Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Part 1 The Chernobyl Disaster Explained 1986 | A Brief History of Documentary" video.

  1. Moreover, according to Dyatlov, the RBMK reactros were already working, unknowingly for their operators, in conditions that the same RBMK Chief Designer, N A Dollezha, considered incontrollable. Infact, with 2% enrichment of the fuel, special absorbers should have been inserted into the channels to contrast positive void coefficient at low power levels. In reality the commercial RBMK worked with 2% fuel enrichment, no special absorbers, and none of the operators even knew that those absorbers should have been present. It's typically Soviet. The chief designer states that, if made in a certain way, the reactor is safe and can rise power from any energy level. The designers of the plant remove safety measures (maybe simply implying that low enrichment fuel would not have been used), but mantain the statement that the reactor is safe and can rise power from any energy level. The operators only know that the reactor is safe and can rise power from any energy level.
    30
  2. Any uranium reactor is a plutonium generator. The advantage of RBMK for plutonium generation was that it allowed the fast change of single fuel rods while the reactor remained operative, and that is impossible in PWR reactors, that have to be shut down for refuelling.
    2
  3. IF, (it's the most accepted theory) the scram button acted as the detonator, not using the scram button, but reinserting the rods a few at a time, they would probably had a partial meltdown, and even a release of radioactive material in the atmosphere, more severe than at Leningrad, but not an explosion.
    2
  4. Reactor 3, that was in the same building of Reactor 4, was shut down by order of Dyatlov right after the explosions, despite the protest of the shift supervisor that he needed the order of an higer autority to do so.
    2
  5. They knew how the reactor worked, but they didn't know the xenon poisoning could pose any threat. In operative procedures the RBMK was considered safe to rise power from any power level, the only limit being that of at least 15 control rods inserted (a thing the operators couldn't even directly control). That's because the chief designer stated that, but he also stated that, using 2% enriched uranium, special absorbers should have been also used to contrast positive void coefficient. Otherwise the reactor would have been incontrollable. Obviously commercial RBMK reactors worked with 2% enriched uranium, obviously no special absorbers were used, nor anyone told the operators that they should have been used.
    2
  6. The problem with Soviet facilities was that there was no need to forge. Controlled and controllers shared a common goal, to ensure that there was no problem and all worked to the schedule, so it was much easier to hide problems under the carpet.
    1
  7. There are commercially used natural uranium reactors (the CANDU being the most well known).
    1
  8.  @fabianpascalabt6353  https://www.neimagazine.com/features/featurehow-it-was-an-operator-s-perspective/
    1
  9. Water acts both as a moderator and a neutron absorber. In a RBMK reactor, the neutron absorbing effect is prevalent, so it has a positive void coefficient. Less water, more neutrons.
    1