Fears over Bulgarian nuclear boom

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

[R_H]
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2894
Joined: 2007-08-24 08:51am
Location: Europe

Fears over Bulgarian nuclear boom

Post by [R_H] »

BBC
Two safety scares in June at nuclear plants in Slovenia and the Czech Republic have led to renewed calls for Europe to abandon nuclear power. But with energy prices soaring, the nuclear sector is actually on the rise.

The EU already has the highest number of nuclear plants in the world and Bulgaria is leading those member states determined to increase their nuclear dependence.

Nestling in the heart of the countryside, not far from the Danube, the Kozloduy nuclear plant powers Bulgaria's economy.

Over one third of the country's electricity comes from this sprawling showcase of Soviet design, which started operating in 1974.

In the vast turbine hall at Kozloduy's Unit Six, the noise is deafening and the temperature reaches 40 degrees.

A small Bulgarian tricolour stands on top of a machine and not just because the plant has become a symbol of national pride.

"We had some technical problems with the unit at first," an engineer explains, "so we thought the flag would bring luck and prevent future malfunctioning."

For extra cover, on either side of the flag, someone hand-painted two protective blue eyes.

It is an odd mix of superstition and high technology, but Bulgaria feels it needs all the help it can get.

Plant among poppies

Units Five and Six, the most modern at Kozloduy, are the only ones still buzzing with energy.

Amid safety concerns about communist-era reactors, the other four were shut down as a price for Bulgaria's EU membership.

Two closed just minutes before the country joined the EU on 1 January 2007.

"It felt like losing family members in their prime," sighs deputy executive director Kiril Nikolov.

The EU is paying over $800m (500m euros) in compensation, but Mr Nikolov - backed by Bulgaria's top politicians - says that is not enough.

"The compensation from the EU can hardly cover our losses," Mr Nikolov complains.

"It would be better if we could re-open two units. That would improve the energy balance for the whole Balkan region and help us become self-reliant."

To offset the loss of production at Kozloduy and regain its position as a major electricity exporter to the rest of the Balkans, Bulgaria has revived plans for a second nuclear power plant at Belene.

The site is three hours' drive from Kozloduy, in a field of poppies and wild bushes enclosed by a barbed wire fence.

Five tall yellow cranes stick out from among rusting containers and a ruined concrete structure.

Potential, not problem

Work on the Belene nuclear plant started in 1981, but was abandoned for lack of money.

In January, the project got a new lease of life when Bulgaria signed a contract worth $5.8 billion with a company controlled by the Russian energy giant Gazprom.

Belene will be the first Russian-built nuclear power plant on EU territory.

Two thousand Russian experts will help build the plant, Bulgaria's biggest infrastructure project since the fall of communism.

Although we have permission to film, a police car pulls up.

"We thought you might be Greenpeace protesters," one of the policemen explains with an embarrassed smile.

Once reassured about our credentials, they show us the way to the nearby town of Belene, our very own friendly police escort.

Here, nuclear power is not seen as a problem, but as a solution.

Walking by the slow-flowing Danube with her young daughter, a teacher tells me she knows many people who have either emigrated or are unemployed.

She describes the nuclear plant as "a good opportunity".

Questions of quality

An elderly man has heard that thousands of Russians will be employed at Belene.

But, he says, "we hope that there will also be jobs for thousands more Bulgarians and the project will finally be completed".

But elsewhere, the project is controversial.

Like Kozloduy, Belene is sited near the Danube and any safety incident could have widespread effects.

Some of the strongest criticism comes from the man who used to run Bulgaria's nuclear safety authority.

Georgi Kastchiev, now working at the Institute of Risk Research in Vienna, says this type of Russian reactor "has never been built anywhere else in the world".

He doubts "the quality of Russian nuclear industry, because two years ago they delivered faulty equipment to Chinese reactors".

Nifty footwork

Another worry is that the nuclear plant will be built in a region prone to severe earthquakes.

Belene will also cement Bulgaria's dependency on Russia, on which it almost entirely relies for oil and gas.

Ognyan Minchev, who runs Sofia's Institute for regional and International Studies, argues that is not necessarily a problem "at a time when we presume that relationships between Russia and the West are going to be positive and good".

But, he warns, "any time when we see particular problems and challenges within those relationships, Bulgaria - a member of Nato and the EU - will be on the very dividing line".

Bulgaria and Russia are fellow Slavs, linked by language and religion.

They are currently celebrating 130 years of historic ties with high-level visits, exhibitions and ballet performances.

When it comes to energy, Bulgaria is by no means the only EU country dancing to Moscow's tune.

But it will require some nifty political footwork to keep its balance between its old friends in Moscow and its new partners in Europe.
Oh noes, teh Russian nukes!11!

Why was the shutdown of Units 1 to 4 required for Bulgaria's entry into the EU? Were the VVER 440-230 reactors that unsafe compared to the VVER 1000-320 reactors?
User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Post by The Duchess of Zeon »

It's just the Greens being dipshits who need to be fed into biowaste recyclers while alive.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.
User avatar
Admiral Valdemar
Outside Context Problem
Posts: 31572
Joined: 2002-07-04 07:17pm
Location: UK

Post by Admiral Valdemar »

I love nuclear. I fear badly put together nuclear. If they aren't going to do it well, then they can fuck off along with the greenies who think ALL nuclear is ALWAYS unsafe.
User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Post by The Duchess of Zeon »

Admiral Valdemar wrote:I love nuclear. I fear badly put together nuclear. If they aren't going to do it well, then they can fuck off along with the greenies who think ALL nuclear is ALWAYS unsafe.

The only major Russian energy plant accident was Chernobyl, which would have never happened if they hadn't broken every single one of their own safety procedures.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.
Kanastrous
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 6464
Joined: 2007-09-14 11:46pm
Location: SoCal

Post by Kanastrous »

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
Admiral Valdemar wrote:I love nuclear. I fear badly put together nuclear. If they aren't going to do it well, then they can fuck off along with the greenies who think ALL nuclear is ALWAYS unsafe.

The only major Russian energy plant accident was Chernobyl, which would have never happened if they hadn't broken every single one of their own safety procedures.
Chernobyl's design did not account for what could happen, if those safety procedures weren't observed.

It's still a lose, for Russian nuclear engineering.
I find myself endlessly fascinated by your career - Stark, in a fit of Nerd-Validation, November 3, 2011
User avatar
Netko
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1925
Joined: 2005-03-30 06:14am

Post by Netko »

Love the scaremongering about the superstitious Bulgarians, when the engineer giving them the tour probably only mentioned it jokingly. Also love the slight xenophobia in the air about how Slavs suck at anything technical.

I just hope that those idiots don't manage to turn it into a persistent meme, more then it is already that is, because besides that Bulgarian plant, there are plans in a lot of the post-communist Slavic countries for nuclear plants (off the top of my head, besides Bulgaria, there are plans in Slovenia, Croatia and Hungary). With the crappy politicians that we have, and already significant domestic pressure from uninformed NIMBYs who think that the plants will cause babies to have two heads and three arms (actual argument!), additional pressure from the EU led by the various Greens could be just enough to scuttle those projects.
User avatar
Civil War Man
NERRRRRDS!!!
Posts: 3790
Joined: 2005-01-28 03:54am

Re: Fears over Bulgarian nuclear boom

Post by Civil War Man »

Two safety scares in June at nuclear plants in Slovenia and the Czech Republic have led to renewed calls for Europe to abandon nuclear power.
Yeah, good luck with that. One of the best ideas the French had was telling the oil companies to fuck off back in the 70s and investing heavily in nuclear infrastructure.
User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Post by The Duchess of Zeon »

Kanastrous wrote:
Chernobyl's design did not account for what could happen, if those safety procedures weren't observed.

It's still a lose, for Russian nuclear engineering.
Sort of. The remaining reactors of the RMBK type have been modified and upgraded so that they no longer can do what Chernobyl did, so it was clearly a lack of political will and arrogant disregard for safety with Soviet apparatchiks, rather than a lack of technical competency. The main large failing was the failure to build a containment dome, but that wasn't a failure for nuclear engineering in Russia, either, that was a failure of political will to spend enough money to build one. The Russians were perfectly capable of building a concrete dome.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.
[R_H]
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2894
Joined: 2007-08-24 08:51am
Location: Europe

Post by [R_H] »

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:It's just the Greens being dipshits who need to be fed into biowaste recyclers while alive.
I figured it was something like that.
User avatar
Ender
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11323
Joined: 2002-07-30 11:12pm
Location: Illinois

Post by Ender »

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
Kanastrous wrote:
Chernobyl's design did not account for what could happen, if those safety procedures weren't observed.

It's still a lose, for Russian nuclear engineering.
Sort of. The remaining reactors of the RMBK type have been modified and upgraded so that they no longer can do what Chernobyl did, so it was clearly a lack of political will and arrogant disregard for safety with Soviet apparatchiks, rather than a lack of technical competency. The main large failing was the failure to build a containment dome, but that wasn't a failure for nuclear engineering in Russia, either, that was a failure of political will to spend enough money to build one. The Russians were perfectly capable of building a concrete dome.
Yeah, because a positive coefficient of reactivity and horizontal hydraulically powered control rods aren't huge fucking design flaws at all :roll: No, clearly it was the lack of a concrete dome, which saves us in the event of a problem, and not lack of intrinsic cutouts, which prevents a problem from occurring, that were the problem.
بيرني كان سيفوز
*
Nuclear Navy Warwolf
*
in omnibus requiem quaesivi, et nusquam inveni nisi in angulo cum libro
*
ipsa scientia potestas est
User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Post by The Duchess of Zeon »

Ender wrote:Yeah, because a positive coefficient of reactivity and horizontal hydraulically powered control rods aren't huge fucking design flaws at all :roll: No, clearly it was the lack of a concrete dome, which saves us in the event of a problem, and not lack of intrinsic cutouts, which prevents a problem from occurring, that were the problem.

I didn't deny that the Soviets had fucked up the design, that's why I said "sort of" instead of no, damnit. I was just listing the mitigating factors. The design was certainly unsafe by western standards, but could have been operated indefinitely without problem if people had taken their own safety procedures seriously.

Which, granted, is the main failing of Russian engineering, I'd argue--it would appear to be a systemic lack of concern for the ability of humans to fuck up consistently, over and over, in everything they do, and be arrogant dumbasses. Here we'd be worried about the components of the design which would allow some dumbshit to do what they did; the Soviets apparently just trusted that nobody would be that incredibly stupid, and of course someone was and ordered the experment to go ahead. But it wasn't due to a lack of engineering capability is the argument I'm making--it was due to a poor thought process in the design.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.
Adrian Laguna
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4736
Joined: 2005-05-18 01:31am

Post by Adrian Laguna »

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: Which, granted, is the main failing of Russian engineering, I'd argue--it would appear to be a systemic lack of concern for the ability of humans to fuck up consistently, over and over, in everything they do, and be arrogant dumbasses.
Soviet civilian engineering, you mean. Their military engineering is probably the epitome of idiot proof design, as shown by the fact any uneducated peasant can operate and maintain Soviet hardware. Which is again the opposite of the West, which loves its high tech toys.
User avatar
Lonestar
Keeper of the Schwartz
Posts: 13321
Joined: 2003-02-13 03:21pm
Location: The Bay Area

Post by Lonestar »

Adrian Laguna wrote:
Soviet civilian engineering, you mean. Their military engineering is probably the epitome of idiot proof design, as shown by the fact any uneducated peasant can operate and maintain Soviet hardware. Which is again the opposite of the West, which loves its high tech toys.
Aroo? In the USN we have these things called "MRCs" which are used for maintenance...they can best be described as "sailor-proof" in their layout. You have to be a complete shitbird and make an effort not to follow the book to fuck it up.
"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."
User avatar
K. A. Pital
Glamorous Commie
Posts: 20813
Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
Location: Elysium

Post by K. A. Pital »

For Christs' sake, RBMK is a 60 year old reactor design, and the VVER has nothing to do with it.

It's just the greens being pieces of shit again. Which they almost always are, since their irrational and idiotic positions rarely make any sense.
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...

...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali
Kanastrous
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 6464
Joined: 2007-09-14 11:46pm
Location: SoCal

Post by Kanastrous »

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:The main large failing was the failure to build a containment dome, but that wasn't a failure for nuclear engineering in Russia, either, that was a failure of political will to spend enough money to build one. The Russians were perfectly capable of building a concrete dome.
I think of a reactor like that operating without containment, and it impresses me as a poorly-engineered system, taken as a whole. Maybe that's not fair, from a professional engineering perspective. Is it invalid, to consider physical safety factors as a part of a large system's engineering?
I find myself endlessly fascinated by your career - Stark, in a fit of Nerd-Validation, November 3, 2011
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

Kanastrous wrote:
The Duchess of Zeon wrote:The main large failing was the failure to build a containment dome, but that wasn't a failure for nuclear engineering in Russia, either, that was a failure of political will to spend enough money to build one. The Russians were perfectly capable of building a concrete dome.
I think of a reactor like that operating without containment, and it impresses me as a poorly-engineered system, taken as a whole. Maybe that's not fair, from a professional engineering perspective. Is it invalid, to consider physical safety factors as a part of a large system's engineering?
Professional engineers have to consider every aspect of public safety. But that's in North America; not every country on Earth treats engineering as a highly regulated profession with a strict ethics code.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
Sea Skimmer
Yankee Capitalist Air Pirate
Posts: 37390
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:49pm
Location: Passchendaele City, HAB

Post by Sea Skimmer »

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: The main large failing was the failure to build a containment dome, but that wasn't a failure for nuclear engineering in Russia, either, that was a failure of political will to spend enough money to build one. The Russians were perfectly capable of building a concrete dome.
The RMBK is too big a reactor, made worse by the huge overhead crane for online refueling, to fit inside a practical dome. IIRC only one pressurized water plant in all of Russia actually has domes for its reactors. The ones they buried inside of mountains should be safe though.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
User avatar
PeZook
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 13237
Joined: 2002-07-18 06:08pm
Location: Poland

Post by PeZook »

Sea Skimmer wrote: The RMBK is too big a reactor, made worse by the huge overhead crane for online refueling, to fit inside a practical dome. IIRC only one pressurized water plant in all of Russia actually has domes for its reactors. The ones they buried inside of mountains should be safe though.
IIRC, a dome was considered for construction at Chernobyl, but was rejected as too expensive.

The real failing of the RMBK was the positive void coefficient, though: normally, a presurrized water reactor has its reaction slow down when it gets too hot, but it was the opposite at Chernobyl. Add an inexperienced crew to run a very dangerous experiment and, um...boom.
Image
JULY 20TH 1969 - The day the entire world was looking up

It suddenly struck me that that tiny pea, pretty and blue, was the Earth. I put up my thumb and shut one eye, and my thumb blotted out the planet Earth. I didn't feel like a giant. I felt very, very small.
- NEIL ARMSTRONG, MISSION COMMANDER, APOLLO 11

Signature dedicated to the greatest achievement of mankind.

MILDLY DERANGED PHYSICIST does not mind BREAKING the SOUND BARRIER, because it is INSURED. - Simon_Jester considering the problems of hypersonic flight for Team L.A.M.E.
User avatar
K. A. Pital
Glamorous Commie
Posts: 20813
Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
Location: Elysium

Post by K. A. Pital »

Without the experiment even all the flaws of RMBK would have not resulted in an accident like this.

And even then, dreadful as it is, Chernobyl is actually a fairly minor accident - chemical factory accidents and dam bursts are far more dangerous and deadly.

Yet the greenie-loonie camp does not object to hydropower or chemical production, but has a particular grudge against nuclear.
Sea Skimmer wrote:IIRC only one pressurized water plant in all of Russia actually has domes for its reactors.
What? IIRC, all VVER PWRs have it.
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...

...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali
Adrian Laguna
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4736
Joined: 2005-05-18 01:31am

Post by Adrian Laguna »

Stas Bush wrote:And even then, dreadful as it is, Chernobyl is actually a fairly minor accident - chemical factory accidents and dam bursts are far more dangerous and deadly.
How many people can be said to have died as a result of the accident? How many people had shorter life-spans as a result of the accident? How does this compare to the worst chemical factory accidents?

I know there this information can be found online, but there is a lot of contradictory information and I'd like to know what you believe.
User avatar
K. A. Pital
Glamorous Commie
Posts: 20813
Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
Location: Elysium

Post by K. A. Pital »

How many people can be said to have died as a result of the accident?
Several dozen - those who received immediately lethal doses during the liquidation.
How many people had shorter life-spans as a result of the accident?
The epidemiological report done by the Chernobyl Forum/IAEA in 2005 indicated less than ten thousand extraneous cancer deaths, meaning shorter human lifespans - as an ongoing process - and so far I believe only a few deaths have been calculated to proceed from the Chenobyl contamination, most of those deaths will happen in the following years. It is the decisive report, since it's following a correct methodology. Various groups about "Chernobyl truth" have sprung, but neither of them can present any sound methodology that would prove cancer deaths in excess of the CF 2005 report.
How does this compare to the worst chemical factory accidents?
Well, Bhopal killed 3900 people in an instant compared to Chernobyl. Around a dozen thousand more died from subsequent poisoning effects over the long term, meaning a contraction of human lifespans.

Banquaio Dam in China:
...according to the Hydrology Department of Henan Province, in the province, approximately 26,000 people died from flooding and another 145,000 died during subsequent epidemics and famine.
South Fork Dam failure in the USA killed 2209 people immediately.

The Kurenivka Dam failure in 1961, USSR, killed a few hundred immediately and several thousand died in the later flooding.

Levee failure of New Orleans resulted in 1464 deaths immediately (when I say "immediately", I mean within the disaster terms or shortly thereafter).

Buffalo Creek dam killed 125 people immediately.

Vajont Dam killed 1450 people immediately via megatsunami.

I could go on really. The total number of dam failure victims even for the last part of the XX century and the XXI century would probably be measured in a hundred thousand.
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...

...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali
User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Post by The Duchess of Zeon »

Darth Wong wrote: Professional engineers have to consider every aspect of public safety. But that's in North America; not every country on Earth treats engineering as a highly regulated profession with a strict ethics code.

Considering that when Chernobyl was built, a lot of the guys on the project had either been slave labour for Stalin or remembered using it, I think we can safely say that public safety was not high on their list of objectives. Even then a Dome was in fact proposed--just rejected due to the size of the reactor making it prohibitively expensive for the project. If a guy had a gun to my head I'd probably build an unshielded RBMK too, and that's the atmosphere Soviet engineers had worked in for a very long time.

Even so, of the 17 units built, only one failed. A catastrophic failure rate of 5.9% is unacceptable in a design for us, but in the Soviet Union? Especially in the 1950s when the country was still recovering from the Stalinist terror.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.
User avatar
K. A. Pital
Glamorous Commie
Posts: 20813
Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
Location: Elysium

Post by K. A. Pital »

Considering that when Chernobyl was built, a lot of the guys on the project had either been slave labour for Stalin or remembered using it, I think we can safely say that public safety was not high on their list of objectives.
False actually, Chernobyl type reactor (RBMK-1000) was first made in 1973.
Even then a Dome was in fact proposed--just rejected due to the size of the reactor making it prohibitively expensive for the project. If a guy had a gun to my head I'd probably build an unshielded RBMK too, and that's the atmosphere Soviet engineers had worked in for a very long time.
The fact was that the engineers proposed a partial containment structure after Three Mile Island, but stopped short of a full containment dome - the gigantic reactor required large construction cranes and lift mechanisms overhead, which made the costs of a container prohibitively expensive. Not only the capitalists cut the costs for a lack of safety, communists do it to.

No one in the 1960s had a 'gun' to the head of people working in technical control; though, to be fair, quite a few nuclear engineers spoke about the necessity of a dome. The problem was cost-cutting, and that decision came not from engineers, but from economists.
Even so, of the 17 units built, only one failed. A catastrophic failure rate of 5.9% is unacceptable in a design for us, but in the Soviet Union? Especially in the 1950s when the country was still recovering from the Stalinist terror.
Um... Chernobyl was built far later than the 1950s.
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...

...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali
User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Post by The Duchess of Zeon »

Conceded; apparently the RBMK type was first seen in 1954 but the version at Chernobyl was substantially different in numerous ways. Sorry, Stas, it just usually gets repeated that it was obsolete technology left in service for to long, and I should have done more digging on it.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.
User avatar
K. A. Pital
Glamorous Commie
Posts: 20813
Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
Location: Elysium

Post by K. A. Pital »

Sorry, Stas, it just usually gets repeated that it was obsolete technology left in service for to long, and I should have done more digging on it.
Well, it's still true that the design was obsolete; however, the Soviet planners still pushed through with it, for the power gains it provided. Cheaper fuel, greater power. That was the goal behind the RBMK project. They wanted to use 1,8% low-grade fuel. It had to be boosted up all the way to 2,4% after the catastrophe. The accident had shown the dangers of such a configuration.
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...

...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali
Post Reply