Lessons from Chernobyl and the safety of nuclear energy
Fragments of articles from the popular science magazine "Energy, Economy, Technologies, Ecology" from 1984 to 1992. At that time, energy specialists had many magazines with a narrow profile. The magazine «Energy, economy, technology, ecology» combines all aspects of energy, including economy, technology and ecology.
All articles, excerpts of which are given here, are about nuclear power. Publication dates - before and after the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. The articles were written by serious scientists of the time. The problems posed to nuclear energy by the tragedy in Chernobyl stand out.
The accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant created many problems for mankind. Confidence in man's ability to control the atom, to reliably protect himself from accidents at nuclear power plants, was shaken. In any case, the number of opponents of nuclear power in the world is growing manifold.
The first magazine article about the Chernobyl accident appeared in the February 1987 issue.
It is interesting how the approach to the use of atomic energy has changed — from full enjoyment of the prospects opening up to pessimism and demands for the complete abandonment of the nuclear industry. "Our country is not ripe for nuclear energy. The quality of our projects, products, construction is such that a second Chernobyl is practically inevitable.»
January 1984
Academician M. A. Styrikovich "Methods and perspectives of energy"
"As a result, it became clear that not only in the next 20-30 years, but in any foreseeable future, say until the end of the 21st century, non-renewable energy sources will play the main role. And coal, but also vast resources of nuclear fuel.
It should immediately be noted that the widely used nuclear power plants (NPP) with thermal neutron reactors (in a number of countries — France, Belgium, Sweden, Switzerland, Finland — today they already provide 35-40% of all electricity) mainly use only one isotope uranium — 235U, the content of which in natural uranium is only about 0.7%
Reactors with fast neutrons have already been developed and have already been tested, capable of using all isotopes of uranium, i.e. giving (taking into account the inevitable losses) in 60 - 70 times more usable energy per ton of natural uranium. In addition, this means an increase in nuclear fuel resources not 60, but thousands of times!
With the increasing share of nuclear power plants in the electricity systems, when their capacity begins to exceed the load of the systems at night or on weekends (and this, as it is easy to calculate, is about 50% of the calendar time!), the problem of filling arises of this «void» of the load.In such cases, during the hours of failure, it is more profitable to supply consumers with electricity at a price four times lower than the base rate, than to reduce the load on the NPP.
The problem of covering a variable consumption schedule in the new conditions is another extremely serious and important task for the energy sector. «
November 1984
Corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR D. G. Zhimerin "Perspectives and Tasks"
«After the Soviet Union was the first in the world to put nuclear power plants into operation in 1954, nuclear energy began to develop rapidly. In France, 50% of all electricity is produced by nuclear power plants, in the USA, Germany, England, the USSR - 10 - 20%. That by the year 2000, the share of nuclear power plants in the electricity balance will increase to 20% (and according to some data it will be over 20%).
The Soviet Union was the first in the world to build the 350 MW Shevchenko nuclear power plant (on the shores of the Caspian Sea) with fast reactors. Then a 600 MW fast neutron nuclear reactor was put into operation at the Beloyarsk NPP. An 800 MW reactor is under development.
We must not forget the thermonuclear process developed in the USSR and other countries, in which instead of splitting the atomic nucleus of uranium, heavy hydrogen nuclei (deuterium and tritium) are fused. This releases heat energy. The reserves of deuterium in the oceans, as scientists believe, are inexhaustible.
Obviously, the real heyday of nuclear (and fusion) energy will occur in the 21st century. «
March 1985
Candidate of technical sciences Yu.I. Mityaev "Belongs to history..."
«As of August 1984, 313 nuclear reactors with a total capacity of 208 million kW were operating in 26 countries around the world.About 200 reactors are under construction. By 1990, the capacity of nuclear energy will be from 370 to 400, by 2000 - from 580 to 850 million.
At the beginning of 1985, more than 40 nuclear units with a total capacity of more than 23 million kW were operating in the USSR. It was only in 1983 that the third power unit was commissioned at the Kursk NPP, the fourth at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (each with 1,000 MW each) and at Ignalinskaya, the world's largest power plant with a capacity of 1,500 MW. New stations are being built on a wide front at more than 20 sites. In 1984, two million units were put into operation — at Kalinin and Zaporozhye NPPs, and the fourth power unit with VVER-440 — at Kola NPP.
Nuclear power has achieved such impressive successes in a very short period of time — just 30 years. Our country was the first to demonstrate to the whole world that atomic energy can be successfully used for the benefit of humanity! «
The most important start-up projects of the USSR, 1983 The third and fourth power units are put into operation at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant
February 1986
President of the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR academician B. E. Paton "Course - acceleration of scientific and technical progress"
«In the future, almost the entire increase in electricity consumption must be covered by nuclear power plants (NPP). This predetermines the main directions of research and development in the field of nuclear energy — expanding the network of nuclear power plants, increasing their productivity and profitability.
In the view of the scientists are also such important problems as the improvement and increase of the unit capacity of the energy equipment of the nuclear power plants, the search for new opportunities for the use of nuclear energy.
In particular, they are involved in the creation of new types of thermal reactors for nuclear power plants with a capacity of 1000 MW and more, the development of reactors with dissociating and gaseous coolants, solving problems related to expanding the scope of nuclear energy — in blast furnace metallurgy, production of industrial and domestic heat, creation of complex energy-chemical production «.
April 1986
Academician A. P. Aleksandrov «SIV: a look to the future»
"Nuclear energy is the most dynamically developing unit in the fuel and energy complex of the USSR and a number of other CIS member countries.
Now in 5 member states of the SIV (Bulgaria, Hungary, East Germany, the USSR and Czechoslovakia) experience has been gained in the construction and operation of nuclear power plants, their high reliability and operational safety have been demonstrated.
Currently, the total installed capacity of all nuclear power plants in the CIS member countries is about 40 TW. At the expense of these nuclear power plants, in 1985, about 80 million toe of deficient types of organic fuel were released for the needs of the national economy.
According to the "Main directions of the economic and social development of the USSR for 1986-1990 and for the period up to 2000", adopted by the XXVII Congress of the CPSU, in 1990 the NPP is planned to generate 390 TWh of electricity, or 21% of its total production.
To achieve this indicator in 1986-1990.over 41 GW of new generating capacity will need to be built and commissioned in nuclear power plants. During these years, the construction of the nuclear power plants "Kalinin", Smolensk (second stage), Crimea, Chernobyl, Zaporizhia and the Odessa nuclear power plant (ATEC) will be completed.
Capacities will be put into operation at Balakovskaya, Ignalinskaya, Tatarskaya, Rostovskaya, Khmelnitskaya, Rivne and Yuzhnoukrainsky NPPs, at Minsk NPP, Gorkovskaya and Voronezh Nuclear Power Stations (ACT).
The XII five-year plan also plans to start the construction of new nuclear facilities: Kostroma, Armenia (second stage), NPP Azerbaijan, Volgograd and Kharkov NPP, the construction of NPP Georgia will begin.
First of all, it is necessary to indicate the issues of creating qualitatively new highly reliable systems for management, monitoring and automation of technological processes in nuclear power plants, improving the use of natural uranium, creating new effective methods and means of processing, transportation and disposal of radioactive waste, as well as the safe disposal of nuclear installations that have exhausted their standard life., on the use of nuclear sources for heating and industrial heat supply «.
June 1986
Doctor of technical sciences V. V. Sichev "The main route of SIV — intensification"
«The accelerated development of nuclear energy will enable a radical restructuring of the structure of energy and heat production. With the development of nuclear energy, such high-quality fuels as oil, fuel oil and, in the future, gas will gradually be replaced. from the fuel and energy balance. This will make it possible to use these products.as a raw material for the processing industry and will significantly reduce environmental pollution. «
February 1987
Chairman of the Scientific Council of the USSR Academy of Sciences of Radiobiology Yevgeny Goltzman, Corresponding Member of the USSR Academy of Sciences A.M. Kuzin, "Risk Arithmetic"
"The significant development of nuclear energy planned in our country and the normal operation of the NPP do not lead to an increase in the natural radioactive background, as the NPP technology is built in a closed cycle that does not lead to the release of radioactive substances into the environment.
Unfortunately, as in any industry, including nuclear, an emergency can occur for one reason or another. At the same time, the NPP may release radionuclides and radiation pollution of the environment around the NPP.
The accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, as you know, had severe consequences and led to the death of people. Of course, lessons have been learned from what happened. Measures will be taken to improve the safety of nuclear energy.
Only a small contingent of people in the immediate vicinity of the incident suffered acute radiation damage and received all necessary medical attention.
Regarding radiation carcinogenesis, I firmly believe that effective means will be found to reduce the risk of disease after exposure. For this, it is necessary to develop fundamental radiobiological studies of the long-term consequences of the action of non-lethal doses of radiation.
If we know better the nature of the processes taking place in the body during a long period (in humans it is 5-20 years) between radiation and the disease, then the ways to interrupt these processes, that is, to reduce the risk, will become clear. «
October 1987
L. Kaibishkeva «Who revived Chernobyl»
"Irresponsibility and carelessness, indiscipline led to serious consequences, - this is how the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU characterized the Chernobyl events among a number of reasons ... As a result of the accident, 28 people died and the health of many people was damaged ...
The destruction of the reactor led to radioactive contamination of the area around the station on an area of about a thousand square meters. km. Here, agricultural land has been withdrawn from circulation, the work of enterprises, construction projects and other organizations has been stopped. Only direct losses as a result of the incident amounted to about 2 billion rubles. Powering the national economy is complicated."
The echoes of the catastrophe spread across all continents. Now is the time to call the guilt of a few a crime and the heroism of thousands a feat.
In Chernobyl, the winner is the one who bravely takes on great responsibility. How different from this usual "on my responsibility" actually expresses in some people its complete absence.
The qualification level of the Chernobyl power workers was recognized as high. But someone gave them directions that led to the drama. Frivolous? Yes. Man has not changed much in the development of civilization. The error cost has changed. «
March 1988
V. N. Abramov, Doctor of Psychology, "The Chernobyl accident: psychological lessons"
"Before the accident, the nuclear power plant in Chernobyl was considered one of the best in the country, and the city of energy workers - Pripyat - was rightly named among the most convenient. And the psychological climate in the station did not cause much alarm. for what happened in such a safe place to happen? Is there a threat of this happening again?
Nuclear energy belongs to the category of industries associated with increased risk to people and the environment. Risk factors represent both the technological characteristics of NPP units and the fundamental possibility of human error in power unit management.
It is noticed that over the years, with the accumulation of experience in NPP operation, the number of wrong calculations due to ignorance in standard situations is constantly decreasing. But in extreme, unusual conditions, when experience does not decide so much as the ability not to go wrong, to find a solution that is the most correct of all possible, the number of errors remains the same. Unfortunately, there was no purposeful selection of operators, taking into account their physiological and psychological characteristics.
The "tradition" of not disclosing information about nuclear power plant accidents also serves a disservice. Such a practice, if you can say so, inadvertently provided moral support to the guilty, and among those who were not involved, it formed the position of an outside observer, a passive position that destroyed the sense of responsibility.
Indirect confirmation of what was said is the indifference to the danger observed in Pripyat itself on the first day after the incident.Attempts by the initiates to explain that the incident was serious and that urgent measures should be taken to protect the population were suppressed by the words: "Those who must do this must do that."
Cultivating a sense of responsibility and professional caution among NPP personnel should begin as early as schoolchildren. The operator must develop a solid statement: to consider the safe operation of the reactor as the most important in its operation. It is obvious that such an installation can work effectively only in conditions of full publicity in case of accidents at nuclear power plants. «
May 1988
Deputy Director of the Institute for Energy Research, Ph.D. V. M. Ushakov «Compare with GOERLO»
"Until recently, some specialists had a somewhat simplistic view of the future of energy development. It was thought that from the mid-1990s the share of oil and gas would stabilize and that all further growth would come from nuclear power. The problems of their safety.
The fission potential of uranium is enormous. However, we "bleed" it to parameters even lower than with ordinary electrospaces. This speaks to the technological unpreparedness of humanity that we still do not have enough knowledge to properly use this enormous energy. «
June 1988
Corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR A.A. Sarkisov "All aspects of security"
"The main lesson is the realization that the accident was a direct consequence of the lack of technical and organizational measures to ensure safety, which have become quite evident today, and here it should be noted that the relative prosperity in nuclear power in the previous years, when there were no major accidents with deaths, unfortunately, contributed to the creation of excessive complacency and weakened attention to the problem of nuclear power plants. Meanwhile, there were far more than alarms from nuclear power plants in many countries.
The improvement of the control system and the automatic emergency protection system can be carried out only on the basis of a thorough study of the dynamics of transient and emergency modes of nuclear power plants. And along this path there are significant difficulties: these processes are non-linear, associated with sudden changes in parameters, with changes in the state of aggregation of substances. All this greatly complicates their computer simulation.
The second side of the issue concerns operator training. The view is widely held that a careful and disciplined technician who knows the instructions perfectly can be placed at the control panel of a nuclear power plant. This is a dangerous fallacy. Only a specialist with a high level of theoretical and practical training can competently manage a nuclear power plant.
As the analysis shows, the development of events during an accident exceeds the instructions, so the operator must anticipate the emergence of an emergency situation due to the symptoms, which are often not standard, not reflected in the instructions, and find the only correct solution to conditions of severe deficiency on time.This means that the operator must perfectly know the physics of the processes, "feel" the installation. And for this, he needs, on the one hand, deep fundamental knowledge, and on the other hand, good practical training.
Now regarding the technology that is protected from human error. In fact, in the design of facilities such as nuclear power plants, it is necessary to provide solutions to the maximum extent that protect the system from personnel errors. But it is almost impossible to completely protect yourself from them. So the human role in the security problem will always be extremely responsible.
In principle, absolute reliability and safety in nuclear power plants are unattainable. In addition, such improbable, but by no means completely excluded events, such as a plane crash in a nuclear power plant, disasters in neighboring enterprises, earthquakes, floods, etc., cannot be ignored.
Feasibility studies are needed to assess the feasibility of locating nuclear power plants outside regions of high population density. In particular, the regions of the northwestern part of the USSR look very promising. Other options also deserve careful analysis, in particular the proposal to build stations underground. «
April 1989
Ph.D. A. L. Gorshkov "This" clean "nuclear energy"
«Today it is very difficult to give full guarantees for the safety and reliability of nuclear power plants. Even the most modern nuclear reactors with water cooling under pressure — they are the ones that supporters of the construction of nuclear power plants in the USSR are betting on.of — are not so reliable in operation, which is reflected in the alarming statistics of accidents at nuclear power plants in the world. In 1986 alone, the US recorded nearly 3,000 accidents at nuclear power plants, 680 of which were so serious that the power plants had to be shut down.
In fact, serious accidents in nuclear power plants happened more often than experts from different countries around the world expected and predicted.
Building a nuclear power plant and nuclear fuel cycle plants is an expensive undertaking for any country, even one as huge as ours.
Now that we have experienced the tragedy of Chernobyl, the talk that nuclear power plants are the "cleanest" industrial facilities from an environmental point of view is, to put it mildly, immoral. NPPs are "clean" for now. Is it possible to continue thinking only in «economic» categories? How to express the social damage, the true scale of which can be assessed only after 15-20 years? «
February 1990
S.I. Belov «Nuclear cities»
"Circumstances developed so much that for many years we lived as if in a barracks. We were to think alike, love alike, hate alike. The best, the most advanced, progressive, the social structure and quality of life, and the level of science. Metallurgists, of course, have the best blast furnaces, machine builders have turbines, and nuclear scientists have the most advanced reactors and the most reliable nuclear power plants.
Lack of publicity, healthy, productive criticism has corrupted our scientists to some extent. They have lost the sense of accountability to people for their activities, they have forgotten that they are responsible to future generations, to their homeland.
As a result, the pendulum of popular, almost religious faith in "advanced Soviet science and technology" swung into the realm of people's distrust. In recent years, a particularly deep distrust has developed with regard to atomic scientists, to atomic energy. The trauma inflicted on society by the Chernobyl tragedy is too painful.
The analysis of many incidents shows that in the management of modern devices and technological lines, one of the weakest links is a person. Often in the hands of a single person are the means to control and manage monstrous abilities. Hundreds, thousands of people become hostages without knowing, not to mention material values. «
Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences M.E. Gerzenstein "We offer a safe NPP"
"It seems that if the calculation of the probability of a major accident in one reactor gives, for example, a value of once in a million years, then there is no need to worry. But this is not so. Reliable.
A very small figure for the probability of a major accident proves little and, in our view, is even harmful because it creates an impression of well-being that does not actually exist. It is possible to reduce the probability of failure by introducing redundant nodes, complicating the logic of the control circuit. At the same time, new elements are introduced into the scheme.
Formally, the probability of failure is significantly reduced, but the probability of failure and false commands of the control system itself increases. Therefore, there is no reason to trust the small probability value obtained. Thus, security will increase, but ... only on paper.
Let's ask ourselves a question: is a repeat of the Chernobyl tragedy possible? We believe that — yes!
The power of the reactor is controlled by rods that are automatically introduced into the work zone. Furthermore, it is important to emphasize that a reactor in operating condition is kept on the verge of explosion at all times. In this case, the fuel has a critical mass at which the chain reaction is in equilibrium. But can you fully rely on automation? The answer is clear: of course not.
In complex systems, the Pygmalion effect operates. This means that it sometimes doesn't behave as its creator intended. And there is always a risk that the system will behave in an unexpected way in an extreme situation. «
November 1990
Doctor of Technical Sciences Yu.I. Koryakin «This system must disappear»
"We must admit to ourselves that we have no one to blame for the Chernobyl disaster but ourselves, that this is only a manifestation of the general crisis that has struck nuclear power from their internal needs." The nuclear power plant imposed from above is perceived by the people as hostile.
Today, so-called public relations is reduced to advertising the benefits of nuclear power plants. The hope for the success of this propaganda, besides being clumsily moralizing, is naive and illusory and, as a rule, leads to the opposite result. It's time to face the truth: nuclear power is afflicted with the same disease as our entire economy. Nuclear power and command and control system are incompatible. «
December 1990
Doctor of Technical Sciences N.N. Melnikov "If NPP, then underground..."
"The fact that underground nuclear power plants can take our nuclear power out of the impasse it has fallen into after Chernobyl has been talked about for several years. Limits or caps?
The fact is that from the very beginning abroad they went to build such shells, today all stations are equipped with them, 25-30 years of experience in research, design, construction and operation of these systems has been accumulated there. This hull and reactor vessel actually saved the population and the environment in the Three Mile Island NPP accident.
We do not have serious experience in the construction and operation of such complex structures. The 1.6 m thick inner shell will burn in less than an hour if the fuel melts on it.
In the new project AES -88, the shell can withstand an internal pressure of only 4.6 atm, penetration of cables and pipes — 8 atm. At the same time, steam and hydrogen explosions in a fuel melting accident give pressure up to 13-15 atm.
So to the question of whether a nuclear power plant with such a shell would be safe, the answer is obvious. Of course not. Therefore, we believe that our nuclear power should go its own way, creating underground nuclear power plants as an alternative to developing completely safe reactors.
The construction of underground nuclear power plants, mostly of small and medium capacity, is a very real and economically justified business. This makes it possible to solve several problems: to ensure the safety of operation for the environment, to exclude the catastrophic consequences of accidents such as Chernobyl, to preserve spent reactors and to reduce the seismic effect on nuclear power plants. «
June 1991
Ph.D. G. V. Shishikin, doctor of f-m. N. Yu. V. Sivintsev (Institute of Atomic Energy I. V. Kurchatov) "Under the shadow of nuclear reactors"
"After Chernobyl, the press jumped from one extreme — writing odes to Soviet science and technology — to another: everything is bad with us, we are deceived in everything, atomic lobbyists do not care about the interests of the people. The evil started many dangers have become the only one that prevents taking measures to develop a strategy to protect the environment from other harmful factors, often more dangerous.
The Chernobyl disaster became a national tragedy largely because it fell on a poor country, on a people physically and socially weakened by living conditions. Now the empty store shelves speak eloquently about the nutritional status of the population. But after all, even in the years preceding Chernobyl, the nutritional norm of the Ukrainian population barely reached 75% of the necessary, and even worse for vitamins — about 50% of the norm.
It is known that a by-product of the operation of a nuclear reactor is a "pile" of gaseous, aerosol and liquid radioactive waste, as well as radioactive materials from fuel rods and structural elements. Gas and aerosol wastes passing through the filter system are released through the ventilation pipes into the atmosphere.
Liquid radioactive waste, also after filtration, passes through a special sewage line to the Shtukinskaya treatment plant, and then to the river. Solid waste, in particular spent fuel elements, is collected in special storage rooms.
Fuel elements are carriers of very large, but simply localized radioactivity. Gaseous and liquid wastes are another matter. They can be located in small quantities and for a short time.Therefore, the usual process is to release them after cleaning into the environment. The technological dosimetric control is carried out by the operational services.
But what about the ability to "fire an unloaded gun"? The reactor has many reasons for "firing": nervous breakdown of the operator, stupidity in the actions of the personnel, sabotage, plane crash, etc. So what then? Outside the fence, the city...
The reactors contain a large stock of radioactivity and, as they say, God forbid. But the reactor workers, of course, trust not only in God ... For each reactor there is a document called a «Safety Study» (TSF), which considers not only all possible, but also the most improbable - «predicted» - accidents and their consequences. Technical and organizational measures for localization and elimination of the consequences of a possible accident are also considered. «
December 1992
Academician A.S. Nikiforov, MD M. A. Zakharov, MD n. A. A. Kozyr «Is ecologically clean nuclear energy possible?»
"One of the main reasons why the public is against nuclear power is radioactive waste. This fear is justified. Few of us are able to understand how such an explosive product can be safely stored for hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years.
The traditional approach to the management of radioactive raw materials, commonly referred to as waste, is their disposal in stable geological formations. Prior to that, facilities are created for the temporary storage of radionuclides. But as they say, nothing is more permanent than temporary measures.This explains the concern of the population of the regions on the territory of which such warehouses have already been built or are planned.
In terms of the danger to the environment, radionuclides can be conditionally divided into two main groups. The first is the fission products, most of which almost completely decay to stable nuclides after about 1000 years. The second is actinides. Their radioactive transition chains to stable isotopes typically contain at least a dozen nuclides, many of which have half-lives of hundreds of years to tens of millions of years.
Of course, providing safe, controlled storage of fission products before they decay for hundreds of years is highly problematic, but such projects are entirely feasible.
Actinide is another matter. The entire known history of civilization is a meager period compared to the millions of years required for the natural neutralization of the actinides. Therefore, any predictions about their behavior in the environment during this period are only guesses.
As for the burial of long-lived actinides in stable geological formations, their tectonic stability cannot be guaranteed for the necessary long periods, especially if we take into account the hypotheses that have appeared recently about the decisive influence of cosmic processes on the geological development of the Earth. Obviously, no region can be insured against rapid changes in the Earth's crust over the next few million years. «