Comments on: The Forsmark incident was not Chernobyl http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blog/2009/01/28/the-forsmark-incident-was-not-chernobyl/ Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:45:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Michael http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blog/2009/01/28/the-forsmark-incident-was-not-chernobyl/comment-page-1/#comment-1559 Michael Sun, 22 Feb 2009 14:20:18 +0000 http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blog/?p=230#comment-1559 Depends on how you look at it. In equilibrium, the xenon is burned out at the same time it is generated. When you lower the thermal output, the delay in Xe-135 production means the levels will increase. What happened was that the reactor was supposed to have been taken down during the day, when the more experience day- and evening shifts were at the helm. They were also the ones that were suppoed to have done the test. But because the Kiew grid operator wanted the reactor to stay online, they went off shift, and the less experienced night shift came in. And the rod operator of that shift made mistakes when lowering the effect so that he didn't watch for the poisoning and thus the levels quickly rose which nearly shut the reactor down completely. So you're sort of right: having to stay online longer meant that a less experienced rod operator was put in charge of lowering the effect for the test, and he messed up. /Michael Depends on how you look at it. In equilibrium, the xenon is burned out at the same time it is generated. When you lower the thermal output, the delay in Xe-135 production means the levels will increase.

What happened was that the reactor was supposed to have been taken down during the day, when the more experience day- and evening shifts were at the helm. They were also the ones that were suppoed to have done the test. But because the Kiew grid operator wanted the reactor to stay online, they went off shift, and the less experienced night shift came in. And the rod operator of that shift made mistakes when lowering the effect so that he didn't watch for the poisoning and thus the levels quickly rose which nearly shut the reactor down completely.

So you're sort of right: having to stay online longer meant that a less experienced rod operator was put in charge of lowering the effect for the test, and he messed up.

/Michael

]]> By: George Carty http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blog/2009/01/28/the-forsmark-incident-was-not-chernobyl/comment-page-1/#comment-1558 George Carty Sun, 22 Feb 2009 14:15:29 +0000 http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blog/?p=230#comment-1558 There's a minor error in your description of the run-up to the Chernobyl disaster - AFAIK it wasn't operator error which caused the xenon poisoning, but a need to generate electricity for longer than was planned originally (due to an accidental breakdown at another power station in the region). There's a minor error in your description of the run-up to the Chernobyl disaster - AFAIK it wasn't operator error which caused the xenon poisoning, but a need to generate electricity for longer than was planned originally (due to an accidental breakdown at another power station in the region).

]]>