Re: "The Chernobyl disaster very probably a sabotage" ["no, just same procedure as last year"]
- From: Bill Ward <bward@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:29:30 -0700
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 04:30:32 +0000, Rolf Martens wrote:
In article <0MFHi.6148$A72.3702@trnddc08>, notmyname@xxxxxxxxxxxx says...
...
Bill Ward wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 18:45:57 -0400, daestrom wrote:
"Rolf Martens" <rolf.martens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message<snip>
news:2UmHi.8954$ZA.4705@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
What you're saying here is, that what took place at Chernobyl on
26.04.1986 was just "the same procedure as last year". "Such tests,
with disabling of several safety systems, was the rule in the Soviet
Union at that time."
No, very clearly it was not "just the same procedure" - which would
have been a pretty risky thing too, even considering the well-known
sloppy procedures in that social-imperialist state at the time.
The point of no return was probably when they tripped the second turbine
Thanks, daestrom, for another incredibly interesting and informative
post.
When do you think was the last point of safe return? It seems like
once the rods were pulled outside the design limits, there was no way
out. Was there any way to shut down the reactor other than suddenly
reinserting the control rods? Could a slower insertion rate (before
the final power transient) have recovered from the situation?
for the test (the unit had two turbine generators). At that point the
steam pressure started rising and the water flow started decreasing
(because half of the water pumps operated off of the turbine that just
tripped). The displacement of water in the reactor by steam caused a
rapid rise in reactivity due to the positive void coefficient (steam
absorbs fewer neutrons than liquid water). The power increased from 200
Mw to 530 Mw in less than three seconds. The operator responded by
scramming the reactor, but that just initiated a greater excursion for
the reasons explained by daestrom.
I on my part am pretty certain that the point of no return was not one
reached on account of any technical matter but on account of a political
one, on account of some crooks' - and I've indicated as main suspects
approximately the same as the French-language very well-informed blogger I
quoted did too: The Gorbachov group and/or some of its US imperialist
friends - deciding: "Let's pull it!".
See that "UNITE! Info #258en" of mine about the political context, and
also the French-language blog "le petrole abiotique", article of
11.09.2007.
I've found daestrom to be an entirely credible source, and his explanation
seems completely plausible to me, so how do you think "they" did it?
The only open question I can think of is,"Why did they decide to run the
test after the delay?" Were they unaware of the Xe poisoning?
I generally don't assume malevolence when simple incompetence will
suffice, but I wonder if their operator training was really that bad? The
Xe effect seems pretty basic. I'd speculate they just wanted to get the
test over and done with, then pushed past the physical limits. Pilots
call that "get-home-itis", and it's a contributing factor in many
aviation accidents.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: "The Chernobyl disaster very probably a sabotage" ["no, just same procedure as last year"]
- Next by Date: Re: NEF claims more nuclear power is not way forward
- Previous by thread: Re: "The Chernobyl disaster very probably a sabotage" ["no, just same procedure as last year"]
- Next by thread: Re: "The Chernobyl disaster very probably a sabotage" ["no, just same procedure as last year"]
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
