Re: "The Chernobyl disaster very probably a sabotage" ["no, just same procedure as last year"]

Bill Ward wrote:
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
news:2UmHi.8954$ZA.4705@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<snip>
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.
...
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?


The point of no return was probably when they tripped the second turbine
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.

Explanations given for why they decided to go ahead with the test include:

Because the test was scheduled to be carried out just before a planned shutdown for routine maintenance, the operators were under extra pressure. If the test could not be performed successfully this time, then they would have to wait another year for the next shutdown.

The test was perceived as an electrical test only and had been conducted uneventfully before. Thus the operators did not think carefully enough about the effects on the reactor. There is reportedly a strong possibility that the test was being supervised by representatives of the turbine manufacturer instead of the normal operators.

Bill Ghrist
.

Relevant Pages

  • Super Critical Light Water Reactors
    ... research areas is the super critical light water reactor. ... I note that neither paper describes a cross compound turbine in the ... there would be no demineralization of the recirculated flow. ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Nuclear Reactors Found to Be Leaking Radioactive Water
    ... Nuclear Reactors Found to Be Leaking Radioactive Water ... The public's acceptance of new reactors depends in part on the performance of the old ones, and lately several of those have been discovered to be leaking radioactive water into the ground. ... Near Braceville, Ill., the Braidwood Generating Station, owned by the Exelon Corporation, has leaked tritium into underground water that has shown up in the well of a family nearby. ... In New York, at the Indian Point 2 reactor in Buchanan, workers digging a foundation adjacent to the plant's spent fuel pool found wet dirt, an indication that the pool was leaking. ...
    (soc.culture.china)
  • Re: Scientists turn attention to worlds poles to gauge global warming
    ... reactor because THOU SHALT NOT EXCEED 100% POWER ... the steam to the turbines is ... chugging along providing heated water by circulating around ... The steam generator is a saturated steam system, the temperature ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Scientists turn attention to worlds poles to gauge global warming
    ... reactor because THOU SHALT NOT EXCEED 100% POWER ... the steam to the turbines is ... chugging along providing heated water by circulating around ... The steam generator is a saturated steam system, the temperature of the steam depends on the loop temperature and the rate that you are pulling steam out of the generator. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Running multiple HET in parallel?
    ... 240 days 25% payload fraction ... Nuclear Electric Drive: ... a nuclear reactor or advanced solar arrays as a power source. ... the human body turns clean water into ...
    (sci.space.tech)