• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Energy...

Umm, no offense. But the testing at reactor 4 was NOT for the nuclear weapons program. The testing was to bridge a known, safety gap in the SCRAM of the reactor and the backup generators coming online. When the RBMK reactor was first built, in the event of a SCRAM it took the diesel backups 15 seconds to spin up; furthermore, it took the generators an additional 30-45 seconds to spin up to full speed allowing water to be pumped with enough pressure to flow into the reactor chamber itself. For those paying attention, that is 45 - 60 seconds where the reactor is without water flow, which, in a reactor design that the RBMK used was not even close to acceptable standards. They were trying to see if they could use the momentum of the steam turbine as it spun down to drive the water pumps and bridge the gap.

The government actually had no clue what was going on before the test took place. The plant manager was the one who approved the test WITHOUT approval from the Soviet Nuclear Regulator.

Staff on hand for the test were ALL regular engineers for the plant. The problem at hand was, the test was to be run during the day shift; however, part of the Kiev power grid went off line during the day and a hold was put on reactor 4 lowering its power levels any further to make up for peak usage that night on the grid. By the time the evening shift was wrapping up, the all clear was given to proceed with the test with the night shift, who had VERY little knowledge of what was going on.

I realize you work in the industry; but the bolded comments on Chernobyl couldn't be anymore wrong.
I was reading from internal reports not released to the public.

Here's a nice little excerpt for you that you may not be aware of.

"The reactor was designed to be base loaded at 100 percent power to provide electricity and steam heating as well as plutonium for nuclear weapons construction."
 
I was reading from internal reports not released to the public.

Here's a nice little excerpt for you that you may not be aware of.

"The reactor was designed to be base loaded at 100 percent power to provide electricity and steam heating as well as plutonium for nuclear weapons construction."

That's its design, plutonium is a by-product of nuclear reactors and you can either skim off that plutonium for weapons programs, or reprocess it with uranium to get MOX fuel.

The test they were running had nothing to do with weapons programs. It was actually the fourth attempt at solving the problem I mentioned to close the gap between a reactor SCRAM and backup generators spinning up. Its all listed in both of the IAEA's reports on the incident.
 
That was part of it. The other part was pushing power levels to generate plutonium faster.

They weren't pushing power levels at all, in fact, power levels at one point dropped below 200 MW during the test when the minimum power level not to exceed was 700. Power levels didn't surge until the reactor was SCRAM'd at which point flashed to 30 GW before the initial steam explosion ripped the reactor apart.

Here's two articles on exactly what happened. Note, no mention of weapons testing, or high power reactor tests. Again, this was a low power test on using spin down energy from the turbine to bridge the water flow gap until generators could come up. I'm sorry, but your high power, weapons testing comments are completely off base and false.

What Happened at Chernobyl?

Frequently Asked Chernobyl Questions
 
I know what the public reports say.. I've read them all before.

So what....are you telling me you are releasing to us private/confidential/classified reports of what "actually" happened over there?

*Edit* Ok, I just realized you are the one pushing the conspiracy crap in the 9-11 thread. You have now lost ALL credibility in this matter. I can't believe I didn't put two and two together here. Nice try though.
 
AS far as electricity production, oil doesn't do much... but natural gas COULD do a lot. The cleanest burning fossil fuel, more stable than coal, easier to ship around the country, current coal fired planets can easily be switched over, and we have abundant supply here at home.

So, yeah, drill drill drill, for natural gas at least.
Did you know you can process natural gas from lignite coal? My wife actually works in one of the only two gasification plants in the world.
 
So what....are you telling me you are releasing to us private/confidential/classified reports of what "actually" happened over there?

*Edit* Ok, I just realized you are the one pushing the conspiracy crap in the 9-11 thread. You have now lost ALL credibility in this matter. I can't believe I didn't put two and two together here. Nice try though.
No.. the reports are correct.. they just leave out their plutonium development and pressure from the USSR to undergo testing. I'm not releasing any classified reports. And no.. 9/11 events have nothing to do with Chernobyl.
 
Dude, stop making crap up. Chernobyl was under NO pressure from their government to perform the testing, as I previously stated the Nuclear Regulator was not informed of the test by Chernobyls plant manager. Again, plutonium is a bi-product in ALL nuclear reactors and is irrelevant to the report of the accident. Just stop, stop already. You look like an idiot in the 9-11 thread, you look like an idiot here. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

No.. the reports are correct.. they just leave out their plutonium development and pressure from the USSR to undergo testing. I'm not releasing any classified reports. And no.. 9/11 events have nothing to do with Chernobyl.
 
rofl.. k.

1. Not all reactors are designed for plutonium generation. Yes, there is a very low yield from commercial reactors.. it is not enough for weapons development. This was not the case with the RBMK, which was designed for military plutonium development by the soviets.

2. Yelling in caps does not make your argument legitimate. I'm an idiot about these kinds of things, you'll have to excuse me. I don't work next to a reactor every day.
 
Good for you, you can work next to a reactor and still look like an idiot for making stuff up.

PS...the RBMK is a developmental offshoot of Soviet plutonium production reactors. It was not intended itself to be a production reactor.

rofl.. k.

1. Not all reactors are designed for plutonium generation. Yes, there is a very low yield from commercial reactors.. it is not enough for weapons development. This was not the case with the RBMK, which was designed for military plutonium development by the soviets.

2. Yelling in caps does not make your argument legitimate. I'm an idiot about these kinds of things, you'll have to excuse me. I don't work next to a reactor every day.
 
Let's see here, I can either believe you...or the IAEA. No offense to you; but they have FAR more credibility than you do...and they're far from a credible organization.
 
Uh.. I said their reports were right, they just don't include anything about the plutonium production.

Also, Chernobyl was meant for plutonium production.. they designed it so they could run it 24/7/365 for maximum plutonium yield. It was refueled online from the top of the reactor.

chernobyl_online_refuel.png
 
Uh.. I said their reports were right, they just don't include anything about the plutonium production.

Also, Chernobyl was meant for plutonium production.. they designed it so they could run it 24/7/365 for maximum plutonium yield. It was refueled online from the top of the reactor.

Firstly, I've never read anything about Chernobyl being a production plant. I'll keep looking on that.

Secondly, your first comment on the matter equated the accident to nuclear weapons type testing; now you say the IAEA's reports are correct. You are now admitting your original comment is wrong, thank you.

Also, as I previously stated, no need for mention of plutonium needed to be made by the IAEA; it was moot to the causes of the accident.
 
I agree. Can you imagine if an 8.9 earthquake and tsunami hit a big dam? I wouldn't want to be down-river of that.

Until we find an affordable source of "clean" energy, we need nuclear power.

Naw . . . we will start banning dams and dam like structures. It will be President Bush's fault, and the Tea Party is likely behind trying to hold back the glory of nature with a man made structure.

Windmills and used fry grease will take care of our future energy needs and requirements.

Just remember, you read it here first.

Bob
 
Why not? We need energy, but don't want nuclear, and don't want foreign sources, whats left? If wind/solar was a viable option we would have it already.

Oil and natural gas.
shall i dissect this?
nuclear not "not wanted", but some people are piss scared of it and will change their voting patterns over it
thats all
Wind/Solar are viable - but not really for more than 30-50% of generation



AS far as electricity production, oil doesn't do much... but natural gas COULD do a lot. The cleanest burning fossil fuel, more stable than coal, easier to ship around the country, current coal fired planets can easily be switched over, and we have abundant supply here at home.

So, yeah, drill drill drill, for natural gas at least.
oh dear lord

natural gas IS NOT CLEAN
its cleaner than oil - so? its still a fossil fuel and contributes to AGW
and Europe needs it for cooking!
 
Did you know you can process natural gas from lignite coal? My wife actually works in one of the only two gasification plants in the world.

We're getting on of those (kinda), that uses waste from the near by oil refineries to generate syngas.



shadowninty said:
nuclear not "not wanted", but some people are piss scared of it and will change their voting patterns over it
thats all

sounds like not wanted to me.

shadowninty said:
Wind/Solar are viable - but not really for more than 30-50% of generation

OK, if their viable, people can make money off them... if people can make money off it, why isn't Soros and other liberal billionaires out there putting up wind and solar farms left and right?

shadowninty said:
natural gas IS NOT CLEAN

The cleanEST burning fossil fuel

its cleaner than oil - so?

We don't generate electricity with oil

its still a fossil fuel and contributes to AGW

Oh jeeze....
 
Just curious....

Out of all the people in this thread how many people other than me have studied nuclear power, done actual radiation surveys using radiacs, read radiation dosimeters, done nuclear cooling water sampling, and controlled radioactive material?

Everyone talks like they have first hand experience and know a lot about nuclear power and how unsafe and unclean it is. There are so many misconceptions that people just accept as truth.
 
But rest assured, it is very clean and safe and this is coming from someone who knows first hand!

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obHOBHDNlbs

I am just trying to balance that equation.

It is completely safe from someone that knows, but two major accidents in 30 years, really does not seem to me to be safe. Not as safe as dams for example.

Now if we had 2 major power dam breaks in 30 years I would start to question the safety of those systems.
 
Just curious....

Out of all the people in this thread how many people other than me have studied nuclear power, done actual radiation surveys using radiacs, read radiation dosimeters, done nuclear cooling water sampling, and controlled radioactive material?

Everyone talks like they have first hand experience and know a lot about nuclear power and how unsafe and unclean it is. There are so many misconceptions that people just accept as truth.

Interesting to compare the known deaths from nuclear power in this country and the known deaths from gas, oil, and coal. Thousands from the last three and I think close to zero from nuclear..

Bob
 
Just curious....

Out of all the people in this thread how many people other than me have studied nuclear power, done actual radiation surveys using radiacs, read radiation dosimeters, done nuclear cooling water sampling, and controlled radioactive material?

Everyone talks like they have first hand experience and know a lot about nuclear power and how unsafe and unclean it is. There are so many misconceptions that people just accept as truth.

No experience in the industry, however I've done a good amount of research because I am a proponent of nuke power.
 
and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obHOBHDNlbs

I am just trying to balance that equation.

It is completely safe from someone that knows, but two major accidents in 30 years, really does not seem to me to be safe. Not as safe as dams for example.

Now if we had 2 major power dam breaks in 30 years I would start to question the safety of those systems.

So you claim 3 (I'm including Fukushima here) accidents, only one of which released significant amounts of radiation and you're damning the nuclear power industry over that?

Please tell me how many people have died mining for coal, or digging for natural gas and oil? Nuclear by and large, and when compared to the others has an amazing safety record.
 
Back
Top Bottom