@iceman27406 this is PWR Light water reactor, they are off-loading the core, that is NOT the fuel pool, they are removing fuel from the core using the manipulator crane and transferring it to the spent fuel pit. I am a refueler, i do this for a living. Yes people have fallen into the water, they get contaminated, it is HIGHLY contaminated boron (neutron absorbing) containing water and only highly radioactive if you are close to core components or fuel assemblies.
@junkers1980 Hey thanks, I looked it up, and wow, that's a pretty neat phenomenon. Hard to believe it was predicted by Heaviside so darn long ago, WAY before nuclear fission reactors were even dreamed of! It seems that a good analogy for this behavior is the sonic boom, but instead of sound waves propagating through air, it's electrons propagating through water, and we're seeing photons as the result of the electrons falling back to ground state. It's still a very lovely shade of blue. :)
Not RBMK. Its a light water reactor. RBMK is liquid cooled but graphite is used as a moderator not water. RBMK fuel is loaded through the upper biological shield after removing the fuel channel caps.
The owners of the place i work for are all employed by our local nuclear power plant and the 2 sons do outages and the father does electrical testing and diagnostics at Comanche Peak. They showed me pictures of the top of the reactor and a video on how they refuel it! It is so interesting and they already have a job for me their once i finish my diesel tech school. So excited!
@krazykanadian6 Problem is, you can't control who uses it. Which means irresponsible governments will use it as well and fail horribly. Like Chernobyl in Russia for instance. If you could control who used it, well, that would definitely change my opinion on the subject of whether we should use it or not; Restrict it to nations which can afford to build proper nuclear power plants and have enough discipline/know-how to follow proper safety protocols. Examples of "don'ts": Chernobyl and Fukushima.
@ShamblerDK We all have to learn sometimes. There was potentially very dangerous failure on TMI, caused by wrong US engineers' actions. Soviet engineers decided to test RBMK in irregular mode, and have discovered a very dangerous feature of original RBMK design. Japanese haven't expected earthquake and tsunami to be so big, and then failed to decide quickly enough how to cool down reactor. These disasters will not repeat, 'cause now people know, how to deal with it. It's all about experience.
@no0097 Fukushima was built to withstand quite a large earthquake and, if the quake was too powerful, it had some safety measures that would kick in. Main problem was that every single one of all the safety measures, that should have worked, failed miserably because a lot of safety protocols had one or more breaches that had happened over time; sloppy maintenance and the likes. That, combined with the magnitude of the earthquake, was the reason the Fukushima situation quickly became a disaster.
RBMK are water cooled, but that's beside the point. This looks like the fuel assembly of a Presurrised Water Reactor being evacuated from the reactor vessel to the fuel cooling pool during a scheduled maintenance stop.
Why not? The only problem would be the cost in getting them there. Therefore I propose a supergun, capable of firing capsules of nuclear waste at muzzle escape velocity into the sun. Of course, we might then have a problem of noise pollution xD
I find it distressing when pro-nuclear lobbyists assert that nuclear power is "safe". It isn't. Used nuclear fuel is highly toxic and remains so for over 100,000 years. However slim the risk of an accident, the resulting damage to the environment when an accident does occur is with us forever. Also, it's worth thinking about that there is no failsafe long term solution for the disposal of radiactive waste. You can't just bury it and forget about it.
@JasonJason210 On the other hand, thermoelectric pollutes always, not just when a malfunction occurs. They constantly chuck out mercury and CO into the atmosphere. Contamination from nuclear power has been remarkably low excluding Chernobyl.
Saying that nuclear isn't safe without a full understanding is irresponsible. The fact is that right now there are just a few energy producing options available that work, and fossil fuels are dangerous.
Nuclear power stations still produce high level nuclear waste that is mostly in cool down storage facilities around the world, posing a risk. De-fueling and transportion to those facilities poses a risk. Long term storage solutions require the security of the waste to be assured over geologic time periods. In this uncertain and unstable world, how can we confidently make that assurance?
@JasonJason210 There's no assurance, but we need and use what we have now until there are efficient and safer alternatives. I am well aware of the risks of nuclear power, but what do you propose we use instead? Burning carbon has taken a very considerable toll so far in all aspects, economic, political, and environmental.
It's a shame that nuclear power research has almost stopped to a standstill because of a few accidents that could have been easily avoided, and smeared its benefits forever.
"but what do you propose we use instead?" We need to re-think about how we use energy, and cut it down. Much of this can be achieved without lowering our standard of living. Also we can't just go on expanding the population exponentially. That needs to be addressed too. We need to carry on researching alternative sources of energy - in particular fusion power. Reseacrh should also look at ways of making fission safe, including how we handle its waste.
@JasonJason210 You're only proposing what to do in the future, things that are already being researched, while declaring that nuclear energy should be banned today. That doesn't solve anything.
My question is what are your alternatives now. We have at our disposal thermoelectric, hydroelectric, and nuclear power plants. Banning nuclear would mean leaving entire countries without power, so what do you propose they use instead?
@1971ojoalparche1971 This is the problem with throwing away nuclear power... We just do not have anything technologically yet on paper that can produce the same amount of power.
For those who do not want either type of power plant, the best advice is to go and pull the main fuse, without nuclear power thats the future you will get most likely.
@CMDRSweeper correct. these assholes dont know what the fuck they want. they dont have a clue. you cant say you dont want coal then say you dont want nuculer. the alternative is to stick your finger up your ass.
@zZDeMoNiCBoYZz niet they were orderd by their supervisors to carry out a safety test to see if the plant could sustain itself until backup generators went online chernobyl ran on the electricity it produced and therefore if something failed the water pumps would stop which could lead to a meltdown they wanted to know if the reactor could be kept in check for the 45 seconds it took bor the generators to kick in
@killman369547 It is important to emphasise the governments involvement in that accident. As it may not have occurred had there not been such political pressure to 'show off' and avoid embarrassments. The test was being run by skeleton staff at night. With more staff there and more freedom to follow a safer approach, they likely wouldn't have tried to push ahead with removing rods.
Most probably, this reactor is a Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR). You could tell it by observing following:
1. There is a steel vessel with two big holes used as water inlet or outlet nozzles in PWRs or BWRs (Boiling Water Reactors).
2. The reactor top head is removed and moved behind the moving bridge (it is spotted in the video for a moment at 0:50 timestep), thus the reactor is in shutdown state, so the water inside the vessel is cooled down and pressure is removed.
3. The fuel sets installed close to the surface. The reason is because PWR doesn't contain any steam drainers in the upper section, which are special for BWR (Boiling Water Reactors). The latter has its fuel sets installed much deeper down the vessel under the steam drainers.
4. There are no signs of graphite blocks inside the vessel as in RBMK ;)
@HedgehogStudios1 they are removing fuel rod from the cooling pool to be moved to the reactor with out them being in a storage pool they would all fry in a few seconds from the heat and radiation. but you could go swimming in that water I would not but people have fallen in to the pool before and got tested came back negative for radiation it holds all the radiation from the rods within a few inches of them amazing the power of water.
@croquis24 It's a PWR, which uses light water. Duterium is not "hard water" as you described as hard water is water laden with minerals like calcium and magnesium. Duterium is actually heavy water and isn't used in PWRs or BWRs, but rather is used in PHWRs like AECL's CANDU reactor.
The RBMK is a flawed, horrible, and potentially dangerous reactor design. It uses graphite instead of water to moderate the chain reaction. The graphite cannot be removed like water in the event of an emergency, and if it is exposed to the air, it will catch fire and send tons of radiation into the atmosphere. (and this has happened) Its a bad design that puts cost effectiveness ahead of safety, and I wish to see all RBMK reactors shut down for good.
Nice video. Almost as easy as re-fueling a DeLorean :)
I wish I knew more about nuclear power than I do. All of the plants that ive seen in my part of Texas (north texas Dallas / Ft Worth area) are still using fossil fuels. Not that I'm an eco-hippy or anything I just love technology. too bad i made the mistake of going into the computer field. *sigh*
@hallis1 You should visit Chernobyl. This is an epic reminder what excessive faith in technology leads to. I guess it`s very expensive to go there from US, but it`s really worth the effort. It is absolutely safe, because Chernobyl and the station area are thoroughly deactivated. But it`s better to wear respirator just in case.
The reactor in the movie doesn't look like RBMK, plus we can hear staff speaking English language (RBMK was a Russian project, and those were used only in USSR). So it must be LWR reactor.
Sorry to burst your bubble but on 15 December 2000, then-President Leonid Kuchma personally turned off Reactor 3 in an official ceremony, shutting down the entire site
It is not RBMK or light water. It's heavy water based design is independent of the Soviet RBMK design, although the ability to refuel under power is the same.
That's not an RBMK. An RBMK has pressure channels which contain the fuel elements. As of today, the only working RBMK's can be found in Russia. As already mentioned, this is an LWR reactor.
RBMKs are much larger cores, have graphite moderators with the fuel elements held in pressure tubes (a bit like an inside-out CANDU). The name actually means "channel-type reactor". They do not have a water pool like this; I suspect this is actually a PWR, since it does not appear to be on power.
i sereously doubt its RBMK, they are incredibly unsafe. its the same reactor that was used in chernobyl, and the reactor design was what caused the explosion
@h3xyournightmare yes it is safe, the water protects you from the radiation, you pick up very little dose standing by the reactor cavity during a refuel
@Zhak7 Actually the workers at Nuclear Power Plants are not exposed to much additional radiation than those who do not work at them. However- flying in an airplane causes you to receive about 30-40 times the average amount of radiation you are getting hit with while on the ground. So I would say pilots and passengers are getting much more radiation than Nuclear power plant workers.
Just take a geiger counter with you on an airplane and you will go from 20 CPM to about 300-400 CPM.
@Zhak7 STFU N00B, Nuclear power plants are 100% safe, in the extremely remote chance one could go critical, it is automatically shut down. Plus, you get more radiation on a flight from toronto to vancouver and back than living within 10 kilometers of a nuclear power plant, which i do. Ever heard of the Pickering, Ontario CANDU plant with 8 reactors?
@Zhak7 Dude. When reactors go super critical a control circuit is overloaded, cutting the power to the control rod mechanism (sometimes a powerful electromagnet that keeps a spring compressed) which automatically drives the rods into the reactor core. They basically absorb neutrons and stop the chain reaction. If that happens, guess what? NOTHING. No one is hurt. The system is reset, and back to business.
People that think nuclear reactors are unsafe normally don't know how they work.
@saumaun92 although, at Chernobyl the SCRAM procedure was initiated, but due to the graphite tipped control rods it caused the power to increase rapidly and lead to the explosion rather than stop the reaction.
Just to quote Zhak7, who posted a little earlier on here with this epic: "STFU N00B, Nuclear power plants are 100% safe, in the extremely remote chance one could go critical, it is automatically shut down".
Presumably Zhak7 still believs this and wouldn't mind taking a dip in the sea of the Fukushima coast.
@JasonJason210 Well this isn't exactly a good example of reactor safety, because Japan wasn't completely in compliance with the IAEA regulations. The reactors they were using were retro-fitted nuclear submarine reactors. Considering the massive amount of redundancy failures that were supposed to prevent situations like this, I wouldn't be surprised if an investigation uncovers corner-cutting on their part. Hindsight is 20/20, but once the details are out, people want someone to blame :/
I have a question....I am still paranoid about RBMK's because they were in the Chernobyl accident, have the overheating problems been fixed? Or am I just being a dumb-ass and the reactor type didnt have anything to do with the accident?
@Tabby266 Wikipedia page on it says all other RBMK reactors were fixed to some extent: void coefficient was changed from +4.7 to +0.7, fuel rod problems were fixed, and a few other things... presumably an accident of this magnitude is unlikely to ever occur again, but I still don't like LWR/PWRs. Let's get breeders / thorium(LFTR) / travelling-wave reactors online soon! Molten-salt reactors and pebble-bed reactors would be meltdown-proof.
@Tabby266 RBMK flaws were immediately fixed after Chernobyl incident. But some physical limitations still exist, so that type of reactor is not considered safe now.
Das ist definitiv kein RBMK Reaktor, die Brennstäbe in östlichen Reaktoren sind im Querschnitt rund. Weiters liegt der Reaktorkern nicht unter Wasser. Ausserdem erfolgt der Brennelementwechsel in RBMK und WWER Reaktoren vollautomatisch, eine Brennelementwechselbühne sucht man da vergebens. Im übrigen müssen östliche Reaktoren nicht einmal heruntergefahren werden wenn ein Brennelement gewechselt werden muss. LG Houndeshound
It's CANDU, not RBMK, they are different. RBMK fuel rods are circular, and these are square. Plus, CANDU uses heavy water, whereas RBMK uses normal water and can be refueled without stopping the reaction. Actually, in RBMK reactors there are several exchanges of individual fuel rods each day.
This is either a boiling water reactor or a pressurized water reactor, The round vessel is a dead giveaway, RBMK also the operators would not be speaking english
It is a pressurized water reactor. Boiling reactor fuel has a "can" so that you cannot see the individual rods like you can at 1:38. Also, PWR fuel usually has 15 to 17 fuel rods per side like seen here, vs the 8 to 10 rods per side for BWR fuel.
@JISINSANE you do realize that the way nuclear reactors work is boiling water right?same way all power is made... from coal to uranium, it all works by heating water to steam letting it turn turbines and wala power.
RBMK refuelling is done underwater. On the photos from a guided tour of the Smolensk NPP in Russia (identical to Chernobyl) they do show you the blue glow.
I disagree, the RBMK reactors are cheap reactors that use graphite instead of Heavy or light water as a moderator, they have been known for being very unstable at very low power settings due to a high positive void coefficient, which means that the sensors can be fooled as to how much power is being produced. This is part of what happened at Chernobyl. The graphite produces voids in the reactor where a high concentration of xenon gas absorbs neutrons which can fool the sensors of the reactor.
and i know they are absolutely not as an engineer, due to their very nature. i do believe you don't know what you're talking about. but think what you want dude !
There are currently 11 RBMK reactors in operation only in Russia. No longer in Ukraine and Lithuania. They are an excellent design if operated with proper procedure. Chernobyl was total human error enforced by Russian authority. They have improved much more safety standards since then.
The RBMK reactors are very faulty and unstable, as the incident at Chernobyl proved. There are very few still operating today, all of them in Europe. The ones remaining will eventually be decommissioned and probably disassembled.
This is probably a different reactor design shown in this video. If you listen closely you can hear the workers speaking English. There are no RBMK reactors in English-speaking countries.
Well, it's true, all the RBMKs left are in eastern Europe, so the workers would probably be speaking Russian. But on the other hand since the breakdown of the Soviet Union many internatinal experts have become involved with the old soviet reactors, to prevent a second Chernobyl. These might be foreign experts from English-speaking countries.
However, this is no RBKM, as the procedure takes place under water. Must be a secondary-circuit-water.
I live in Lithuania. Tonight, our last nuclear reactor will be shut down. IT's RMBK-1500. One of the most powerful in the world, and safest of all RMBK reactors. Back in 1995, austrian experts confirmed that our reactor was 100% safe. It's safest of built in former Soviet Union. Reactor here, if modernised, could work for 20-25 years more. But European Union ordered to shut it down. RMBK-1500 is much safer than RMBK-1000, which was built in Chernobyl. So don't say that all RMBKs are unstable :)
That is a great point. The only reason the Chernobyl reactor exploded was because of the people in charge..., not the reactor itself... Thumbs up man.
You are wrong! RBMK reactors are highly dangerous because of their basic function theory. In the 50's a group of scientists (L. Szilard, E. Teller among others) discovered it in the USA. This was called the Teller-effect, a kind of positive feedback.
RBMK Fuel Assembilies are "round" not "Square" and they are bunched up in circular holder spacers spacing them apart a little bit less than an inch or so each. They are not buched so closely since the moderator, another observation, is Solid graphite (really fast moderator) not water (slow moderator so fuel assembilies need to be smaller and closer) with channels only 1 1/2 inches in diameter stainless tubes.
It is not limerick, I have worked at limerick. In fact, this isn't a BWR, it is a PWR, you can tell by fuel rod size and the reactor head that you can see in the background at 00:58
They use both. That was the problem regarding Chernobyl accident. As water turns into steam it still moderates (through graphite) enough neutrons to keep the reaction going. But without the cooling water (which is also a moderator mentioned above) it causes the reactor core to melt.
Technicians are talking in English, so I doubt it may be a Russian RBMK. Fuel element appears to be a 15x15 square section one, like those used on second generation PWR. The shape of the vessel confirms this possibility.
2. radiation from the fuel is sheilded by the water, but still will reach you on the bridge. falling into the water could be life threatning easily. depending on your actual location in the water and the depth that you sink too. the farther you sink the less water that is between you and the radioactive fuel, hence drasticly higher doeses. at a minimum the water is highly contaminated and you would there for become very contaminated. not life threatening, but very unplesant.
in response to many. i work in a nuke plant and have been involved with off load and refueling of our core. 1. yes a RBMK was at all chernobyl units and many other plants in europe. but i do not belive this is and RBMK. it does not look like chernobly but does look like the design of many PWRs.
the RBMK is the type used at chernobyl. tough this looks like a PWR or a boiling water type of reactor. RBMK has a rectangular housing of the core, this is round.
@GtaGekkerd no, 1,2,3 are completely shut down, 4 is blown up, 5 & 6 not finished (and won't be finished). There was RBMK-1500 in Lithuania, but they shut it down at 2010 New Year. Now 3 RBMK-1000 (exactly that model that was in Chernobyl) reactors are working in Smolensk NPP (Russia).
@miragef19 On the 1st of September 1982, there was a small accident (some fuel modules were damaged). It was soon repaired and started again. Shut down on 30th of December 1996. It was standard RBMK-1000 reactor, so google for RBMK-1000 pictures.
@miragef19 search chernobyl nuclear disaster on youtube here there are lots of good documentaries. you have to watch them all as everyone leaves something out.
@miragef19 the reactor was decommissioned in November 1996 after a fire in the turbine hall in 1991, apparently their going to start giving tours soon lol, definitely an interesting place but was a hell of a cock up.
there are things present in the water that cools the reactor which will get activated as it passes through the neutron flux in the reactor. the biggest example is cobalt-59. when it absorbs a neutron it turns into cobalt 60 which an unstable isotope, and wants to decay to a more stable form(releasing energy in the form of radiation). there are more examples which i do not have memorized, but the collective name for all of them is CRUD. primary coolant is radioactive, period.
neutrons emitted from fission are exposed to any and everything in the reactor pressure vessel (this includes water). they rebound all over the place in the core until they either slow down or are absorbed. if they are absorbed in fuel, it may cause fission, which will release fission fragments and more neutrons, repeating the cycle. control rods are made of material that will absorb neutrons readily, so that inserting them will hog all the neutrons, shutting down the chain reaction.
you seem to have read about reactors a little but this is a false statement. when neutrons are slowed down ("thermalized") they are more likely to be absorbed in fuel, possibly causing fission and heat(increasing temperature). as temperature in the water lowers it becomes a better moderator (neutrons slow down by colliding with the H atom in H2O, and they are more dense at cooler temps), which will slow more neutrons.
zirconium prevents fission products from escaping, not radiation. the radiation from the fuel would be mitigated by the water (every 24" makes it 1/10 as severe), but the water surrounding the fuel assemblies(which is there for shielding as much as cooling) is also contaminated. (contamination = the crap, radiation = the stink). i would not want to fall in there, although it would be far from fatal
there is no way this an RBMK. RBMK defuealing happens dry, while the rx is operating.
krellenstein 3 months ago
@iceman27406 this is PWR Light water reactor, they are off-loading the core, that is NOT the fuel pool, they are removing fuel from the core using the manipulator crane and transferring it to the spent fuel pit. I am a refueler, i do this for a living. Yes people have fallen into the water, they get contaminated, it is HIGHLY contaminated boron (neutron absorbing) containing water and only highly radioactive if you are close to core components or fuel assemblies.
@croquis24 it's not deuterium
jplongenecker 4 months ago
I just love that cool blue glow.
SigEpBlue 5 months ago
@SigEpBlue That's called 'cerenkov' radiation
junkers1980 5 months ago
@junkers1980 Hey thanks, I looked it up, and wow, that's a pretty neat phenomenon. Hard to believe it was predicted by Heaviside so darn long ago, WAY before nuclear fission reactors were even dreamed of! It seems that a good analogy for this behavior is the sonic boom, but instead of sound waves propagating through air, it's electrons propagating through water, and we're seeing photons as the result of the electrons falling back to ground state. It's still a very lovely shade of blue. :)
SigEpBlue 3 months ago
Not RBMK. Its a light water reactor. RBMK is liquid cooled but graphite is used as a moderator not water. RBMK fuel is loaded through the upper biological shield after removing the fuel channel caps.
bhm1712 7 months ago
That is not an RMBK since those use cylindrical fuel bundles, whereas PWR and BWR fuel assemblies are rectangular prisms.
musicfreakcc 7 months ago 2
The owners of the place i work for are all employed by our local nuclear power plant and the 2 sons do outages and the father does electrical testing and diagnostics at Comanche Peak. They showed me pictures of the top of the reactor and a video on how they refuel it! It is so interesting and they already have a job for me their once i finish my diesel tech school. So excited!
sexydieseltech 7 months ago
Fuck yeh ! Nuclear power is the only power we should use. Society just needs to harness it's full potential
krazykanadian6 7 months ago 3
@krazykanadian6 Fusion; yes. Fission; no.
Let me rephrase it:
FUCK FISSION FOR ELECTRICAL POWER.
That is all.
sudoLinux666 7 months ago
@krazykanadian6 Problem is, you can't control who uses it. Which means irresponsible governments will use it as well and fail horribly. Like Chernobyl in Russia for instance. If you could control who used it, well, that would definitely change my opinion on the subject of whether we should use it or not; Restrict it to nations which can afford to build proper nuclear power plants and have enough discipline/know-how to follow proper safety protocols. Examples of "don'ts": Chernobyl and Fukushima.
ShamblerDK 6 months ago
@ShamblerDK We all have to learn sometimes. There was potentially very dangerous failure on TMI, caused by wrong US engineers' actions. Soviet engineers decided to test RBMK in irregular mode, and have discovered a very dangerous feature of original RBMK design. Japanese haven't expected earthquake and tsunami to be so big, and then failed to decide quickly enough how to cool down reactor. These disasters will not repeat, 'cause now people know, how to deal with it. It's all about experience.
no0097 5 months ago
@no0097 Fukushima was built to withstand quite a large earthquake and, if the quake was too powerful, it had some safety measures that would kick in. Main problem was that every single one of all the safety measures, that should have worked, failed miserably because a lot of safety protocols had one or more breaches that had happened over time; sloppy maintenance and the likes. That, combined with the magnitude of the earthquake, was the reason the Fukushima situation quickly became a disaster.
ShamblerDK 5 months ago
@krazykanadian6
I sure don't want to harness RBMK... CANDU and LFTR.
HWGuyEG 5 months ago
@HWGuyEG Actually, now it's not so bad, it was modified after '86, and complies modern safety standards.
no0097 5 months ago
RBMK are water cooled, but that's beside the point. This looks like the fuel assembly of a Presurrised Water Reactor being evacuated from the reactor vessel to the fuel cooling pool during a scheduled maintenance stop.
Mewiel 8 months ago
the problem with these videos is that I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK IM LOOKIN AT !!!!!
TheEgg185 8 months ago 11
@TheEgg185 ask away....
JgHaverty 8 months ago
Rbmk are used only in russia i belive.
TitoTyfus 8 months ago
Not an RBMK reactor....... Anyway, RBMKs are used in europe not america.
trucker44100 9 months ago
I can't get over the stupidity in some of these comments....
Scout198575 10 months ago
I think you need to change the title as it is misleading - and annoying.
psyberyeti 10 months ago
You could just chuck the nuclear materials into the sun
MrLandmine59 10 months ago
@MrLandmine59
Why not? The only problem would be the cost in getting them there. Therefore I propose a supergun, capable of firing capsules of nuclear waste at muzzle escape velocity into the sun. Of course, we might then have a problem of noise pollution xD
JasonJason210 10 months ago
I find it distressing when pro-nuclear lobbyists assert that nuclear power is "safe". It isn't. Used nuclear fuel is highly toxic and remains so for over 100,000 years. However slim the risk of an accident, the resulting damage to the environment when an accident does occur is with us forever. Also, it's worth thinking about that there is no failsafe long term solution for the disposal of radiactive waste. You can't just bury it and forget about it.
JasonJason210 10 months ago
@JasonJason210 On the other hand, thermoelectric pollutes always, not just when a malfunction occurs. They constantly chuck out mercury and CO into the atmosphere. Contamination from nuclear power has been remarkably low excluding Chernobyl.
Saying that nuclear isn't safe without a full understanding is irresponsible. The fact is that right now there are just a few energy producing options available that work, and fossil fuels are dangerous.
1971ojoalparche1971 10 months ago
@1971ojoalparche1971
Nuclear power stations still produce high level nuclear waste that is mostly in cool down storage facilities around the world, posing a risk. De-fueling and transportion to those facilities poses a risk. Long term storage solutions require the security of the waste to be assured over geologic time periods. In this uncertain and unstable world, how can we confidently make that assurance?
JasonJason210 10 months ago
@JasonJason210 There's no assurance, but we need and use what we have now until there are efficient and safer alternatives. I am well aware of the risks of nuclear power, but what do you propose we use instead? Burning carbon has taken a very considerable toll so far in all aspects, economic, political, and environmental.
It's a shame that nuclear power research has almost stopped to a standstill because of a few accidents that could have been easily avoided, and smeared its benefits forever.
1971ojoalparche1971 10 months ago
@1971ojoalparche1971
"but what do you propose we use instead?" We need to re-think about how we use energy, and cut it down. Much of this can be achieved without lowering our standard of living. Also we can't just go on expanding the population exponentially. That needs to be addressed too. We need to carry on researching alternative sources of energy - in particular fusion power. Reseacrh should also look at ways of making fission safe, including how we handle its waste.
JasonJason210 10 months ago
@JasonJason210 You're only proposing what to do in the future, things that are already being researched, while declaring that nuclear energy should be banned today. That doesn't solve anything.
My question is what are your alternatives now. We have at our disposal thermoelectric, hydroelectric, and nuclear power plants. Banning nuclear would mean leaving entire countries without power, so what do you propose they use instead?
1971ojoalparche1971 10 months ago
@1971ojoalparche1971 This is the problem with throwing away nuclear power... We just do not have anything technologically yet on paper that can produce the same amount of power.
For those who do not want either type of power plant, the best advice is to go and pull the main fuse, without nuclear power thats the future you will get most likely.
CMDRSweeper 10 months ago
@CMDRSweeper correct. these assholes dont know what the fuck they want. they dont have a clue. you cant say you dont want coal then say you dont want nuculer. the alternative is to stick your finger up your ass.
TheEgg185 8 months ago
This is a PWR. Looks to be a Westinghouse design.
Scout198575 10 months ago
na, that's used fuel from the reactor core, the place u see should be the used fuel pool for water cooling. THat's no clue to be LWR or BWR
Sysiu 10 months ago
@zZDeMoNiCBoYZz niet they were orderd by their supervisors to carry out a safety test to see if the plant could sustain itself until backup generators went online chernobyl ran on the electricity it produced and therefore if something failed the water pumps would stop which could lead to a meltdown they wanted to know if the reactor could be kept in check for the 45 seconds it took bor the generators to kick in
killman369547 11 months ago
@killman369547 It is important to emphasise the governments involvement in that accident. As it may not have occurred had there not been such political pressure to 'show off' and avoid embarrassments. The test was being run by skeleton staff at night. With more staff there and more freedom to follow a safer approach, they likely wouldn't have tried to push ahead with removing rods.
lexichronicle2 11 months ago
The reactor in this video in NOT of a RBMK (РБМК) type, because:
1. RBMK doesn't have a vessel, instead its active zone is mounted directly inside a concrete biological shield.
2. RBMK's top cover is never removed and the reactor itself need not to be shutdown for the refueling purposes.
3. RBMKs are used mainly in post-soviet regions, thus, no way operators speak English ;)
alextee07 11 months ago
Most probably, this reactor is a Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR). You could tell it by observing following:
1. There is a steel vessel with two big holes used as water inlet or outlet nozzles in PWRs or BWRs (Boiling Water Reactors).
2. The reactor top head is removed and moved behind the moving bridge (it is spotted in the video for a moment at 0:50 timestep), thus the reactor is in shutdown state, so the water inside the vessel is cooled down and pressure is removed.
to be continued..
alextee07 11 months ago
continuation of the previous comment
3. The fuel sets installed close to the surface. The reason is because PWR doesn't contain any steam drainers in the upper section, which are special for BWR (Boiling Water Reactors). The latter has its fuel sets installed much deeper down the vessel under the steam drainers.
4. There are no signs of graphite blocks inside the vessel as in RBMK ;)
alextee07 11 months ago
Comment removed
alextee07 11 months ago
Comment removed
alextee07 11 months ago
how deep is the pool??
magnusrulz 11 months ago
That's not an RBMK. No way to tell if that is light or heavy water.
jadedmastermind 11 months ago
this is the start where the nightmare beginns
Kettler48 11 months ago
this is water-cooled, therefore it's not RBMK
HedgehogStudios1 1 year ago
@HedgehogStudios1 RMBK are still water cooled. You mean water moderated
GREENVK 11 months ago
@HedgehogStudios1 RMBK are still water cooled. You mean water moderated. RMBK are graphite moderated
GREENVK 11 months ago
@HedgehogStudios1
RBMK reactors ARE water cooled, just not water MODERATED
railroader1993 11 months ago
@HedgehogStudios1
RBMK reactors ARE water cooled, just not water MODERATED
It's a PWR.
railroader1993 11 months ago
@HedgehogStudios1
RBMK is water cooled as far as I know but the water boils.
TomozukiII 8 months ago
@HedgehogStudios1
That and the fact the operators are speaking english is a dead give-away.
Shiver2002 8 months ago
@HedgehogStudios1
RBMKs are water cooled. Graphite is the moderator not the coolant.
Isus666999 8 months ago
@HedgehogStudios1 they are removing fuel rod from the cooling pool to be moved to the reactor with out them being in a storage pool they would all fry in a few seconds from the heat and radiation. but you could go swimming in that water I would not but people have fallen in to the pool before and got tested came back negative for radiation it holds all the radiation from the rods within a few inches of them amazing the power of water.
iceman27406 6 months ago 8
@iceman27406 its not ordinary water its duterium water (hard water )
if u put regular water in that pool it wood become redioactive
croquis24 4 months ago
@croquis24 It's a PWR, which uses light water. Duterium is not "hard water" as you described as hard water is water laden with minerals like calcium and magnesium. Duterium is actually heavy water and isn't used in PWRs or BWRs, but rather is used in PHWRs like AECL's CANDU reactor.
phillyphil54 3 months ago
Also not RBMK because RBMK use graphite not water as a moderator.
Allante715 1 year ago
i think it would be scary to swim in the water
icon0x1 1 year ago
No RBMK-reactor.
SheFahdschi 1 year ago
The RBMK is a flawed, horrible, and potentially dangerous reactor design. It uses graphite instead of water to moderate the chain reaction. The graphite cannot be removed like water in the event of an emergency, and if it is exposed to the air, it will catch fire and send tons of radiation into the atmosphere. (and this has happened) Its a bad design that puts cost effectiveness ahead of safety, and I wish to see all RBMK reactors shut down for good.
xygomorphic44 1 year ago
@hobatu
It's a new design called MKER.
douro20 1 year ago
Nice video. Almost as easy as re-fueling a DeLorean :)
I wish I knew more about nuclear power than I do. All of the plants that ive seen in my part of Texas (north texas Dallas / Ft Worth area) are still using fossil fuels. Not that I'm an eco-hippy or anything I just love technology. too bad i made the mistake of going into the computer field. *sigh*
hallis1 1 year ago
@hallis1 You should visit Chernobyl. This is an epic reminder what excessive faith in technology leads to. I guess it`s very expensive to go there from US, but it`s really worth the effort. It is absolutely safe, because Chernobyl and the station area are thoroughly deactivated. But it`s better to wear respirator just in case.
tayojniydrug 11 months ago
The reactor in the movie doesn't look like RBMK, plus we can hear staff speaking English language (RBMK was a Russian project, and those were used only in USSR). So it must be LWR reactor.
RadioAnarchia 1 year ago
That's certainly not a grahite-moderated RBMK- where are the pressure tubes?
teijo 1 year ago
I herd American, there was and there is no RMBK in US or even English speaking countries.
HansVonMigel 1 year ago
Sorry to burst your bubble but on 15 December 2000, then-President Leonid Kuchma personally turned off Reactor 3 in an official ceremony, shutting down the entire site
sandman2036 1 year ago
try doing it for the navy
Tyr1001 1 year ago
It is not RBMK or light water. It's heavy water based design is independent of the Soviet RBMK design, although the ability to refuel under power is the same.
mpwelk 1 year ago
@mpwelk Really? I thought most HWR pools were maintained under incredibly high pressure. I'm not saying you're wrong though. I don't know. :)
Lusankya 1 year ago
That's not an RBMK. An RBMK has pressure channels which contain the fuel elements. As of today, the only working RBMK's can be found in Russia. As already mentioned, this is an LWR reactor.
SunnyDchord1 1 year ago
@SunnyDchord1 what is the differance of a rbmk and a lwr reactor???
ramirez2145 1 year ago
Do any employees occasionally stop for a few seconds when it clicks with them just how awesome their lives are for working at a place like this?
Exarian 1 year ago
RBMKs are much larger cores, have graphite moderators with the fuel elements held in pressure tubes (a bit like an inside-out CANDU). The name actually means "channel-type reactor". They do not have a water pool like this; I suspect this is actually a PWR, since it does not appear to be on power.
skonkfactory 1 year ago
i sereously doubt its RBMK, they are incredibly unsafe. its the same reactor that was used in chernobyl, and the reactor design was what caused the explosion
TheRealSergentSiler 1 year ago
is that safe for humans to stay almost nearby? ...
h3xyournightmare 1 year ago
@h3xyournightmare yes it is safe, the water protects you from the radiation, you pick up very little dose standing by the reactor cavity during a refuel
nitromethane73 1 year ago
why have we invented such a dangerous machine?
You want energy? use photovoltaic cells instead of nuclear reactor.
All people who work inside this installation will probably develop cancers because they have been exposed to radiations.
Even a small amount of radiation each day can cause cancer after being exposed many years.
I think I know why these technicians 1:02 love their job, they're well paied tue to high risks of contamination.
Zhak7 1 year ago
@Zhak7 Actually the workers at Nuclear Power Plants are not exposed to much additional radiation than those who do not work at them. However- flying in an airplane causes you to receive about 30-40 times the average amount of radiation you are getting hit with while on the ground. So I would say pilots and passengers are getting much more radiation than Nuclear power plant workers.
Just take a geiger counter with you on an airplane and you will go from 20 CPM to about 300-400 CPM.
mriv2011 1 year ago
@Zhak7 STFU N00B, Nuclear power plants are 100% safe, in the extremely remote chance one could go critical, it is automatically shut down. Plus, you get more radiation on a flight from toronto to vancouver and back than living within 10 kilometers of a nuclear power plant, which i do. Ever heard of the Pickering, Ontario CANDU plant with 8 reactors?
Yazdmich 1 year ago
@Zhak7 Dude. When reactors go super critical a control circuit is overloaded, cutting the power to the control rod mechanism (sometimes a powerful electromagnet that keeps a spring compressed) which automatically drives the rods into the reactor core. They basically absorb neutrons and stop the chain reaction. If that happens, guess what? NOTHING. No one is hurt. The system is reset, and back to business.
People that think nuclear reactors are unsafe normally don't know how they work.
saumaun92 1 year ago
@saumaun92 although, at Chernobyl the SCRAM procedure was initiated, but due to the graphite tipped control rods it caused the power to increase rapidly and lead to the explosion rather than stop the reaction.
bhm1712 11 months ago
Just to quote Zhak7, who posted a little earlier on here with this epic: "STFU N00B, Nuclear power plants are 100% safe, in the extremely remote chance one could go critical, it is automatically shut down".
Presumably Zhak7 still believs this and wouldn't mind taking a dip in the sea of the Fukushima coast.
JasonJason210 10 months ago
@JasonJason210 Well this isn't exactly a good example of reactor safety, because Japan wasn't completely in compliance with the IAEA regulations. The reactors they were using were retro-fitted nuclear submarine reactors. Considering the massive amount of redundancy failures that were supposed to prevent situations like this, I wouldn't be surprised if an investigation uncovers corner-cutting on their part. Hindsight is 20/20, but once the details are out, people want someone to blame :/
saumaun92 10 months ago
There are no RBMK reactors operating in the U.S. Only PWRs and BWRs commercially.
Jpressman8 1 year ago
If this is an RBMK reactor, why is the reactor hall full of Americans?
originalrhombus 1 year ago
this might be a silly question
Are the engineers who appeared in the video subjected to radioactive exposure? does the process of refuelling poses extra danger employees in any way?
aznmasterx 1 year ago
@aznmasterx It looked like they were wearing PPE designed for that. Of course that doesn't mean they're being exposed just at risk.
littlebrother01 1 year ago
I have a question....I am still paranoid about RBMK's because they were in the Chernobyl accident, have the overheating problems been fixed? Or am I just being a dumb-ass and the reactor type didnt have anything to do with the accident?
Tabby266 1 year ago
@Tabby266 Wikipedia page on it says all other RBMK reactors were fixed to some extent: void coefficient was changed from +4.7 to +0.7, fuel rod problems were fixed, and a few other things... presumably an accident of this magnitude is unlikely to ever occur again, but I still don't like LWR/PWRs. Let's get breeders / thorium(LFTR) / travelling-wave reactors online soon! Molten-salt reactors and pebble-bed reactors would be meltdown-proof.
awilliamwest 1 year ago
@Tabby266 RBMK flaws were immediately fixed after Chernobyl incident. But some physical limitations still exist, so that type of reactor is not considered safe now.
gapelle 1 year ago
RMBK z the best reactorz................!!!!
assakzai12 1 year ago
Das ist definitiv kein RBMK Reaktor, die Brennstäbe in östlichen Reaktoren sind im Querschnitt rund. Weiters liegt der Reaktorkern nicht unter Wasser. Ausserdem erfolgt der Brennelementwechsel in RBMK und WWER Reaktoren vollautomatisch, eine Brennelementwechselbühne sucht man da vergebens. Im übrigen müssen östliche Reaktoren nicht einmal heruntergefahren werden wenn ein Brennelement gewechselt werden muss. LG Houndeshound
TheHoundeshound 1 year ago
rbmk are pressure tube reactors
stdavross666 1 year ago
american accents in background...cant be a RBMK unless the yanks are using old cold war era russian technology!!!
stdavross666 1 year ago
It's CANDU, not RBMK, they are different. RBMK fuel rods are circular, and these are square. Plus, CANDU uses heavy water, whereas RBMK uses normal water and can be refueled without stopping the reaction. Actually, in RBMK reactors there are several exchanges of individual fuel rods each day.
bormisha 1 year ago
@bormisha CANDU fuel rods are circular to.
cortana2007 1 year ago
holy shit... cherenkoy light means bad for health :P
that must be a ridiculous amount of radiation coming out of those rods o.O
sciencoking 2 years ago
This is either a boiling water reactor or a pressurized water reactor, The round vessel is a dead giveaway, RBMK also the operators would not be speaking english
JISINSANE 2 years ago 23
Boiling water reactor, the RBMK :-)
Sanders83 2 years ago
a Boiling water reactor is called a BWR.
federalfsx 2 years ago
Abrieviated to BWR, yes, but the RBMK is just another type of BWR, it still uses water boiled in the reactor itself to turn the turbines.
Sanders83 2 years ago
okay, thank you :)
federalfsx 2 years ago
@JISINSANE
It is a pressurized water reactor. Boiling reactor fuel has a "can" so that you cannot see the individual rods like you can at 1:38. Also, PWR fuel usually has 15 to 17 fuel rods per side like seen here, vs the 8 to 10 rods per side for BWR fuel.
mangopenguin13 1 year ago
@JISINSANE you do realize that the way nuclear reactors work is boiling water right?same way all power is made... from coal to uranium, it all works by heating water to steam letting it turn turbines and wala power.
JlkJlk18000 11 months ago
And: RBMK are not operated under a water bassin..
lephisto 2 years ago
Yes, that can´t be right... Must be something else.....
Skyisnotalimit 2 years ago
That pretty much does not look like an RBMK..
Refueling isn't done under water there, also the refueling machin looks totally different..
Also - the ppl speaking english are irritating.
It more looks like a PWR refueling.
lephisto 2 years ago
RBMK refuelling is done underwater. On the photos from a guided tour of the Smolensk NPP in Russia (identical to Chernobyl) they do show you the blue glow.
Sanders83 2 years ago
@Sanders83 the blue light is called Cherenkov radiation... (just for you to know)
sotaros93 2 years ago
Yep, after Pavel Cherenkov. Discovered it in the 30's.
Sanders83 2 years ago
I disagree, the RBMK reactors are cheap reactors that use graphite instead of Heavy or light water as a moderator, they have been known for being very unstable at very low power settings due to a high positive void coefficient, which means that the sensors can be fooled as to how much power is being produced. This is part of what happened at Chernobyl. The graphite produces voids in the reactor where a high concentration of xenon gas absorbs neutrons which can fool the sensors of the reactor.
raven1485 2 years ago
For the Vid, it's LWR...
Rbmk are pretty safe, unless they're used correctly,
PS: Rbmk 1000 at chernobyl's power plant was safe,
The skala system was a failure, the operator failed &
The chernobyl nuclear incident is clearly due to 6 human errors .. anyways.. message me for further informations.
MissSexton 2 years ago
I think Russian rbmk reactors is fully safe, it was stupid idea close power plant in Lithuania, EU union sucks !!!
kesaz 2 years ago
and i know they are absolutely not as an engineer, due to their very nature. i do believe you don't know what you're talking about. but think what you want dude !
ericasw28 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
u know what? u wanna go into chernobyl reactor 4's core? ill drop you in there you nigger
nigahiga6400 2 years ago
There are currently 11 RBMK reactors in operation only in Russia. No longer in Ukraine and Lithuania. They are an excellent design if operated with proper procedure. Chernobyl was total human error enforced by Russian authority. They have improved much more safety standards since then.
mwsc 2 years ago
The RBMK reactors are very faulty and unstable, as the incident at Chernobyl proved. There are very few still operating today, all of them in Europe. The ones remaining will eventually be decommissioned and probably disassembled.
This is probably a different reactor design shown in this video. If you listen closely you can hear the workers speaking English. There are no RBMK reactors in English-speaking countries.
youngdones 2 years ago
the most of the RBMK's would be in France.
stefaan10111992 2 years ago
No, the RBMKs are only in Russian territory, such as Ukrain, Luthiania, Russia, etc.
AppleUploader 2 years ago
Well, it's true, all the RBMKs left are in eastern Europe, so the workers would probably be speaking Russian. But on the other hand since the breakdown of the Soviet Union many internatinal experts have become involved with the old soviet reactors, to prevent a second Chernobyl. These might be foreign experts from English-speaking countries.
However, this is no RBKM, as the procedure takes place under water. Must be a secondary-circuit-water.
Director84 2 years ago
I live in Lithuania. Tonight, our last nuclear reactor will be shut down. IT's RMBK-1500. One of the most powerful in the world, and safest of all RMBK reactors. Back in 1995, austrian experts confirmed that our reactor was 100% safe. It's safest of built in former Soviet Union. Reactor here, if modernised, could work for 20-25 years more. But European Union ordered to shut it down. RMBK-1500 is much safer than RMBK-1000, which was built in Chernobyl. So don't say that all RMBKs are unstable :)
OmonasLT 2 years ago
That is a great point. The only reason the Chernobyl reactor exploded was because of the people in charge..., not the reactor itself... Thumbs up man.
AppleUploader 2 years ago
You are wrong! RBMK reactors are highly dangerous because of their basic function theory. In the 50's a group of scientists (L. Szilard, E. Teller among others) discovered it in the USA. This was called the Teller-effect, a kind of positive feedback.
MrJanosvitez 2 years ago
Whatever you say genius boy..
AppleUploader 2 years ago
It's not RBMK for sure!
I think this is WWER
Katsuk2Je 2 years ago
Why is it that awesome shade of blue?
StreiBullet 2 years ago 3
that shade is because of cerenkov radiation.
junkers1980 2 years ago 11
@junkers1980 You mean nuclear reaction doesn't carry an inherent minty freshness?
littlebrother01 1 year ago
@junkers1980 is the blue thing harmful? i feel like touching it and eating it. it looks so yummy
Dubai0Money 1 year ago
@Dubai0Money I would say, Not a good idea :P!
LordEthan2 1 year ago
@junkers1980
I always wanted to know that :)
I just thought they was shipping water in from the tropics
snedie69er 1 year ago
The radiation is creating a shockwave, just like a sonic boom. Instead of hearing it you see it and in stead of being in air it's under water.
thomasrchavez 2 years ago
Comment removed
DWaves47 2 years ago
@StreiBullet Just search you tube "Particle Physics: Cherenkov Radiation" For some reason I can't post the link.
DWaves47 2 years ago
Comment removed
Exarian 1 year ago
RBMK Fuel Assembilies are "round" not "Square" and they are bunched up in circular holder spacers spacing them apart a little bit less than an inch or so each. They are not buched so closely since the moderator, another observation, is Solid graphite (really fast moderator) not water (slow moderator so fuel assembilies need to be smaller and closer) with channels only 1 1/2 inches in diameter stainless tubes.
ChrisCartaya 2 years ago
It is not limerick, I have worked at limerick. In fact, this isn't a BWR, it is a PWR, you can tell by fuel rod size and the reactor head that you can see in the background at 00:58
ltemup4650 2 years ago
this looks like limerick???
FFmichael109 2 years ago
c est pas un rbmk ton reacteur
majesterlapince 2 years ago
It is not a russian reactor of any kind. It is a western PWR.
TomozukiII 2 years ago
tomozukill is right RBMK reactors dont have a pool of water as moderator they use graphite so its simply a lid with lead bricks above the fuelrods.
pioneerz450 2 years ago
They use both. That was the problem regarding Chernobyl accident. As water turns into steam it still moderates (through graphite) enough neutrons to keep the reaction going. But without the cooling water (which is also a moderator mentioned above) it causes the reactor core to melt.
TomozukiII 2 years ago
how often this this have to happen?
krustikov1 2 years ago
almost once in a year
junkers1980 2 years ago
Usually once a year one third of fuel is replaced.
melkor6666 2 years ago
Technicians are talking in English, so I doubt it may be a Russian RBMK. Fuel element appears to be a 15x15 square section one, like those used on second generation PWR. The shape of the vessel confirms this possibility.
zak1985 2 years ago
Russian reactors... amazing!
VIVEREUNAFAVOLA1987 2 years ago
2. radiation from the fuel is sheilded by the water, but still will reach you on the bridge. falling into the water could be life threatning easily. depending on your actual location in the water and the depth that you sink too. the farther you sink the less water that is between you and the radioactive fuel, hence drasticly higher doeses. at a minimum the water is highly contaminated and you would there for become very contaminated. not life threatening, but very unplesant.
zukee88 2 years ago 2
in response to many. i work in a nuke plant and have been involved with off load and refueling of our core. 1. yes a RBMK was at all chernobyl units and many other plants in europe. but i do not belive this is and RBMK. it does not look like chernobly but does look like the design of many PWRs.
zukee88 2 years ago
It is not RBMK
DSRussiaPS 2 years ago
Isn't the RBMK reactor the kind that exploded at Chernobyl?
youngdones 2 years ago 13
@youngdones Yes, the RBMK reactors have a problem with heating up quickly
Tabby266 1 year ago
the RBMK is the type used at chernobyl. tough this looks like a PWR or a boiling water type of reactor. RBMK has a rectangular housing of the core, this is round.
bender0502 1 year ago
@youngdones Yes. Chernobyl was a cluster of RBMK-1000 reactors.
skonkfactory 1 year ago
@youngdones yup yup
FrankCashio 1 year ago
@youngdones Yeah Chernobyl got an RMBK there are now 2 still working in the plant 4 is blowed up 3 is closed and 1 and 2 are working to making power
GtaGekkerd 1 year ago
@GtaGekkerd no, 1,2,3 are completely shut down, 4 is blown up, 5 & 6 not finished (and won't be finished). There was RBMK-1500 in Lithuania, but they shut it down at 2010 New Year. Now 3 RBMK-1000 (exactly that model that was in Chernobyl) reactors are working in Smolensk NPP (Russia).
RadioAnarchia 1 year ago
@RadioAnarchia i want to know what happend to reactor 1 of chernobyl i cant find any pictures tho
miragef19 1 year ago
@miragef19 On the 1st of September 1982, there was a small accident (some fuel modules were damaged). It was soon repaired and started again. Shut down on 30th of December 1996. It was standard RBMK-1000 reactor, so google for RBMK-1000 pictures.
RadioAnarchia 1 year ago
@miragef19 search chernobyl nuclear disaster on youtube here there are lots of good documentaries. you have to watch them all as everyone leaves something out.
swinzey 1 year ago
@swinzey man i watched all of em tell me if i missed one ;)
miragef19 1 year ago
@miragef19 the reactor was decommissioned in November 1996 after a fire in the turbine hall in 1991, apparently their going to start giving tours soon lol, definitely an interesting place but was a hell of a cock up.
tead20 1 year ago
there are things present in the water that cools the reactor which will get activated as it passes through the neutron flux in the reactor. the biggest example is cobalt-59. when it absorbs a neutron it turns into cobalt 60 which an unstable isotope, and wants to decay to a more stable form(releasing energy in the form of radiation). there are more examples which i do not have memorized, but the collective name for all of them is CRUD. primary coolant is radioactive, period.
dopestry 2 years ago
neutrons emitted from fission are exposed to any and everything in the reactor pressure vessel (this includes water). they rebound all over the place in the core until they either slow down or are absorbed. if they are absorbed in fuel, it may cause fission, which will release fission fragments and more neutrons, repeating the cycle. control rods are made of material that will absorb neutrons readily, so that inserting them will hog all the neutrons, shutting down the chain reaction.
dopestry 2 years ago
you seem to have read about reactors a little but this is a false statement. when neutrons are slowed down ("thermalized") they are more likely to be absorbed in fuel, possibly causing fission and heat(increasing temperature). as temperature in the water lowers it becomes a better moderator (neutrons slow down by colliding with the H atom in H2O, and they are more dense at cooler temps), which will slow more neutrons.
dopestry 2 years ago 2
zirconium prevents fission products from escaping, not radiation. the radiation from the fuel would be mitigated by the water (every 24" makes it 1/10 as severe), but the water surrounding the fuel assemblies(which is there for shielding as much as cooling) is also contaminated. (contamination = the crap, radiation = the stink). i would not want to fall in there, although it would be far from fatal
dopestry 2 years ago
taking a swim in heavy water, not my idea of a fun day.
Dragonx0562 2 years ago
definitely LWR, rbmk has fuel canals
Orzeszekk 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Can someone remind me why do we produce nuclear energy? I kinda forgot it
diablecita 2 years ago