3

In the BBC article, Inside Chernobyl: We stole Russian fuel to prevent catastrophe you can find this

"If we had lost power, it could have been catastrophic," Oleksandr explained. "Radioactive material could have been released. The scale of it, you can well imagine. I wasn't scared for my life. I was scared about what would happen if I wasn't there monitoring the plant. I was scared it would be a tragedy for humanity."

The Chernobyl Meltdown happened in 1986. This makes it sound to me like Chernobyl still requires active cooling, without which, the material will again meltdown but I don't see anything about active cooling in the Wikipedia article on Chernobyl. Will the nuclear waste create another runaway reaction if not cooled?

Mad Scientist
  • 43,643
  • 20
  • 173
  • 192
Evan Carroll
  • 28,401
  • 42
  • 129
  • 239
  • 3
    The BBC article never uses the word “meltdown”, so they never made the claim you are alluding to. They only talk about a “major risk of the release of nuclear material” which “could have been catastrophic” if the plant had no power to maintain cooling. – Dan Romik Apr 09 '22 at 19:25
  • Remember that there were four reactors at the plant. The remainder of the plant remained operational for over 10 years after the 1986 disaster in reactor 4. – Tom Apr 12 '22 at 01:06
  • 1
    I honestly can't see why this is downvoted. (After title edit.) – pinegulf Apr 12 '22 at 07:42
  • 1
    @pinegulf Maybe because the actual question still makes an unreferenced claim about meltdown, something the article does not discuss. Further edits will change the question to something that OP did not ask about. – pipe Apr 12 '22 at 08:46
  • @pinegulf agree with pipe. Also, the edited question still asks about things that aren’t claimed in the BBC article. There is nothing in the article about a “runaway reaction” (a leak of radioactive materials could easily end up causing great harm to human life without a runaway reaction.) There isn’t even a claim that without active cooling a catastrophe would occur (though in fairness, the article’s headline could maybe be argued to misleadingly give that impression). Rather, the plant’s safety officer is quoted expressing a _fear_ that loss of cooling _could_ lead to a catastrophic result. – Dan Romik Apr 12 '22 at 21:05
  • … So even the safety officer isn’t making any debunkable claims. – Dan Romik Apr 12 '22 at 21:28
  • Also, "meltdown" is not a well-specified term. Most people think of a runaway reactor core melting through containment, not a spent-fuel pond boiling off over hours and days. *However*, **if** your spent fuel rods are still hot enough to boil off the tank's water, you could then also be facing heat damage to the fuel rods, partial melting, exposure of radioactive material, and if you're *really really* unlucky, molten material coalescing in the pool and, while not exactly going critical, increasing reactivity. Then there's the question at which point you start calling this a catastrophy. ;-) – DevSolar Apr 14 '22 at 10:51
  • @DevSolar We're all on the same page. The only difference here is I view this as propaganda: the attempt by the BBC here was very clearly, in my estimation, to mislead the reader that a catastrophe (ie., severe irreparable harm) would occur if power wasn't restored. In the context of nuclear reactors, to leave unchallenged that used fuel rods could go critical if not cooled. Which at least as a [not-nuclear scientist seems ?maybe? possible](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor) – Evan Carroll Apr 14 '22 at 15:04

1 Answers1

12

I don't think that the fear here is another meltdown but just general release of radioactive waste in general.

According to the New Scientist article Chernobyl power cut sparks fears of potential for radiation leaks, it seems like the issue here is radioactive waste from when it was in opeartion.

Fears of a potential radiation leak at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant are growing after a power cut at the site. Without electricity it will be difficult to cool ponds that contain hazardous nuclear waste and to filter the air inside the vast containment building that houses the remains of the reactor that was destroyed during an infamous disaster at the site in 1986.

It seems the concern is keeping the spent fuel properly cooled in order to keep it covered with water to prevent the spread of radioactive material and to keep the filters operating that help contain it.

Spent nuclear fuel from Chernobyl’s former reactors is stored in a large cooling pond that is constantly replenished with fresh, cold water to keep its temperature down. Without an electricity supply – which the Ukrainian government says the site now lacks – this cooling has stopped, which will allow the water temperature to rise and increase the rate of evaporation.

If the ponds are allowed to run dry then there is a chance that radioactive material could be released into the environment. There are also concerns that electrical air filters in the containment building around the reactor will stop, causing condensation that may harm the building.

Laurel
  • 30,040
  • 9
  • 132
  • 118
Joe W
  • 4,799
  • 2
  • 25
  • 37