And after the reactor 4 explosion all of the rest of the rbmk reactor cores were fitted with safety systems to make sure it would be impossible for the reactors to exploded again and they were forced to fix all of them but the only way they did is that they got financial support from the European government

@ind0ctr1n3 There are a few glaring mistakes in your explanation. First; The Unit that had the prompt neutron excursion was Unit 4, not Unit 2. Unit 2 got shut down in 1991 after a serious fire in the turbine hall. Second: The accident at Unit 4 happened due to several things going on at the same time: 1; Because of the delay ordered by the Kiev Grid Controller they ran the reactor for at least nine hours at half power (1600 MW/t). This means that the xenon levels are going to rise. Xenon is a very powerful neutron poison. It gets produced as a fission byproduct in every nuclear reactor. When the reactor runs at full power, this is not a problem because you're burning it off as fast as it is produced. But when you run at half power the levels start to rise. Why? Because there's a delay in xenon production. It takes about 6.7 hrs for iodine to decay into xenon 135. Your reactor is running at half power, but xenon is still produced on the same level as when you were running at full power. And since you're now running at half power, not as much gets burned off. Thus the xenon level starts to rise, which can lead to what is referred to as a "poisoned reactor" or "being stuck in a xenon pit". There is so much xenon present that the chain reaction can no longer sustain itself and simply wants to decay away. This is what they tried overcome when they pulled out all the control rods when they were trying to raise the power to run their ill-fated test. It is very dangerous to try to restart a reactor that is in this poisoned state. 2; They had pulled out almost all the control rods to their upper limit stops, with only the equivalent of 6-8 rods left in the core at the time of the incident, which was way outside the design specs of the reactor. There was a group of at least 30 control rods that were supposed to be in the core AT ALL TIMES. In order to overcome the xenon poisoning they pulled those out as well. When pulled all the way up to the upper limit stops, the first thing that enters the core is not boron, but graphite which accelerates reactivity instead of quenching it. See below why that is such a bad thing. The control rod tips were not made of boron (which is a neutron absorber), but of graphite (which only acts as a moderator aka it speeds up reactivity). These "tips" were actually 3,5 meters long and were connected to the upper boron part via a telescope. Water can act both as a moderator and as a (weak) neutron poison. In the RBMK type reactors water mainly acts as a neutron poison. If the rods would have been made of boron only, you replace one neutron poison (boron) with another (water) when you pull them out of the channels, which makes your reactor run really inefficient. To offset this, the lower part was made of graphite to even out the fuel burn-up. In a way this would also enhance the effect of the control rods, theoretically making them a much more powerful control rod. But in reality, under certain circumstances, they could (and did!) make matters a lot worse. 3; Neutron poisoning means that something (water, xenon, boron etc.) is stealing away the neutrons before they can continue the chain reaction. This is exactly what you want when you want to shut down a nuclear reactor. The AZ-5 (Аварийная "Emergency" Защита "Protection" 5-й категории "Category", which roughly translates to Emergency Protection Category 5) shuts down the chain reaction by means of inserting boron, a neutron poison, into the core to quench the reaction. So, you're not trying to overcome neutron poisoning, you are trying to overcome the chain reaction by inserting a neutron poison. Unfortunately, due to their construction (with the lower part being graphite) they actually, for a brief moment, speed up reactivity instead of immediately bringing it down. When you combine that with a reactor that has been brought into a highly unstable state you set yourself up for disaster. It was well known to most operators that the RBMKs are notoriously unstable when run at low power, upon start-up (especially after a full refuelling of the core) and during shut-down. The reactor design is such that the positive void coefficient has the capability to outstrip the ability of the control rods to quench the reaction. In other words, the reactor has the potential to run away with itself and the control rods will be powerless to stop it. And this is what happened when they pressed AZ-5. Unwittingly they were shoving in more reactivity on top of an already out of control chain reaction, since the control rods had to start their descent from the upper limit stop position. This is a very simplified explanation btw. If I have to type out the whole thing in detail, I would still be typing tomorrow.

@ind0ctr1n3 That's nice, but my information comes from the official INSAG-7 report, among some other rather hefty official reports. If only I could show you my bookshelf with nuclear related reading materials. And yes, I eventually did see the series last year. However, because I have done extensive reading and studying on the Chernobyl accident I could also see what they got right and where they messed up. The same goes for what you wrote. Unit 2 didn't explode, that was Unit 4. Etc., etc..

I'll bet their anuses were tightened then

LMFAO 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

pickledegg1989 *uses key AZ-5* bc of the graphite tips explodes! kzfaq.info/get/bejne/fd6AhpmmyKqZcps.html

What does that mean "To play us out"?

@@-BuddyGuy FUCKIN' THING SUCKS.

last time that gave them a very bad day

There’s an Ennio Morricone composition for every occasion

Actually, Chernobyl NPP is still very much working, even if undergoing decomissioning.

@@caav56 I was decommissioned n 2001.

50 Megaton Aviation and Gameplay wait you actually worked in Chernobyl?

John no, I just studied the topic of Chernobyl.

Bull. Staff that highly trained can walk into new jobs, in fact they had probably all been hired for new positions before the switch was even turned. And they would have been retained for years to assist with the decommissioning. Same goes for oil and gas specialists, mining specialists, demolition specialists. These aren't jobs that can be outsourced to Pajeet in Calcutta over an internet line. People who say "learn a trade" are not trying to troll you. If you are degree material, your company will pay for that when you have proven yourself, not that you would necessarily want to take valuable time away from real experience and expertise building to pursue a piece of paper.

turns off nuke reactor - lights a cig - russia/ukraine

Tiltdecker atleast it didn’t explode like reactor 4

@@Valaki415 Because reactor doesn't have experiment ,and a turbine was working

Ctrl+Alt+f4 didnt be invented at that time yet.

They exploded the second one because the shutdown button were'nt working

Thank god.

Honestly i wouldn't mind a nuclear power plant with just rbmk 1500 reactors, they were very efficient and alot safer than the old ones but the rbmk in general won't ever come back other designs such as the vver1200 are safer and more modern

The moment was after 1:34 .... "Now we are fired. Our country is in crisis. Main plants bancrupted. It's way to hard thinking about jop finding this time in Ukraine"

@@alanmalan3819 it’s just sad

@@alexandrosandreou8585 Comparing VVER to RBMK is like comparing oranges to apples. They’re too different for any kind of reasonable result.

@@alanmalan3819 Migration was an answer for major part of them.

same

yeah i have that feeling while watching these post soviet era videos

Is not because the shutdown is there because these people just lost their jobs and have to abandon pripyat their home then again I could be wrong

Commander Deadhead this was filmed in 2000 and pripyat was abandoned 1986 so i think they were living somewhere else, however they did loose thier jobs

@@turbocharger5482 They didn't lose their job. After it they start working in other nuclear plant.

@@hellolol5388 Or stayed on Chernobyl NPP to work on decomissioning it.

It was sentimental because of the memories of Chernobyl for these workers. I’m a way it was saying goodbye.

I think that the emotions are more because that botton was the detonant of the explosion in the reactor 4

@@nuremberg119 i dont really think so. If you have been working for years at a place. And you know you dont have anymore income. And the people youve seen everyday. Will not be there anymore. Believe me. Thats a different feeling. I hope you never have to experience. What ive experienced 3 years ago. Turning that key and shutting down a chemical facility after 70 years of production. Is a task like no other.

I can relate to the feeling, loosing my job in during the corona epidemic. You say goodbye to economic security, a way of life, and a social context.

I'm so sorry. I have been through two closures, and it is devastating. Many people are not going to find good jobs.

@@cremebrulee4759 :( damn i am sorry to hear that mate

You mean the Le Professionnel movie soundtrack?

It's so good! Sovietwave-4-Life!

Hehehehehahahaha

What’s its half-life?

So is that cigarette the guy is smoking

12 years later I've found this comment which accurately says what I've always thought. There's a reason why some groups of so-called environmentalist (actually, politicians in disguise) fight with all their might the reports of international and state agencies on major accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima. Not enough death, illness and horror for their taste, there. And most of the public sadly follows them.

They pretend the safest form of power is going to kill us all 😂 Nuclear has by far the least deaths per gigawatt hour. More than four times as many people have died installing solar than have died due to nuclear energy.

They were sad, they lost their place of work. They knew that place and they had worked there for a long time. They knew they had to switch it off. And with that switch. They’d have to move on from memories.

@@centralcontroller6483 they probably felt sas for the victims of that disaster in unit 4

@@cohengamertv6548 Everyone did. But it had been 14 years since the accident. The plant was all these guys had known because in most Soviet countries. They had basic education and all they knew about was their job.

This Ukraine....

Used to be Soviet Union

Doesn't matter, that will never get old!

@@jesseboombatts r/wooooooosh

@@MuhammadReza-xi5jw Soviet Russia and Soviet Union are different things.

Now there is the new safe confinement.

Precious?

@@Site-88 if rules were followed then this incident wouldn't have occurred. RBMK is the cheapest and most efficient reactor of soviet, only few design flaw remains.

I thought reactor 1 partially melted down, but not as bad.

The unit 3 was closed in the year 2000

Bru HBO's chernobyl is innacurate

From what I could find (records from 2000 Russia are scarce) it was a combination of negative stigma Chernobyl had, Ukraine not having enough money to sustain operation, and the reactor getting old. We know about reactor 4, and out of the other two, one caught fire and the other broke. It was probably a matter of shutting it down on their terms rather than wait for another accident

AZ4 they used

@@alanmalan3819 Can you explain to me where you got that from, I'm not pretending to be an expert but AZ-4 does not fully reinsert the rods so that would not shut it down.

What you have to understand is that the AZ-5 button only caused an explosion in Unit 4 because of the condition of the reactor in a positive void coefficient. The AZ-5 button was probably used hundreds of times before the accident without issue and they did it here too.

@@mylesmcl I’m unsure if the physics you said are correct, however it is correct that they had used it hundreds of times over several power plants, and the surge is even less now due to certain changes in the retrofitted RBMK-1000’s, even if they did the exact same things done in Chernobyl, as in raising from a xenon pit then doing the test at lower power and with practically no control rods in, it wouldn’t explode because the changes made it physically impossible for it to explode in the same way.

​@@Thxtnt The 'physics' I said, as in the 'positive void coefficient' are completely correct, the RBMK reactors before retrofit had a void coefficient of 4.7 which was high and in the case of the accident was dangerous at low power levels. After the retrofit, the void coefficient was lowered to 0.7 with more enriched fuel, extra control rods, and an additional emergency rod system, this made the RBMK safer, but it is still an unideal reactor design and I can't say for certain that under similar conditions following the sequence of events of the accident replicated that there would be absolutely no problem with the reactor.

Today all all three reactors are fully decommissioned.

what turbin exactly? TG-4 or TG-3

No, New Order more likely ripped off Ennio Morricone's 'Chi Mai' with 'Elegia'.

Which 60s music?

Years after the disaster, they removed most of the graphite tips on the control rods, so the remaining RBMKs are much safer now.

Conditions were not extreme, but somewhat unusual. The design had major flaws, some of them was ignored, some suboptimally addressed, and some were unknown. Those flaws had more impact in some regimes of operation than in other. It was only matter of time when unknowingly to operators various equipment will be in regime that will cause two or more serious design flaws to combine.

Lol

In normal operating conditions it works flawlessly

Welp it isn't that simple as it's the switchs fault don't press it has to do with complicated nuclear physics that no one bothers to learn cuz they are boring

AV Naumov same

not really... it was not a nuclear detonation like in atom bombs. it was a runaway nuclear fueled boiler that ruptured. causing radioactive material to be thrown out. and made worse by graphite control rods burning and spreading radioactive particles in to the air , it could have been much worse if they did not manage to drain the coolant from the basement before the core melted through. super-heated metal and radioactive fuel hitting water would have caused a massive explosion

janjancummings the reactor exploded, Dyatlov

@@neculaistefan1076 bring him to the infirmary, he's delutional

Yep

Not just next to the one that blew up, they both shared the SAME BUILDING!

no, only unit 6 was a gen 2 BWR

Isus666999 no it's a 2nd gen idiot

FAT BREEDING 5 6 MOX FUEL 3 A BLOW TO HELL ALL OVER NORTH AMERICA

If your going to comment probably better to do so in full rather than using acronyms that most reading will have no idea about . No ones going to bother googling the meaning either.

@@sneakers6128 my guy they are reactor names bwr(boiling water reactor) rbmk (something about graphite moderated water cooled pressure channel reactor it's in Russian)

they probably still had graphite tips but im not 100% sure

The graphite tips of all RBMK reactor controll rods where removed after the accident in Chernobly NPP. Actually there are 9 RBMK-1000 in operation. The last shutdown of an RBMK- 1000 is around the year 2050.

@@derwildewesten6700 fucking communism

The destroyed core was 20 mètres away

@@morocco622 no it was way further like 60 meters away from unit 3

@@morocco622 hence the radiation in unit 3 was minimal

_-What just happened?_ _-It exploded!_ _-It's impossible, RBMK reactors don't explode. Take him to the infirmary._

@@anatolydyatlov963 shut up its stopped being funny a long time ago

@@marcusdurand5387 1986, to be exact.

They don't removed them anyway. They just changed them so the graphite "tip" can't exit the core.

Shut down on 13:17

You're ukrainian?

@@alimahh1 no I did a 2 day tour in 2018 of the plant, Pripyat and area. 10/10, I want to go back.

That’s not for their hair, it’s simply an anti-contamination to keep their head from becoming contaminated

Chi Mai - Ennio Morricone (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chi_Mai)

@Superpureeliteful how else would Ukraine get electricity

Applewille pretty unsafe right ?

carnagewolf1 by building other power plants without uncontrollable rbmk non safe reactors

@@Valaki415 and who is going to pay for that?

Yes, the reactors are safe, they added a new switch after Chernobyl (B3-5), prevents another Chernobyl

F

F

F

F.

dosimeters

@@fichtltuning thank you

да, это переведено. Спасибо за информацию. Привет из Техаса!

in reactor 4 button was pressed when reaction already started to run away. It only catalysed the explosion already occuring.

In this case the reactor was not even poisoned. So let’s just say that az-5 is not harmful any more and in any day.

WackyBroProductions you bet

It was not, the disaster was already produced, inside the xenon formed from the power surge already melted and blasted some of the graphite. The AZ-5 button only lowered the graphite bars into the hot-boi-steamy-for-them and that produced another surge of power which in fact was creating hidrogen...the hidrogen was the powerful force behind the second explosion, the one that ripped off the top of the building.

Kind of, but in a different situation. And the AZ-5 only accelerated the disaster, they were doomed even if they didn't press it.

Actually if they had not pressed the AZ-5 the reactor would have just burst instead of explode, the surge from the graphite tipped control rods sent power levels to over 120 times more than the maximum capable output of the reactor flash boiling about 300 cubic metres of water in an instant. In the 5 or 6 seconds leading up to the pop the reactors seams were already splitting and blowing out sections of the building, this likely would have continued until all water had boiled off or escaped had the AZ-5 not been flipped. But obviously they had no way of knowing the magic shutdown button would be a tragic explosion button in this particular situation.

But imagine if all that fuel had been present to produce the slag, that much would have most assuredly melted through to the water table leading to an even bigger explosion and dispersion. Imho, this was the best scenario to play out for this instance.

Nuclear is cleaner than solar,wind also no it doesn't put out dangerous gas cuz it doesn't need a dangerous material to work if you are talking about radiation then still no it is impossible for the radiation to escape the reactor building

Someone on KZfaq says you can just put the old fuel in a room, the way they do in France.

@@b43xoit This guy commented this 13 years ago... They didn't have the same quality waste management for nuclear reactors back then

Yeah, most devices are working, but they're useless

It only lowers the control rods that stop the reaction in the reactor everything else in the power plant and heat coming from the fuel isn't effected by it so yea you should expect everything to shut off

Chernobyl was created in 1982

Well the plutonium was a by-product but okay

Dude its a RBMK not RMBK

Well the rods were lifted more then they were supposed to so when AZ 5 was pressed the rods with graphite on the tip entered the water and the graphite reacted with the water and increased the power hundreds of times.

a few factors, AZ-5 broke the camels back kzfaq.info/get/bejne/p5mUZtWrq7rWfJs.html

Az 5 did not cause the accident. Running the reactor at 200MW and then withdrawing all controll rods after disconnecting 4 of the 8 pumps is what caused it. Az5 was a security switch to automatically lower all controll rods into the reactor to shut it down. This would have worked if the controll rods didn't have graphite tips that accelerate the reaction causing it to get stuck.

@@InfantTree They would get stuck regardless because the tubes were deformed, but the graphite tips (approx. first 5m btw) added even more positive moderation to the core thus raising the power

Why?

yeah, but they didn't just use #3 after the accident but also #2 and 1 because of energy shortages in the ukraine

@@izabelastrak4664 unit 1’s turbine caught on fire and the roof collapsed onto the pumps and turbine in 1991 marking the end of unit 1

I dont want to scare you, but 7 of these Reactor are Running an Generating Power right now...

what is so obvious in this decision?

why don't your country shut off all of reactors?

Unit 2 was no longer operational in 1991

az-5

@@evilnigga68A3-5 is the name AZ-5 is the name in English

in peace

Still 8 RBMKs in operation actually, they aren’t all dead

Not wrong, they all should shut down by 2034 though@@MojaveSubMatthew

The others reactors were declarated safe for operations after the decontamination of the area and the construction of confinement structure in reactor 4. In 1991,one partial melting forced the closing of operation of reactor 2 and international community pressure forced the closing of reactor 1.

@@antoniodavirbritono the reactor 2 suffered a turbine explosion in 1991

because its a tragedy of closing the power plant.

@@kosiak10851 what what is the music please tell me

@@user-iu8mh6or6u you mean 'chi mai'?

@@kosiak10851 the music at the beginning

@@user-iu8mh6or6u that means that you meant 'chi mai'