teach me about the Chernobyl power plant

I am an engineer, and have spent time in the energy sector. I have a degree in engineering and in physics. I know about the design issues. I mostly understand the meltdown. I understand the concrete, the liquidators, and the sarcophagus.

I do not understand the period of time between 1986-2000. The plant was producing power still, apparently. I know there are other reactors, and I know that they were capable of producing power after reactor 4 melted down. I also know that power plants require lots of people to run. Lots of supplies. Lots of maintenance. For fourteen years, people were still driving to and from? People were still working shifts within a mile or two of the melted down reactor? I thought the exclusion zone was more-or-less immediate. 

Again, please keep this on topic. I am not interested in conspiracy theories, the current state of the plant, your opinion on nuclear power, or how the Soviet Union operated it. I just want to understand 1986-2000 better.

In reply to tuna55 :

It is very curious that they kept the plant running for that long.  One thing that would be interesting to find out is if they had to wear special suits as they approached the plant given the exclusion zone.  Once inside, theoretically, the air can be scrubbed enough to be safe.

And another is that the known flaw that caused the run away reaction was still there.  Which had caused problems at least once before Chernobyl had it's accident.

In spite of all of the recent documentation of the accident, there's really been nothing post accident other than the sort of clean up and exclusion zone.  Nothing about the other reactors, other than they were operating.

That's interesting, I didn't know this. A quick Google and reading a few articles says it was #4 that blew, and #5/6 were under construction and halted. #1/2/3 kept operating until 1 was shutdown because of a fire in '91, the last being shut down in 97 and 2000 after international pressure. 

It seems it was basic economics that kept it running the USSR, then Ukraine, were very dependent on the power and their struggling economies didn't have the money to build a new power plant. They only closed the last two reactors after being promised aide from Europe.

As to the logistics of how it worked being next to the melted down reactor, I haven't been able to find anything on that yet. 

This article has some details about the shut down timing- https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Chernobyl-1-3-enter-decommissioning-phase

Reactor 2 was shut down in 1991 after an electrical fire.

Reactor 1 was shut down in 1996, and Reactor 3 in 2000

This article https://www.businessinsider.com/chernobyl-reactors-14-years-disaster-2016-4 suggests that the big reason they kept going was a shortage of power.  And that 1 was shut down from fears of radiation, 3 was shut down after more negotiation.  It also notes that 1-3 still need full decommissioning.  I would imagine that the exclusion zone is a big reason it's taken so long to get the decommissioning going.  

I saw most of what was posted already. I knew 5&6 were never completed, and I knew about 1,2&3, and the fire in 1991.

But golly, can you imagine "Hey bro why weren't you at work today?" "Uhmm, because reactor 4 melted down and tried to kill off most of the country?" "Yeah, so about that, come to work tomorrow. Wear a suit or something I guess if you're a whiner"

I wouldn't go back to work there. Who would? I know these places are big. I've been to a couple of nuclear plants. But they're not "Oh yeah but that reactor is waaaay over there" big. The whole idea blows my mind. "Brownouts until we can figure out how to balance the grid with some friendly neighboring countries and some extra cushion from some other plants nearby" sounds a lot better than "oh well, we'll just keep operating the other three and cross our fingers that we don't continue to destroy the world. It will be fine. Probably."

In reply to tuna55 :

It may have been a case of come to work or your family dies. That was right at the tail end of the USSR. 

I think one the thought processes going on is that the Russians / Ukrainians have a bit lower standard of safety then the west.

The basic situation after the melted down reactor was stabilized as I understand it is that there really wasn't much actual radiation (like someone pointing an xray machine at you).  Anything heavily radiated was taken care or already or covered.  The real danger (and still is) is any radioactive dust or particles (LOT of which was thrown out during the fire / meltdown).  Being directly exposed to radiation can be bad if it is for long enough, but breathing in radioactive particles is very bad because it will sit in you lungs and continue to radiate for a very long time.  So, living off site and being very careful what you breath should be reasonably safe.

The meltdown was essentially caused by a n f-up.  Don't do that again, and the other should be fine.  What other flaws there are? Well, at least it has been running for a while, so what flaws are not known can't be terribly common(!)

Have the Soviets ever met a problem that they weren't willing to try and solve by throwing bodies at it?

tuna55 said:

I wouldn't go back to work there. Who would? I know these places are big. I've been to a couple of nuclear plants. But they're not "Oh yeah but that reactor is waaaay over there" big. The whole idea blows my mind. "Brownouts until we can figure out how to balance the grid with some friendly neighboring countries and some extra cushion from some other plants nearby" sounds a lot better than "oh well, we'll just keep operating the other three and cross our fingers that we don't continue to destroy the world. It will be fine. Probably."

Going back to work in the exclusion zone must've been...interesting, sure, but if you understand the meltdown you should know that it was the result of a totally reckless "test" that was practically indistinguishable from intentional sabotage, so there's nothing particularly scary about running the remaining reactors like responsible adults.

I was in the Naval Nuclear Power School when this happened.  We heard quite a bit of stupid things they did to cause the accident.

In reply to STM317 :

R504 Kolyma Highway - Wikipedia

For anyone who hasn't read it, "Atomic Accidents" is a really good read. Doesn't talk much about Chernobyl after the accident but it gives a good explanation of how it happened.

Kind of related but on a smaller scale Unit 1 at 3 Mile Island was still producing power up until September 2019 after Unit 2 had a partial meltdown in 1979. 

The other reactor at Three Mile Island ran for how long after the accident? 

aircooled said:

 

The basic situation after the melted down reactor was stabilized as I understand it is that there really wasn't much actual radiation (like someone pointing an xray machine at you).  Anything heavily radiated was taken care or already or covered.  The real danger (and still is) is any radioactive dust or particles (LOT of which was thrown out during the fire / meltdown).

Note that there are three different types of radiation that matter here:  alpha particles, beta particles, and gamma rays.  Alphas and betas are basically only harmful if you ingest or breathe the material that emits them, whereas gammas penetrate like X-rays (only worse) and you need lead shielding/etc between you and a gamma source.  A particular type of radioactive material generally only emits one type of radiation, so if you get rid of the gamma emitters then instead of a place where it kills people who walk into it for 10 minutes you've got a place where as long as you keep any of the dust from getting into your eyes, lungs, mouth/etc you'll be fine.  The latter is what the hazmat suits are for.

codrus (Forum Supporter) said:

aircooled said:

 

The basic situation after the melted down reactor was stabilized as I understand it is that there really wasn't much actual radiation (like someone pointing an xray machine at you).  Anything heavily radiated was taken care or already or covered.  The real danger (and still is) is any radioactive dust or particles (LOT of which was thrown out during the fire / meltdown).

Note that there are three different types of radiation that matter here:  alpha particles, beta particles, and gamma rays.  Alphas and betas are basically only harmful if you ingest or breathe the material that emits them, whereas gammas penetrate like X-rays (only worse) and you need lead shielding/etc between you and a gamma source.  A particular type of radioactive material generally only emits one type of radiation, so if you get rid of the gamma emitters then instead of a place where it kills people who walk into it for 10 minutes you've got a place where as long as you keep any of the dust from getting into your eyes, lungs, mouth/etc you'll be fine.  The latter is what the hazmat suits are for.

You forgot that gamma rays also turn you green and muscular and angry.

Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) said:

The other reactor at Three Mile Island ran for how long after the accident? 

Very different accident. TMI didn't vomit radioactive material everywhere.

If you haven't watched the miniseries that was made on the subject a few years back, I highly recommend it. From people I've talked to who follow that kind of thing they have said it is fairly accurate to reality.