« on: 04/04/2021 11:55:04 »
They had triplicate systems.Chernobyl off button was what killed it, the quick insertion of the control rods blew it up, because they had a moderator at the end. Steam pockets ensued and not a good outcome!Quote from:Chernobyl surely should have had an off buttonAll power reactors have an "off" button, which stops the nuclear chain reaction.
However, the residual heat continues to produce around 6-7% of the reactor's output power, even after the fuel rods are fully inserted. This drops below 1% after a day or so.
If I (being very careful of the language I use, nuclear reactors and explosions I'm sure flag up at gchq) rendered a reactor incapable of being controlled by consoles, could I cut a rope to drop the control rods? If one control rod jammed could I drop the rest? Would the reactor have passive cooling capability? A clever design in pipework(s) to a radiator(s) radiator on the roof(s) would be good. Nuclear reactors seem not to have the aarospace standard of duplicates and triplicate.
They failed to take account of "common mode failure".
All three cooling systems were washed out at once by a single common cause.
It would also have washed the radiators off the roof..
So a quadruplicate system may not have worked any better.
The following users thanked this post: Zer0