Second Worst President in US History.

[ladajo]

Well, it would appear that Schnidiot has nothing further to offer here on his profound knowledge of nuclear power and Cherynobl.

Paper tiger. Oh well. I was hoping to have an intelligent conversation on Cherynobl again.

[Schneibster]

Well, it would appear that Schnidiot has nothing further to offer here on his profound knowledge of nuclear power and Cherynobl.

Paper tiger. Oh well. I was hoping to have an intelligent conversation on Cherynobl again.

What's to offer? It was a crap design, and they thought they got to vote on whether it would work or not, and it blew up in their faces. Just like global warming and just like the 2008 financial meltdown. In fact, it rather resembles ITER which was obviously many days dead after they started appointing special assistants to the director general's special assistant.

So far the conservatives are batting 0.0000.

That's you know kinda why I'm here. I think polywell might actually work, as opposed to ITER which obviously never will, being buried under layers of bureaucracy.

Tell us all how many layers of bureaucracy EMCC should have, in your humble opinion, O Grand Waggling Wazir.

[ladajo]

Chernobyl was a fast breeder reactor. The managers wished to obviate a design flaw that they believed could result in a catastrophe in a power-loss incident. They believed they had fixed it, but when they tried to test it in a shutdown it experienced a catastrophic intrusion of molten fuel metal into the coolant, followed by a classical loss-of-coolant meltdown which caused a reactor fire spreading radioactive material over a wide area.

Please be more specific:
What design flaw are you speaking of?
How did the molten fuel metal get into the coolant?
How did the "classical loss-of-coolant meltdown" occur?
Which of the above two things occured first?
What caught fire?
How did this fire spread radioactive material over a wide area?
What is a "wide area" in your description?
What timeframe are you referencing?
Can you describe the cooling system?
Can you describe the emergency cooling system?
What specific "test" were the operators running "in a shutdown"?

Also answer the other part of my previous question regarding the use of the design and how no-one is using it anymore.

ATFQ

[Schneibster]

Chernobyl was a fast breeder reactor. The managers wished to obviate a design flaw that they believed could result in a catastrophe in a power-loss incident. They believed they had fixed it, but when they tried to test it in a shutdown it experienced a catastrophic intrusion of molten fuel metal into the coolant, followed by a classical loss-of-coolant meltdown which caused a reactor fire spreading radioactive material over a wide area.

Please be more specific:
What design flaw are you speaking of?
How did the molten fuel metal get into the coolant?
How did the "classical loss-of-coolant meltdown" occur?
Which of the above two things occured first?
What caught fire?
How did this fire spread radioactive material over a wide area?
What is a "wide area" in your description?
What timeframe are you referencing?
Can you describe the cooling system?
Can you describe the emergency cooling system?
What specific "test" were the operators running "in a shutdown"?

Also answer the other part of my previous question regarding the use of the design and how no-one is using it anymore.

ATFQ

Go read the Wikipedia entry. All I did was check to make sure nothing startling had come out recently. Since nobody's gonna build another one like that, what's the point?

Oh, you just wanna prove how long your penis is? Sorry, not playing. Good luck. That water's deep, son.

[ladajo]

You are citing wikipedia? Now that is funny.

You are nothing but a hollow shell of a joke.

[Schneibster]

You are citing wikipedia? Now that is funny.

You are nothing but a hollow shell of a joke.

Their references are all there for you to follow, if you care about the truth. The article is extensively supported in all details.

Like most liars, Wikipedia scares heck out of you.

[ladajo]

Like most liars, Wikipedia scares heck out of you.

Just when I thought you could not be more funny!



Schnibtard's Favorite T-Shirt:

It must be true! I read it on the Internet!

[Schneibster]

Like most liars, Wikipedia scares heck out of you.

Just when I thought you could not be more funny!



Schnibtard's Favorite T-Shirt:

It must be true! I read it on the Internet!

So there's no truth anywhere except the Babble by the drunk or insane stone age sheep herders about the imaginary super magic daddy beyond the sky?

Obviously your google-fu sux.

[ladajo]

You are truly priceless!!!



Seriously, you made me fall out of my chair laughing.



Amazing!

[Schneibster]

You are truly priceless!!!



Seriously, you made me fall out of my chair laughing.



Amazing!

Pay no attention to the man behind the lulz.

[ladajo]

Oooohhh. Cut to the bone!

[scalziand]

...as of 2013 there were still 10 RBMK reactors operating in Russia, with an additional reactor currently (as of March 2013) down for repair that may or may not return online.[1][2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK#Status

Here's a non-wiki reference for good measure.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nucle ... -Reactors/

Now, I suppose it would be perfectly fair to argue that the remaining reactors have been modified enough to not count as being the same design as Chernobyl.

[paperburn1]

Did not Chernobyl continue to produce power from the other reactors on site until they were decommissioned in 2000?

[Schneibster]

...as of 2013 there were still 10 RBMK reactors operating in Russia, with an additional reactor currently (as of March 2013) down for repair that may or may not return online.[1][2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK#Status

Here's a non-wiki reference for good measure.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nucle ... -Reactors/

Now, I suppose it would be perfectly fair to argue that the remaining reactors have been modified enough to not count as being the same design as Chernobyl.

IIRC it was one of only two that had a positive void coefficient in the core.

[Schneibster]

Did not Chernobyl continue to produce power from the other reactors on site until they were decommissioned in 2000?

I believe you're correct.

Later: Reactor 2 was taken offline in 1991 after a core fire; Reactor 1 was taken offline in 1996 as part of a deal with Ukraine and the IAEA to shut down the whole site; and the last reactor, #3, was, you're correct, decommissioned by Kuchma in 2000: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_ ... missioning