ET Stays On The Reactor Case... | 361 comments (361 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: ET Stays On The Reactor Case... (4.00 / 2)

That's all we would need: heat exchange.

Nope. Both in the reactors and the spent fuel pools, the problem was loss of water level which uncovered the fuel rods, so that they were 'cooled' by steam only. Heat exchange won't increase the water level.

There must be ways to "take a way the heat" however indirectly.

If taking the coolant to the reactors resp. the spent fuel pools was difficult, taking the pool water out and back in a closed circuit is even more difficult.

A reasonable way (as it looks to me now) was to bring a tanker (or other big ship) with refrigerating capacity close to the plant, serve helicopters from there, and provide supplies by sea

Refrigerating capacity? I don't follow you there, unless this is still the ice idea. At any rate, my idea of a reasonable way thought up too late is the US offer of barges with freshwater. Then again, that's in hindsight, because pressing time made seawater injection the only fast option when the steam pumps failed, and it wasn't obvious at the time that other systems won't be restored for weeks.

Regarding Chernobyl and liquid nitrogen, I have trouble trusting those sources. The first is speaking about application of nitrogen after the helicopters put out the fire, via pipes – what pipes? The second source is Wikipedia and unsourced. The third source is again unsourced student material. Meanwhile, the best I can find in any of the technical descriptions of the accident in authoritative sources is:

Chernobyl Appendix 1: Sequence of Events

A system was installed by 5 May to feed cold nitrogen to the reactor space, to provide cooling and to blanket against oxygen.

This is different from ground freezing, and the apparent origin of the unsourced claims. However, it is not about nitrogen in liquid form, and depleting the fire of oxygen is among the objectives (nitrogen is used for the same by reactor core safety systems). Also, it's unclear whether the system was actually used. I note the same info is in this contemporary New Scientist article, but it erroneously claims that the heat exchanger was taken into use.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Wed Mar 30th, 2011 at 05:28:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ET Stays On The Reactor Case... (4.00 / 2)

So you mean, water is not only coolant but a moderator as well? Then disappearing water is indeed bad. But to keep it from boiling away fast, any cooling measures can be considered.

I wonder how accessible were the spent fuel pools. How would they normally add water, or handle the rods? What manipulations they could have possibly done with them in the initial stages?

I checked Russian pages and they mention liquid nitrogen (жидкий азот) as well, though the quality of sources is very variable. The measure is criticized, as it only added a radioactive cloud for Belarus. Here is apparently "Tape No 5" of Valery Legasov speaking (taken by Russian legal investigators, they claim), in Google-assited translation:

Вот в отношении азота. Тут много путаницы в международной прессе, что там ВЕЛИХОВ где-то 26 по крышам там чёто такое измерял, например, Евгений Павлович, а он в то время пил водку у себя на даче 26-го и ни о чём не знал. (слова Адамовича А.: "А 26-го его не было?") Не было его там. Да, не было. По азоту. (это в СИЛАЕВСКИЙ период, когда СИЛАЕВ уже приехал) Это я предложил подать жидкий азот для охлаждения. Это моё предложение было глупым, как практика показала.		So regarding nitrogen. There is much confusion in the international press that VELIKHOV around 26th had measured something on roofs, for example, E.P., but actually he was drinking vodka on his dacha on the 26th and knew nothing. ([Interviewer: "He was not there on the 26th?") He was not there. Right, he was not. On nitrogen. (This is on SILAEVSKY period, when he had already arrived.) It was my suggestion to submit the liquid nitrogen for cooling. This my suggestion was stupid, as experience has shown.
Но я исходил из чего? Я думал, что шахта реактора является цельной. Понимаете? И тогда если к воздуху подмешивать жидкий азот (а нам его очень быстро, я должен сказать, целый эшелон азота пригнали) и, значит, холодным воздухом мы будем интенсивнее охлаждать горячую зону. Но потом оказалось, что боковые стены реактора разрушены. Поэтому весь азот который (а мы нашли место куда его подавать) мы подавали он выходил наружу мимо зоны, ничего не охлаждал, а естественная циркуляция воздуха была такой мощной, что этот азот, как капля в море, как говориться.		But what did I assume? I thought that the reactor pit is intact. You see? If you dash liquid nitrogen to the air (and they delivered it to us very fast, I must say, a train of nitrogen) then with the cold air we cool the hot zone more intensively. But it turned out that the side walls of the reactor were damaged. Therefore all the nitrogen (as we found the place to feed it) were served went outside of the zone, cooling nothing, and the natural circulation of air was so powerful that this nitrogen passed as a drop in the sea, as they say.
Поэтому мы очень быстро от этого мероприятия отказались. И вот в докладе когда я в Вену готовился (нам правда в ЦК и вычеркнули эту фразу, но она была в исходном варианте), что среди неэффективных мероприятий было мероприятие по задувке жидкого азота.		Therefore we very quickly rejected this measure. And in the report that I was preparing for Vienna (actually, the Central Committee told us to struck out the phrase, but it was in the original version) that among the inefficient measures was blowing liquid nitrogen.

by das monde on Wed Mar 30th, 2011 at 07:16:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ET Stays On The Reactor Case... (none / 1)

das monde:

So you mean, water is not only coolant but a moderator as well? Then disappearing water is indeed bad. But to keep it from boiling away fast, any cooling measures can be considered.

Water is a moderator but not a neutron absorber.

In nuclear engineering, a neutron moderator is a medium that reduces the speed of fast neutrons, thereby turning them into thermal neutrons capable of sustaining a nuclear chain reaction involving uranium-235.

So if water boils off the chain reaction slows down. However, you get more energetic neutrons radiating away from the fuel elements.

So, in what may be my last act of "advising", I'll advise you to cut the jargon. -- My old PhD advisor, to me, 26/2/11

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Mar 30th, 2011 at 08:14:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ET Stays On The Reactor Case... (4.00 / 2)

So you mean, water is not only coolant but a moderator as well?

No, I mean it can cool only as long as it is in touch with the surface of the rods.

I wonder how accessible were the spent fuel pools.

After the explosions, not at all: that's hy they first tried helicopters, then water cannons, then fire trucks with telescopic arms, finally a concrete pump.

The measure is criticized, as it only added a radioactive cloud for Belarus.

Can you cite that source? The one you quoted is very interesting, though one crucial point is unclear: whether they actually used it or not. That is, is "Therefore we very quickly rejected this measure." a precise translation and the past tense in the paragraph before erroneous, or would "Therefore we very quickly abandoned this measure." be more correct?

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Wed Mar 30th, 2011 at 08:22:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ET Stays On The Reactor Case... (none / 0)

A short Google search shows that "отказались" is indeed translated as "abandoned", too, among others.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Wed Mar 30th, 2011 at 08:36:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ET Stays On The Reactor Case... (none / 1)

I would generally translate as "rejected" more frequently. But in the later part of the excerpt he does say that they tried. The translation

Therefore all the nitrogen ... were served went outside of the zone

should be

Therefore all the nitrogen ... we served went outside of the zone

by das monde on Wed Mar 30th, 2011 at 09:18:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ET Stays On The Reactor Case... (4.00 / 2)

Note BTW: the details confirm that they wanted to use nitrogen in its evaporated form (spray the liquid into the air), which would not be applicable to Fukushima's open-air spent fuel pool problem. It would have have been applicable in the case of the water loss in the reactor cores problem, but the spraying within the high-pressure interior of the core would have been a technical problem to solve, and one to do quickly – seawater was faster.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Wed Mar 30th, 2011 at 08:30:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

ET Stays On The Reactor Case... | 361 comments (361 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Top Diaries

Trmp and Energy Reality

No More Equality Under the Law, the End of Isonomy in...

Generating a toxic discourse that's not really about ARINS

Energy (and Other) Events Monthly - May 2025

Recent Diaries

America Supports Nakba 2, Transport to Hell

Trmp and Energy Reality

Preaching Policy Contra Russia @Atlantic Council

Arab Side Letter :: Solve the Gaza Crisis Now

Ukraine Not Invited to June NATO Summit

Stop Bloodshed, Invest In Peace

Trump: Sanctions Are Self Defeating

City Agriculture - May 13, 2025

Major Shift Powers in Mena - West Asia

China Trade Deal: Repair 4 Years of Biden Neglect

Trump: Zelensky Should Agree to Direct Talks w Putin

IDF Sniper Murderer of Shireen Abu Akleh Named

Rift Trump w Netanyahu Deepens

MAGA Freaked Out on Election Leo XIV

A Deal of the Century In the Making .. Again

Israel Aims a Political Ban on Dutch Institutions

Nakim Terror: Taking the Holocaust to Palestinians

PMQ House of Commons and Israeli War Crimes

Bill Bradley on Russia and NATO

Friedrich Merz Humiliated In 1st Vote

Occasional Series