Chernobyl containment structure complete. - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 02, 2016, 08:15:02 pm
content: Apparently the largest ever land-based movable structure. Pretty impressive engineering achievement.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 02, 2016, 08:22:49 pm
content: Hopefully it lasts longer than the last attempt.

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 02, 2016, 08:28:11 pm
content: Job well done. It's good they finally got that over the building and completed.

author: M4trix
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 02, 2016, 09:37:11 pm
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on December 02, 2016, 08:22:49 pmThe construction will last approx. 100 years. The Chernobyl's 'Elephant foot' (melted plutonium) has a half-life of 24,000 years which meanscomparing to a humans life... is eternity. Probably the homosapiens will extinct before the radiation comes down to safe levels. Besides, duringthose 24,000 years, they will have to rebuild this sarcophagus 245 times. Bravo for human stupidity !

author: rob77
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 02, 2016, 10:05:44 pm
content: Quote from: M4trix on December 02, 2016, 09:37:11 pmif you call doing the best we can stupidity, then you must be thinking you're the smartest person in known universe and well beyond....

author: sleemanj
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 02, 2016, 10:21:53 pm
content: Quote from: rob77 on December 02, 2016, 10:05:44 pmI expect that M4trix was referring not to the engineering of the new sarcophagus, or the old sarcophagus, or the bravery and sacrifice of the original clean up and containment crew, but instead of the people at the root of this whole catastrophe, be they politician, technician, or engineer.Regardless of your view of the cause some people cocked up that bit of the planet for thousands of years.

author: rob77
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 02, 2016, 10:37:36 pm
content: Quote from: sleemanj on December 02, 2016, 10:21:53 pmfully agree with you. and unfortunately such a stupidity is still present.. back in the time of chernobyl it was stupid political pressure , nowadays it's "financial pressure" all over the world, because the greedy bastards want more and more profit and they don't give a shit about impact... if nothing changes in near future, then humanity will wipe itself out.

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 02, 2016, 11:22:06 pm
content: Quote from: rob77 on December 02, 2016, 10:37:36 pmAhh, the capitalist manifesto.

author: NurdRage
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: December 02, 2016, 11:39:08 pm
content: Quote from: M4trix on December 02, 2016, 09:37:11 pmActually the whole point of the structure is to allow them to safely dismantle the reactor and properly separate and package all the waste for shipment off-site to permanent storage. 100 years is sufficient for this task and the structure itself will no longer be needed at all. It too will be dismantled at some point in the future. There will be no need to rebuild.But hey, if starting on a permanent solution is "stupid" then i have no idea what you think was supposed to be done.

author: M4trix
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 02, 2016, 11:45:31 pm
content: Quote from: sleemanj on December 02, 2016, 10:21:53 pm+1Sorry for misunderstanding me guys. Like sleemanj said, I was talking about the stupidity of those who caused the catastrophe. Heck, I never mentionedthe engineers who built the new sarcophagus and especially those people who lost their lives ! Am I writing English that bad ? Why so much hate ?

author: rob77
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 03, 2016, 12:02:11 am
content: Quote from: M4trix on December 02, 2016, 11:45:31 pmmy apologies for misunderstanding you. i got an impression you're referring to the fact it has to be rebuilt 245 times, but i was wrong. and actually i'm happy i was wrong

author: M4trix
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 03, 2016, 12:06:47 am
content: Next time I will be more specific.

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 03, 2016, 03:21:42 am
content: Relevant:http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/brave-hero-chernobyl-nikolay-timofeyevich-antoshkin/ri17953Other thoughts:http://everist.org/Fukushima/20120430_Message_of_Fuku3.htmhttp://www.everist.org/archives/links/__Chernobyl_woodpecker_article.txthttp://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-russian-woodpecker-2015

author: AntiProtonBoy
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 03, 2016, 09:30:38 am
content: Quote from: M4trix on December 02, 2016, 09:37:11 pmIt's mostly slag, containing quite a bit of debris, such as molten concrete. Approx 30% of that is actual core melt. But it's not plutonium. They used zirconium-uranium-oxide fuel cells.

author: Kleinstein
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 03, 2016, 11:20:49 am
content: The good thing about the Chernobyl reactor is that is was quite new when it blew up - could have been worse if the core had been older (but the new fuel also contributed to the accident to happen at all). The radiation from the long lived plutonium and uranium and other long lived isotopes is not that bad, the longer the live the lower the radiation. So Pu with its 25000 years decay time is only about 1/1000 as strong as the same amount of material with a 25 years decay time. Due a following decay chain and the rather high energy per decay of Pu there can be a little more radiation per Pu atom by maybe a factor of 10 compared to fission products. Still the Pu is not such a strong radiation source - with relatively new fuel elements there is also only a relatively small amount of Pu. Things are worse at Fukushima in this respect.Currently (and the next 100s or years) the critical isotopes are still caesium and strontium isotopes, that decay to half in about 30 years. So in 100 Years the radiation is down by a factor of about 8 from today. Already now the radiation is considerably lower than initially, as the short lived isotopes are down a lot. So it absolutely makes sense to wait with a final disposal for some time - not 20000 years but maybe another 20 years.For now the main function of the new structure is to keep dust in and thus avoid further emissions.

author: VK3DRB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 03, 2016, 12:19:30 pm
content: Quote from: M4trix on December 02, 2016, 09:37:11 pm245 times and each one bigger to encapsulate the old one unless a new technology is created to clean up the mess. 24,000 years is thehalf lifeof the plutonium. It is still lethal long after. This sarcophagus has only bought the former Soviet knuckleheads time to try to come up with a better solution within the next 100 years or so. Concrete decays at a fast rate when bombarded with radioactivity. In 5,000 years people might just forget what lies at Chernobyl.If you want to see human stupidity demostrated, the movie "Fail Safe" (1963) is worth seeing. It is quite feasible, even today. Especially with Trump having absolute, unquestioned power to launch a nuke within THREE MINUTES of him making the decision. If Trump ever decides to "press the button", the only thing that can stop him is mutiny. Having that sort of power at the hands of someone who is psychologically unstable like Trump is extremely dangerous. Trump will have an aid near him at all times who can assist him in carrying out an order to have nuclear missiles launched. By the way, President does not have a physical button, but a well defined process in which to launch a nuclear attack.These nine irresponsible countries are not going to give up their nukes without a fight...http://www.icanw.org/the-facts/nuclear-arsenals/

author: rob77
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 03, 2016, 12:43:44 pm
content: Quote from: Kleinstein on December 03, 2016, 11:20:49 amactually the fact the reactor was new design was one of the triggers.... it was a new reactor design without well defined boundaries.. and they happen to cross one of the unknowns... had it be the VVER reactor design, it would never happen...but it was pretty common back in the days a experimental reactor was built and tested or oven put into production... there is nothing wrong with that approach (how else would you test 100s of megawatts energy production... right ?), the problem were the security standards and political pressure. they should have shut down the bloody thing at the first sight of problems, and not continue being afraid of getting punished for not finishing the test on the reactor.i live near a nuclear power-plant - there used to be an experimental reactor as well (but new blocks of the power plant were built with VVER reactors in late 70's) - but after few close calls on that experimental one (they were not talking publicly about close calls back in those times) the block with that experimental reactor was shut down and decommissioned.

author: Kleinstein
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 03, 2016, 01:41:23 pm
content: The reactor in Chernobyl was not an experimental one or a very new type. It was just new build and thus with new fuel and they had to do some safety tests on it - that went really wrong due to human errors and a poor design. The new and thus rather reactive fuel allowed the controllers to make the big mistake. The type of reactor is rather unsafe too - but some of those are still in operation in Russia, though with some improvements but still the major weak points.Doing a similar experiment and violating safety regulation in a similar manor could also cause a disaster with other reactors (like VVER or western types) - though maybe not that bad and not that easy.It was not the first (or last) major accident in an nuclear power plant - they had some before in England and the US (Three mile island and a small prototype in the 1950s). So other types of reactors can fail too, even if they have fewer principle problems.

author: dmills
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 03, 2016, 02:13:18 pm
content: The RMBK was an 'interesting' design, graphite moderated, water cooled, with a large positive void coefficient, what could possibly go wrong?Add to that extremely slow control rod response due to closely fitting water filled tubes that the rods traveled in, and a climate in which reporting the operational problems was politically impossible and it was not so much a case of if they would have a power excursion, but when.The reason the thing was designed that way was to allow it to run on very slightly enriched uranium (But the direct water cooling was still an 'interesting' decision) and to make it a good machine for the production of Pu (There are isotopic issues if you leave Pu in the reactor for too long if you are tying for weapons grade stuff, so being able to refuel without shutting down is helpful).Sub critical masses of Pu (Or U) are toxic heavy metals and that is a FAR bigger issues then the radiation from those materials, Sr90 is both hot, medium half life, and in the same group of the periodic table as Calcium which has unfortunate consequences for anything with bones.The RMBK was a 1970's design, and there are quite a few out there, some still in service (They modified a few things after the accident).The UK dodged a bullet at Calder Hall, those filters that saved the north of the country were a late addition by a very paranoid designer, it was a graphite moderated AIR cooled reactor strictly for Pu production, and yea, hot carbon plus air, the core caught fire.Regards, Dan.

author: rob77
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 03, 2016, 02:23:07 pm
content: Quote from: Kleinstein on December 03, 2016, 01:41:23 pmok agree, it wasn't literally experimental , but it was the RBMK graphite moderated design which was not widely used... and it was a type designed to be simple and operated with natural uranium... the low amount of reactors in service means it wasn't the industry standard. and the Chernobyl disaster is the proof it's operation wasn't fully understood either. (instabilities at low power, negative effect of moderating rods under some specific conditions...) currently there are only 11 nuclear power plant blocks with active RBMK reactor design (Russia and former USSR countries). the VVER was the industry standard back then and the many installations (still active) in aprox 18 countries is the proof. and actually the VVER design meets today's safety standards (with modernized control systems of course).

author: Towger
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 03, 2016, 07:47:53 pm
content: A couple of weeks ago the new president of the Philippines announced he wants to fuel their 40 year old mothballed nuclear power plant, which was never used. Now that's a potential disaster in the making. I can only assume they would build a new modern reactor and use the existing turbines and generators...https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataan_Nuclear_Power_Plant

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 03, 2016, 10:42:04 pm
content: Quote from: VK3DRB on December 03, 2016, 12:19:30 pmActually, the shield structure is a rather clever design. It's on rails, specifically so they can build new sections and slide them over the reactor as anything goes wrong with the existing structure. It's designed to allow continual incremental replacement.Given the state of the Ukraine government, I'm surprised this quite massive engineering project was ever finished at all.Don't take this as me supporting the use of nuclear fission power reactors, to which I'm strongly opposed.QuoteSigh. You should watch less CNN. It's sad to see how effective the anti-Trump demonization propaganda has been with some, and the resulting hysteria. This "Trump will start nuclear WWIII" stuff is particularly ironic, given his opponent's publicly stated intention to go to war with Iran, and the present War Party's incessant efforts to grind down/provoke Russia and foment 'regime change' in many countries. Not to mention the whole ISIS/Syria fake puppet show, and what many (myself included) deduce from putting together Hillary's past behavior patterns, her definitely grave health problems, and who is supporting her bid for the presidency. Do you know anything at all about Soros, his past, what he does and what he wants?You might also google 'Clinton body count'. That getting boosted from dozens (if you don't count recent wars, or hundreds of thousands if you do) to billions seems a realistic risk.Also google 'trump ends regime change'. Ah, but I suppose since you claim he's unstable, his intentions to _end_ US global warmongering won't mean anything. Except bad news for certain groups. Sure that's not why you are upset?http://everist.org/archives/links/__Hillary_info.txt __Clintons_links.txt __Trump_info.txtQuote from: Towger on December 03, 2016, 07:47:53 pmOh great.

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 04, 2016, 02:43:02 am
content: Quote from: TerraHertz on December 03, 2016, 10:42:04 pmAh crap, political discussion.It think we can all agree that Donald Trump is an orange bag of bolts, and Hillary Clinton is a white bag of bolts.There hasn't been a single politician that has done everything right in the history of human nature, and there never will be. All governments are flawed, it's only a matter of how and how much, and until we all band together, though bigotry and social differences, a process to never happen, we will all quarrel over useless arguments just because one person doesn't like another person for some innumerably tiny thing that they've been taught to hate for no good reason.I think through whatever crap the Soviet Union did in it's bold attempt at a utopian society, ultimately ruined by idiots who took the hammer and sickle so close to heart it pierced through and came out the other side, we can be glad the problem not solvable by applying blame is now one step closer to becoming something of the past we don't need to worry about anymore. Amen.

author: VK3DRB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 04, 2016, 02:48:39 am
content: Quote from: TerraHertz on December 03, 2016, 10:42:04 pmWhat CNN? We only watch CNNNN here.Actually it is ANY President of the USA who has the absolute power to launch nuclear weapons that cannot even be vetoed by the Secretary of Defence. Trump will soon be in the driver's seat. And he is unstable. He changed his tune on getting Hillary jailed. He changed his tune on building a wall to keep the Mexicans out and getting Mexico to pay for it.Miraculously, he "changed" just after he won the election. I heard him. He is a liar. He is full of. andsells. Politicians should be made accountable for their election promises. If they lie to get elected, they should be disqualified from serving.Can you imagine trump taking the place of JKF during the Cuban missile crisis?.

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 04, 2016, 02:59:57 am
content: Quote from: VK3DRB on December 04, 2016, 02:48:39 amIf we held every politician to consequences for what they promise during their campaign, we would have to retrospectively punish every single president we've ever had. Not even Honest Abe would be safe.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 04, 2016, 03:01:41 am
content: Quote from: VK3DRB on December 03, 2016, 12:19:30 pmYou really want to get educated about this sort of science before making such sweeping statements. The new safe confinement:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_New_Safe_ConfinementIts an enormous building not to only contain the existing structures but to allow them to be dismantled and decontaminated without further releases of radioactive material. This is a well planned and long term approach allowing the site to be gradually reduced in scope, not building a series of matryoshka dolls as you suggest.The isotopes released and those retained in the reactor are well known and extensively researched:http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1239_web.pdf(pg 19)The short lived beta and gamma emitters have largely decayed and as mentioned above the largest dose at the moment is from caesium and strontium, and as those decay over the next decade or so the biggest threat will become the (relatively) short lived alpha emitter Cm244 which is only a threat through contamination if you are on site or taking up material through the foodchain. Only a tiny fraction of activity has been released as Plutonium, and being a long lived isotope means the exposure/dose it can present to people is a further tiny fraction again. The radiation at the site is already low enough to live there:http://chernobylgallery.com/chernobyl-disaster/radiation-levels/And if they made an effort to identity and dispose of (bury) the easily identifiable hot spots and contaminated material (as they have done in Fukushima) then the area would have lower background radiation than other natural places on earth where people live without problems:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation#Areas_with_high_natural_background_radiationSo the natural processes of decay have already happened and now the focus is on isolating and storing the dangerous long lived material, but its danger is not through exposure but contamination.If you want to get all technical about it, the releases from intentional testing of nuclear weapons dwarfs all accidents from civilian uses:http://www.nuclear-risks.org/en/hibakusha-worldwide/nevada-test-site.htmlThink about that for a while. Nuclear power has always been more about politics than anything else, and its never going to change. The entire industry was built on military demand for weapons grade materiel and the investments to pivot to higher burn up or other isotopes with lower waste activity wont come as they don't have a military use.

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 04, 2016, 04:43:34 am
content: Quote from: VK3DRB on December 03, 2016, 12:19:30 pmIn terms of stability assessments, looking in the mirror may help.Quote from: VK3DRB on May 29, 2015, 11:18:39 am

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 04, 2016, 06:34:39 am
content: Quote from: Kleinstein on December 03, 2016, 11:20:49 amIt is interesting that the media play up the time element - but ignore the fact that the quantity of radiation emitted is inversely proportional to time. Take a kilogram of something that has a half life of, say, a million years and sit that next a kilogram of something with a half life of one year.Consider that each of them loses half a kilo.The first one has a million years to do this - so it's not going to overly intense.The second one only has one year to do this ........ !!

author: VK3DRB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 04, 2016, 07:16:18 am
content: Quote from: Bud on December 04, 2016, 04:43:34 amIt was a quote from "Dark Side of the Moon". You probably have never heard of it, despite it being one of the biggest selling record albums in history. I suspect most Justin Bieber fans would not have heard of Dark Side.Dark Side was a technical and creative masterpiece for its time.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Side_of_the_Moon