Mark Nelson Profile picture
Mar 9 15 tweets 5 min read
CHERNOBYL UPDATE: BEWARE MISLEADING CLAIMS ABOUT OLD SPENT FUEL COOLING NEEDS

The spent fuel rods are at minimum 22 years old.

They have very little heat to dissipate. In most plants, spent fuel that is more than 5 years old sits in dry storage cooled easily by air.
THE BASICS: when fuel rods are done making energy in a reactor, plant staff remove them and put them in pools of water.

This is because the particles produced by the splitting of uranium ("fission products") are unstable and continue to undergo decay, and, thus, generate heat.
How much heat a fuel rod puts out depends on how much energy it produced in the reactor (called "burnup") and how long it has been since it left the reactor.

22 years is LONG ago. And RBMK (Chernobyl reactor type) has lower burnup than other reactor types, thus lower decay heat.
At Fukushima Daiichi, there was a great deal of international panic about the spent fuel pools, with international media and experts (often same ones saying doomsday stuff about Ukraine now) claiming the pools would go dry, fuel would melt, contaminate wide areas.

Didn't happen.
There are differences of course.

Although there were not many spent fuel rods in the pools in Japan, they were younger and hotter.

Although the plant was not occupied by a foreign power, the earthquake and flood had done immense damage and three reactors were melting on site.
WHAT SHOULD WE BE WATCHING FOR?

There are indeed 20k old fuel rods in a pool. Their heat is low enough that experts I've talked to expect weeks or even months to heat the water enough to dry out the pool. Even then, natural air circulation should be sufficient.
For folks looking for technical information, here's a helpful response from @maesetote

"Stress tests" were conducted at European nuclear facilities after Fukushima to make sure public health was protected even after extreme disasters.

Relevant for us:
Here is a satellite image with the location of Interim Spent Fuel storage 1 (ISF-1).

This is the pool where fuel bundles wait before being processed into Interim Spent Fuel storage 2 (ISF-2), the second picture attached.

(H/t to the great @science_dirk ) A satellite image of the main area of Chernobyl nuclear planA detail satellite image of the an area near Chernobyl nucle
EVERYTHING at Chernobyl, which stopped making electricity in 1999, will be SLOW to happen.

This mean problems are headaches for staff when normal work routines resume after the war, NOT catastrophes.

Chernobyl is in headlines because of its infamy, not its danger to the public.
thread not done, lots of cool technical information to compensate everyone for their moment of panic:

A cool video showing how this whole spent fuel thing works at Chernobyl, with rods in the water moved to canisters for on-land storage:

Pool time limit estimation help!

An effort towards figuring out how long they'd have to restore cooling if the power loss had been as described in the initial news release, from MIT professor @rscottkemp

A month, right in center of our early guesses.

As helpfully pointed out by a commenter, I should've said ~20k "assemblies" rather than fuel rods when citing the total number in the pool. Assemblies are bundles of fuel rods handled as a single unit.

Thanks!

An image of an RBMK reactor fuel assembly, a long cylinder c
Good find from user "bum bidet booster" with pictures and diagrams of the materials in question.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Mark Nelson

Mark Nelson Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @energybants

Mar 9
From the guy who falsely claimed that Zaporizhzhia pressurized water reactors could "blow up" like "10x Chernobyl," we have our next global panic started.

Respect to Ukraine for its brave, righteous defense.

But these statements are an attack on the global public.
Incorrect statements in above tweet: with cooling systems stopped, leaks are NOT imminent.

Further, leaks CANNOT put "entire Europe in danger" except through panic.

The fear is the weapon here. Deny it its power.

Read 4 tweets
Mar 9
SOUTH KOREA ELECTIONS: EARLY EXIT POLLS SHOW TINY LEAD FOR PRO-NUCLEAR PARTY

Six yrs ago, SK had one of the most admired, and ambitious, nuclear energy programs in the world.

Rapid progress on domestic plants plus winning & starting to deliver in UAE.

Since then: devastation.
With the election of a resolutely antinuclear president, Korean reactor performance plunged, falling as low as 59% by 2018.

New president canceled the future fleet and attempted to stop the plants ALREADY under construction. Only defeat in his Citizens' Jury saved the projects.
Despite continuing success at Barakah in Abu Dhabi, no other countries bought Korean reactors, as SK President harshly attacked his own nuclear. After all, if Hyundai cars were banned for being "too dangerous" in Korea, how popular would they be overseas?

Read 5 tweets
Mar 7
MEDIA AIMING TO PANIC

A breathtakingly irresponsible headline from a multi-million follower media account.

There's a small device in a science lab that cannot sustain a chain reaction. It has almost no isotopes of concern inside.

This headline should never have been published.
Here is a plenty of detail from an expert with intimate knowledge of the device in question.

The facts were available before this headline was tweeted. This headline is an abuse of public trust.

People have contacted me, panicking, already.

By "almost no isotopes of concern" I mean vanishingly small quantities of isotopes of real threat to human internal health.

Of course what the media is showing is that actual radiation threat is irrelevant when the goal is to hurt the public through fear.

Simply unacceptable.
Read 4 tweets
Mar 6
I strongly recommend people do not get their nuclear safety information from Dr. Eric here.

Perhaps he's a good doctor or whatever (has a lot of followers so that's good?) but he is unselective about which nuclear risks are or aren't capable of causing large-scale disasters.
I agree that this war is bad and should stop.

If it doesn't stop, it will keep including nuclear safety issues, so we're going to see folks like Dr. Eric say each thing could cause a giant radiation disaster.

This is not helpful in understanding what the real risks are.
Please follow @CherylRofer who knows many of the world's experts with hands on experience with THESE SPECIFIC FACILITIES.

@jrmygrdn is great on these too; he asks technical experts the key questions he needs to understand, then interprets their answers in context for the public.
Read 6 tweets
Mar 4
Just so everybody knows: the statement that "if it blows up, it will be 10 times larger than Chornobyl", is absolute nonsense.

This is a bad situation because it is an attack on a nuclear plant with people in it, not because it can "blow up" and be "larger than Chornobyl".
First: if seismic sensors at the plant were triggered (for example if shells or bombs are used) the reactors which are of very different design would shut down automatically.

Second: the main risk at the plant is that cooling does not get to the reactor cores over time.
The containment domes around the reactors are extremely strong.

They will not be affected by light arms or moderate fire from heavier arms.

The worry is in interruption of plant cooling procedures after the reactors shut down.
Read 6 tweets
Feb 24
NUCLEAR, UKRAINE, EUROPEAN ENERGY

There are wild claims about Chernobyl going around. I will post the most accurate and authoritative information here and keep this thread updated.

FIRST: Chernobyl, even if attacked, is not a credible threat to health from radiation.
Several sources claimed that Chernobyl was under attack.

Chernobyl's outer containment dome could be breached if targeted.

Remaining hazardous material is deep under this. It's been cooling and decaying since 1986.

Dispersal would take intentional, targeted effort.
Keep an eye on Cheryl Rofer @CherylRofer 's statements:



She is correct in pointing out that it would be difficult to access this material.

It is well-characterized, meaning, we know what it is and how it could spread if disturbed.
Read 70 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(