially in that area.

U.S. storage sites overfilled with spent nuclear fuel



Yes the Soviet design was flawed, and lots of people died and were displaced by it. That is not in dispute here, but a rational human should be able to admire the ingenuity in the design overall, allowing it to use unenriched uranium.

Also the fact that you went tl;dr and then posted your opinion and evaluation of my opinion makes me shake my head. I' actually planning on visiting chernobyl in the next couple years, to see and feel the emotional part of it, an empty city and no people for miles.
 
Originally Posted By: bepperb
I think that a nuclear runaway is far from the largest downside. There is the problem of storage (and cost) of the waste. For local people it greatly increases the potential for an attack of some sort on the area. And the cost of the electricity is still not very low, in fact in Wisconsin we are shuttering a nuclear plant this spring because it's too expensive compared to natural gas power.

So yeah, you can design around the disaster problems. But those aren't the only problems. It's also interesting you mention TMI and Chernobyl and leave Fukushima out. Some disasters cannot be designed around. If you are 100 feet underwater pretty much all bets are off.



Fukushima is unique in a way. It wasn't properly set up for it's location. Very, very few plants in the US have that problem.


And there are quite a few reactor projects planned, and some under construction, for example 2 new Westinghouse AP1000 reactors at Georgia's Vogtle NPP. There is consideration of putting a new joint US/French design at the Nine Mile Point NPP in Oswego NY, among others.


I also agree with the idea of using thorium breeder reactors to complete the nuclear fuel cycle, partially eliminating the problem of waste, and I did see something about the thing in Canada too.
 
Originally Posted By: Nick R
I' actually planning on visiting chernobyl in the next couple years, to see and feel the emotional part of it, an empty city and no people for miles.


Something about a ghost town fascinates me, in an emotionally sad way. You can look at the infrastructure that was built, the labor that was put into it, and imagine the area when it was populated and enjoyed. The recreation areas filled with children on warm days, the plazas full of shops and cafes, the apartment buildings and houses full of happy families.

And then for whatever reason, it's vacated. Either due to an environmental reason, lack of natural resources, or something like what happened in Russia, it's simply empty. Flora and fauna eventually return and likely take back over, but humans may be gone for ever.

What a surreal experience that must be...to stand there and imagine the life and love that once filled that place...and to look at it today as an overgrown urban jungle devoid of human attention and care.
 
Originally Posted By: Nick R
And what I've found is... People have no idea what they are afraid of.


That's because most people are horribly stupid and believes what the liberal media tells them. I have been trying to tell people for decades that it's just another way to heat water.
 
Originally Posted By: Nick R
Yes the Soviet design was flawed, and lots of people died and were displaced by it. That is not in dispute here, but a rational human should be able to admire the ingenuity in the design overall, allowing it to use unenriched uranium.

I consider myself a rational human being, but had the design included containment the lives of many and the loss of countryside, could have been avoided completely and/or drastically reduced even with the other mistakes. Therefore, based on the outcome I fail to see the "genius' in the design. Further, I didn't need to reads how a nuclear power plant works to comment on the "quite impressive" aspects of the Russian Chernobyl design. So shaking your head is immaterial to me. Being of Ukrainian descent I find your characterization to be as said, cavalier. Or, if that makes me labeled irrational, so be it.

And, while visiting Chernobyl to "see and feel" the emotional part may be a noble intention. The residents that lived it and still have to deal with the aftermath daily don't have the luxury to leave the emotional and physical devastation behind in another country.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top