Web
Analytics
Inside Chernobyl's nuclear reactor 25 years on | General Chat | Page 2 | 28DaysLater.co.uk

Inside Chernobyl's nuclear reactor 25 years on



randomnut

28DL Full Member
28DL Full Member
#16
Err, the cause of the explosion is well known and it *was* a test for an emergency power down, rather than power up.

Essentially, once the reactor is operational, even when not generating power the fuel channels require cooling at all times. There were backup diesel generators in case of a total power grid failure which would provide power to keep pumping the coolant water and avoid a melt down.

It was identified that in such an event, the diesel generators would take 1 minute to reach full power and was deemed unacceptable. It was recommended that residual energy in the steam turbines could be used to provide power for around 45 seconds to keep pumping coolant water, providing some relief in the period between a full-on external power grid failure and the generators being up to full power.

This test had been performed several times before, albeit yielding unsuccessful results that there would not be enough power to cover that time. This test was to be a repeat but testing the order in which things were shut down/powered up/closed/opened etc to monitor if capture of the residual power was increased. Because it had been carried out before there was no perceived danger to the reactor so it didn't go through the usual approval and planning processes and procedures.

If the experiment to test this had been carried out at the proper power level (700MW) then this would have gone without incident, but due to many many factors, it was run at around 200MW or lower. There were many variables which led to an unstable condition for this to happen, including a failure at another plant requiring power from Reactor 4 to continue to be pumped into the grid a lot later in the day delaying the experiment, which meant the inexperienced night crew had to carry it out. A mix of that and faults in the reactor design led to the explosion.

There is a very detailed and surprisingly accurate description on wikipedia given the available evidence and staff which survived to give their testimonies. Unless there is an even greater cover-up that seems to cover publicly available evidence, although given that I obviously wasn't there i'll listen to any other theories that ties up with the data.
 
Last edited:

Ric

темний Прип'ять
28DL Full Member
#17
Agreed randomnut, I'm not sure where lucid has got the info from?

Control rods don't cool the fuel also, they stop the fission reaction, the fuel is still Hot from reaction and decay heat.

The rest of the reactors ran untill 2000-1 then they were shutdown, they still had to power a lot of places, even today the switchgear and substations at Chernobyl route 2 thirds of Belarusa-Russia's power supplies, that's why over 2000 people still work at the site today.

Essentially, it's like what happened with Japan, cooling failed, except Chernobyls reactor design was flawed, hence the 2000tonne cap was blown off spewing its guts all around. and not just the outer containment (like japan)
 
Last edited:

Lucid

Russian.
28DL Full Member
#18
Control rods don't cool the fuel also, they stop the fission reaction, the fuel is still Hot from reaction and decay heat.
Control rods control fission by slowing the reaction right? fission reaction causes heat, yes? so they do control heat, but obviously there are other factors in there that cool it too. fission is the fuel.

Dont take what i have said as fact after fact, ive left alot if out in the posts above because it would seriously take ages to write about it, plus i dont have the time so ive just put a quick comment up. Reactors are controlled and influenced by alot of factors, not just by the rods or cooling water or by pumps, unless you have a full understanding of how a reactor works before it blows up you could point a finger at many factors.

The cause of the explosion *wasnt* because of the test (the test had been done many, many times before) it was because of the people doing it. I say power up as in he lost control of it, he did actually take it up to begin with, if you hear the actual conversation they had, the newest reactor driver to the crew expressly says that he did so under duress to his supervisor.

Anyway there's alot of opinions on this, im just telling you what i know from my side of the fence and not from knowlendge ive read up on the internet or quotes from wikipedia ;)
 

randomnut

28DL Full Member
28DL Full Member
#19
No one said it was the experiment that caused the explosion. As i'd said in my post, it had been done before. It was the inexperienced crew running it in a completely unsafe manner.

im just telling you what i know from my side of the fence and not from knowlendge ive read up on the internet or quotes from wikipedia ;)
But the point is you're not. You're wading in with some bullshit accompanied by zero attempt at explanation and palming it off shrouding it behind 'your knowledge'.

I'm not pretending to know the nuts and bolts of nuclear reactor operation BUT I do understand what is published about the incident for us great unwashed to read.

If you'd like to contravene official published explanations than fine but do so with some kind of explanation and not just a ridiculous 'because I say so' and a 'I can't be arsed to explain' and people will listen.
 
Last edited:

Lucid

Russian.
28DL Full Member
#20
Woah there tiger, dont go throwing your toys out of the pram because i have a different view of it too you, jesus.... this is what a forum is about. People going off on one like yourself makes others not want to contribute to a thread incase they come under flak...


At what point did i say i was the final word in this? at what point did i quote against published explanations? And what do you mean "people will listen" are you the spokesperson for everyone are you?
Again... like ive said... it would take a long long time to sit and write about it and I dont want to tie up the whole point of this thread because you want to pick an arguement. What do you want, an official report from me with a sworn oath? give over....

There's no secrecy in what i am saying, im just giving my point of view as someone who works on these stations, fixes and maintains them. People over react whenever they hear the word nuclear and are always paranoid, thinking its some sort of big government cover up and red tape shite.

Point is, dont fly off the handle because you have a different view, your entitled to it and if you feel its right then fair do, but dont start saying im talking bullshit because my opinion is different to what you've read over the web.
 

DubbedNavigator

28DL Regular User
Regular User
#21
People are very right to be paranoid about nuclear power, looking at Chernobyl/3 mail island/japan - the results of an "accident" are horrendous for generations. Now before anyone fancies correcting me on japan, I know it was an accident but it could still have the same consequences.

Nuke power is great, until it goes wrong. And guess what... We are human

But if we don't take risks we will get no where!

/pointless rant
 

Incognito

Just Reckless.
28DL Full Member
#22
I have to agree with randomnut, everything that has been published with regards to the disaster doesn't add up with what you are saying. Thats not to say what has been published is the truth , the whole truth and nothing but the truth but your making a statement without backing it up. Clearly without backing it up its just hearsay and anyone can make up a fact but it doesn't make it a fact!.

Forums are good for getting different view points but that is all you are giving a view point, wheres the facts?? Where is what you have said been published?? It just sounds like your mate Dave from your local pub has spun you a conspiracy theory and you have bought into it. I'm not saying what you have to say isn't true, i know nothing abut nuclear reactors I can only read what has been published by lots of different people across many mediums and they all share pretty much the same story and theory.

What do you want, an official report from me with a sworn oath? give over....
Why?? who are you and were you there at the time, were you one of the drivers?? Again i can make my own report and sign it but it still doesn't make it fact. Backup what you have to say and i'm sure others would be happy to hear it :thumb
 

Lucid

Russian.
28DL Full Member
#23
Who knows who is right? Like you said there's lots of reports out there that say different things but all come to one conclusion, they messed up! My view only changes at the start and the reason why the reactor blew, again what I am saying is instead of it getting cooled it went critical and that's the reason it blew. All my info has been in house training from suppliers such as British energy and EDF and the company I work for, it would be hard for me to give exact reports to reference too for that reason, does that make sense? Sorry I don't want to come across as being all knowledgeable and trying to Piss all over the reports you have read I'm just basically telling you my understanding of the events and how it's taken from my perspective of working on these stations. Didn't want to start a big rant lol anyway I would love to go over and actually see the place, I've heard alot of stories about the surrounding area and guided tours you can go on.
 

randomnut

28DL Full Member
28DL Full Member
#24
Woah there tiger, dont go throwing your toys out of the pram because i have a different view of it too you, jesus.... this is what a forum is about. People going off on one like yourself makes others not want to contribute to a thread incase they come under flak...


At what point did i say i was the final word in this? at what point did i quote against published explanations? And what do you mean "people will listen" are you the spokesperson for everyone are you?
Again... like ive said... it would take a long long time to sit and write about it and I dont want to tie up the whole point of this thread because you want to pick an arguement. What do you want, an official report from me with a sworn oath? give over....

There's no secrecy in what i am saying, im just giving my point of view as someone who works on these stations, fixes and maintains them. People over react whenever they hear the word nuclear and are always paranoid, thinking its some sort of big government cover up and red tape shite.

Point is, dont fly off the handle because you have a different view, your entitled to it and if you feel its right then fair do, but dont start saying im talking bullshit because my opinion is different to what you've read over the web.
None of that actually made any sense.

What I said was, if you'd cared to actually read, wasn't at any point because you have a different point of view. Everyone's entitled to an opinion but It was because you back up sweet fuck all of what you say. You can't just spout an opinion and calling others wrong when we are just quoting officially released info.

I'm just saying that what has been published and available for public consumption is backed up by available data and testimonies and ties itself up with a cause and effect explanation that makes sense.

What your saying is "that's wrong and I just can't be arsed to back it up".

If you want to dispute it then that's fine, you may be right for all I know. But, it's your job to provide at least explanations other than 'it would take too long' and not get all hormonal when called up on it.
 

Ric

темний Прип'ять
28DL Full Member
#26
Control rods control fission by slowing the reaction right? fission reaction causes heat, yes? so they do control heat, but obviously there are other factors in there that cool it too. fission is the fuel.
Erm, Fission is the nuclear reaction within the moderator (Nuclear fission) its not the fuel, Fuel would be Uranium or Plutonium etc, to say you work in this field theres quite a few basic errors in what you are saying?

So basically, your view is a conspiracy theorists view, Ok. I'm happy with that, but don't spout it as fact then get hissy when people question it.

Randomnut, just so you know, that quote in your post wasn't me it was Lucid :)
 

Lucid

Russian.
28DL Full Member
#27
Ah FFS... Fission is the heat, I'm talking about the process not the actual elements that make the fission happen. Fission produces heat, heat produces the steam which turns the turbines. I'm obviously not explaining myself properly but I'm not doing this to be a twat lads, I'm just telling you what I know from working in this industry. What I'm saying is what I've been told at work, by professionals, not some bloke down the pub. The nuclear industry is forever changing, maybe the conspiracy is that they don't want to drag all this crap up again and do another investigation? Remember this was back in 1986... 25years ago, technology changes and they don't have the investigative technologythey do now.. That's another theory tho.

If your opinion lies with what the interweb says thats fine by me, I put what I know by what I'm taught at these stations. If I'm wrong and there's a big bang over here, your all welcome to call me a twat :D (that's not an open invite before you start!) lol
 

randomnut

28DL Full Member
28DL Full Member
#28
Right ok fair enough, but lets go through that first lot of info you posted then:

It wasn't a power outage surge that blew it, it was the reactor drivers. They where inexperienced and relatively new to that job, it was on a nightshift with a skeleton crew of only 3 or 4 people, cant remember exact numbers.
Agreed, kind of. It was a power surge caused by the experiment being run in dangerous conditions (as well as flaws in the design of the reactor), brought about by the inexperience of the crew.

lucid said:
The supervisor in charge basically took the reactor right up to produce more power. He produced so much heat in it that when it went alarmingly high the control rods had bent out of alignment and couldn't be properly lowered to cool it.
Sorry, what? The power surges were not indended (the reactor was running at very low power) At the time of the explosion all control rods were inserted. In fact, when the emergency shutdown button was pressed, all control rods were inserted. The graphite tips initially displaced coolant before they were fully inserted, causing heat to increase and rate of reaction to increase also. Additionally it was this same graphite which caught fire and burned for 9 days, sending radiation into the atmosphere.

lucid said:
This type of reactor design didnt have fail safes in those days (during the cold war) because the Russian's didnt want anyone taking the station (if they couldnt have it then nobody could)
Ummmm.... source? By all accounts the reactor had an automatic power down mechanism which had been disabled for the experiment. When things went wrong, one of the workers pressed the EPS-5 button to do this manually but instead resulted in a massive power surge as explained above. Plus, the designs for these reactors weren't a secret. They had been analysed by the west and they had warned about the flaws years before the accident.

lucid said:
Interesting fact is that when you look at the reactor building that blew up, to the right of that is the other reactor... when no 4 blew up, do you know how long it took before the one next to it got turned off? 25 years...... only because of WANO.
Reactor 3, the last one kept running, was shut down on 15th December 2000, 14 years after the disaster. The country was too reliant on the power from the plant to shut it down immediately. If one had been running for 25 years it would only just be shutting down now.

lucid said:
When this blew up in 86, the world media wasn't nowhere near as quick as it is these days.
Granted, but it really had nothing to do with the media. Given the remoteness of the plant they would have either had to rely on A. An official press release, B. Someone leaking it to the outside world (although I imagine they had more pressing matters at hand) or C. External detection stations detecting radioactive iodine and causing alarm, only then getting a satellite over to take a picture, which is what happened.


I am just astonished at the amount of misinformation in that post.
 
Last edited:

randomnut

28DL Full Member
28DL Full Member
#29

Lucid

Russian.
28DL Full Member
#30
Sorry, what? The power surges were not indended (the reactor was running at very low power) At the time of the explosion all control rods were inserted. In fact, when the emergency shutdown button was pressed, all control rods were inserted. The graphite tips initially displaced coolant before they were fully inserted, causing heat to increase and rate of reaction to increase also. Additionally it was this same graphite which caught fire and burned for 9 days, sending radiation into the atmosphere.
Yes a button was pressed but it wasnt a "shut down" button, it was the emergency button to "lower the rods". because of the heat produced the control rods couldnt go in as the metal casings which push the rods down had been bent with the heat. do you know what the graphite does? it slows down the fission, it doesnt cause it to heat up like your saying. what your saying above is that that the control rods caused the heat to increase? there called control rods for a reason mate, cmon.



Ummmm.... source? By all accounts the reactor had an automatic power down mechanism which had been disabled for the experiment. When things went wrong, one of the workers pressed the EPS-5 button to do this manually but instead resulted in a massive power surge as explained above. Plus, the designs for these reactors weren't a secret. They had been analysed by the west and they had warned about the flaws years before the accident..

source? hmmm again ive told you where i get my information or did you not read the above posts? you said above that the power down button had been disabled? yes your right on that one but there isnt just one big red button to stop a powerstation from blowing you know? its not a bloody james bond film set with a big red flashing button!

the russians and the japanese came from the same working practice back in those days that errors are caused by machines and not men, hence why they trusted there crew so much to carry this out. in the industry its called "human error traps"



Reactor 3, the last one kept running, was shut down on 15th December 2000, 14 years after the disaster. The country was too reliant on the power from the plant to shut it down immediately. If one had been running for 25 years it would only just be shutting down now
sorry i hold my hands up on this one, your right it was in 2000, i dont know why i put 25 years, maybe i miss typed because i had in my head 25yrs because its been that since the incident.


Granted, but it really had nothing to do with the media. Given the remoteness of the plant they would have either had to rely on A. An official press release, B. Someone leaking it to the outside world (although I imagine they had more pressing matters at hand) or C. External detection stations detecting radioactive iodine and causing alarm, only then getting a satellite over to take a picture, which is what happened.
wtf are you on about? this part about the media, if you read the rest of what i put was down to personal experience of people from the powerstation themselves, people who i work with. I put that up just as abit of interesting information i thought was relevant to the post. the fence alarms went off over in england (hartlepool) and they couldnt understand why... the reason i mention the media is because it would have been slower back then and they wouldnt have put two and two together straight away unlike now when someone so much as fartrs its all over the media.


I am just astonished at the amount of misinformation in that post.
Are you telling me you have read all the reports, research and opinions on all of this disaster in full and come to this conclusion yourself or is all your information coming of wikipedia? i very much doubt you have read all the reports and information on this. i tel you from experience and knowledge given to me from the companies and the proffesional people who work in this field and my opinion is based on that why would i lie about this?! you come at me with articles you claim to have read and quotes from wikipedia? lets face it, if you and me came to sit down and have a pint over it and discuss this it would be pretty cool, but if you are someone from the outside looking in, would you trust someone who works in this industry day in day out or someone who takes reference from the internet?

thats not a go at you, but think of it like that... if you (say your a teacher) and i came in and told you about your job by what i have read off wikipedia and some articles on the internet you would probably tel me to..... lets leave it at that lol :thumb
 

Similar threads