Ne-am ales bine "partenerul strategic" ?

[miron1947]

.Si erau in timpul unor teste de avarie, stiai?

Eu am vazut intr-un documentar BBC cu aceasta tema, ca a fost ,,eroare de gresala", adica au oprit pompele pentru apa de racire tocmai cand testau reactorul la putere maxima.

Editat Februarie 7, 2018 de miron1947

[hpavictor]

Ar fi fost mai interesant să avem dialog , nu să o țină unu' pe lângă adevărul istoric .

Dovezile sunt zdrobitoare !

[miron1947]

La ce anume va referiti?

[lukeme]

Teste de avarie:

 

"S-a decis folosirea acelei ocazii ca o oportunitate pentru controlarea capacității generatorului turbinei de a produce putere electrică suficientă pentru alimentarea sistemelor de siguranță ale reactorului (mai ales pompele de apă) după pierderea puterii externe"

 

Nu a fost capabil...

Editat Februarie 7, 2018 de lukeme

[adrian_pic]

 

In steady state operation, a significant fraction (over 6%) of the power from a nuclear reactor is derived not from fission but from the decay heat of its accumulated fission products. This heat continues for some time after the chain reaction is stopped (e.g., following an emergency SCRAM) and active cooling may be required to prevent core damage.RBMK reactors like those at Chernobyl use water as a coolant.Reactor 4 at Chernobyl consisted of about 1,600 individual fuel channels, each of which required coolant flow of 28 metric tons (28,000 litres or 7,400 US gallons) per hour.^[44]

Since cooling pumps require electricity to cool a reactor after a SCRAM, in the event of a power grid failure, Chernobyl's reactors had three backup diesel generators; these could start up in 15 seconds, but took 60–75 seconds to attain full speed and reach the 5.5‑megawatt (MW) output required to run one main pump.

To solve this one-minute gap – considered an unacceptable safety risk – it had been theorized that rotational energy from the steam turbine (as it wound down under residual steam pressure) could be used to generate the required electrical power. Analysis indicated that this residual momentum and steam pressure might be sufficient to run the coolant pumps for 45 seconds, bridging the gap between an external power failure and the full availability of the emergency generators.

This capability still needed to be confirmed experimentally, and previous tests had ended unsuccessfully. An initial test carried out in 1982 indicated that the excitation voltage of the turbine-generator was insufficient; it did not maintain the desired magnetic field after the turbine trip. The system was modified, and the test was repeated in 1984 but again proved unsuccessful. In 1985, the tests were attempted a third time but also yielded negative results. The test procedure would be repeated in 1986, and it was scheduled to take place during the maintenance shutdown of Reactor Four.

The test focused on the switching sequences of the electrical supplies for the reactor. The test procedure was expected to begin with an automatic emergency shutdown. No detrimental effect on the safety of the reactor was anticipated, so the test programme was not formally coordinated with either the chief designer of the reactor (NIKIET) or the scientific manager. Instead, it was approved only by the director of the plant (and even this approval was not consistent with established procedures).

According to the test parameters, the thermal output of the reactor should have been no lower than 700 MW at the start of the experiment. If test conditions had been as planned, the procedure would almost certainly have been carried out safely; the eventual disaster resulted from attempts to boost the reactor output once the experiment had been started, which was inconsistent with approved procedure.

The Chernobyl power plant had been in operation for two years without the capability to ride through the first 60–75 seconds of a total loss of electric power, and thus lacked an important safety feature. The station managers presumably wished to correct this at the first opportunity, which may explain why they continued the test even when serious problems arose, and why the requisite approval for the test had not been sought from the Soviet nuclear oversight regulator (even though there was a representative at the complex of 4 reactors).

The experimental procedure was intended to run as follows:

1. The reactor was to be running at a low power level, between 700 MW and 800 MW.
2. The steam-turbine generator was to be run up to full speed.
3. When these conditions were achieved, the steam supply for the turbine generator was to be closed off.
4. Turbine generator performance was to be recorded to determine whether it could provide the bridging power for coolant pumps until the emergency diesel generators were sequenced to start and provide power to the cooling pumps automatically.
5. After the emergency generators reached normal operating speed and voltage, the turbine generator would be allowed to continue to freewheel down.

Editat Februarie 7, 2018 de adrian_pic

[miron1947]

Eu spun ca este bine sa vedem si partea plina a paharului si anume ca accidentul nu s-a produs la Kozlodui.

Editat Februarie 7, 2018 de miron1947

[adrian_pic]

totusi nu putem rasufla usurati

[miron1947]

Nu, corect, Kozlodui este inca functional.

Sa speram ca nu se apuca si bulgarii de experimente ca la Cernobal.

Editat Februarie 7, 2018 de miron1947

[lukeme]

Au acum reactoare mai noi si mai puternice.

Nu e total exclus sa le dea prin cap.

[miron1947]

Au acum reactoare mai noi si mai puternice.

Ghinion.

[Vizitator]

suntem egali in UE ,se vede ce se intampla acum in Parlamentul European

[miron1947]

suntem egali in UE

Da, maxim de egali, doar ca unii sunt mai egali decat ceilalti.

Editat Februarie 7, 2018 de miron1947

[Vizitator Seven77]

Da, e ca pe forum, unii-s mai egali si au voie sa debiteze pe rupte.Cum nu esti de acord, sar ca-i democratie si au dreptul sa exprime orice. Accentul se pune pe orice.

[Mark S]

Democratia are surprizele, dar si riscurile ei....

 

[miron1947]

Imi place.