Comments on: Three Mile Island – Thirty Years After http://www.pennwellblogs.com/nuclear_notions/2009/03/31/three-mile-island-%e2%80%93-thirty-years-after/ A PennEnergy.com Blog with William Tucker Thu, 09 Feb 2012 04:30:23 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Martha T Pelensky, PE http://www.pennwellblogs.com/nuclear_notions/2009/03/31/three-mile-island-%e2%80%93-thirty-years-after/#comment-135 Martha T Pelensky, PE Wed, 01 Apr 2009 16:02:56 +0000 http://www.pennwellblogs.com/nuclear_notions/2009/03/31/three-mile-island-%e2%80%93-thirty-years-after/#comment-135 I am a chemical engineer by training and spent most of my professional life as a process design engineer, control engineer and project manager for a major oil company. I am also of Ukrainian origin and have relatives in Kyiv (formerly Kiev). On the 20th anniversary (1986) of the Chernobyl disaster in the then Ukrainian SSR I gave a technical presentation at a local Section of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) about the origins and reasons for that debacle.. All information used in that presentation was in the public domain. I would like to summarize the presentation: 1. The design, in its concept, was flawed in the sense that each nuclear power plant in the former USSR was designed to produce weapons-grade plutonium as a by-product. This required a frequent changedout of the uranium tubes. Because of this there could not have been a concrete shield around the core. Hans Bethe, a world class physicist at Cornell, commented that it was "a lousy design". 2. The construction was of low quality. 3. The reason for the explosion was a poorly thought out experiment run by unqualified people. They were mostly electrical types . Nuclear reactor persons were not consulted and included. 4. All safety precautions were DELIBERATELY bypassed on order of party functionaries who wanted to prove to their superiors how well they managed the test. Despite protests of operating personnel the minimum amount of control rods were pulled out. The results were what they were. 5. The affected Chornobyl Reactor #4 had an unblemished safety record until that time. 6. There were at that time some 17 plants of the same design operating throughout the USSR and nothing like Chornobyl disaster happened before or since. 7. The three most responsible persons for this disaster were put on show trial and sentenced to hard labor somewhere in central Asia. Their current fate is unknown. The point of this brief analysis is that if a nuclear plant is operated as it should be and ALL safety precautions are meticulously observed, they are as safe if not more so, than a refinery or a chemical plant. Another comment: According to the First Law of Thermodynamics, energy cannot be created or destroyed. The heat generated by condensing the low pressure steam and absorbed by the cooling water is usually dissipated by the nearby body of water. It has been observed that its temperature rises which causes growth of algae and/or other water borne weeds which in turn affects the aquatic life. Yes, it is clean but not free. Also there is the pesky problem of the disposal of the wastes which are not clean. Very truly yours, Martha Pelensky I am a chemical engineer by training and spent most of my professional life as a process design engineer, control engineer and project manager for a major oil company. I am also of Ukrainian origin and have relatives in Kyiv (formerly Kiev).
On the 20th anniversary (1986) of the Chernobyl disaster in the then Ukrainian SSR I gave a technical presentation at a local Section of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) about the origins and reasons for that debacle.. All information used in that presentation was in the public domain.
I would like to summarize the presentation:
1. The design, in its concept, was flawed in the sense that each nuclear power plant in the former USSR was designed to produce weapons-grade plutonium as a by-product. This required a frequent changedout of the uranium tubes. Because of this there could not have been a concrete shield around the core. Hans Bethe, a world class physicist at Cornell, commented that it was “a lousy design”.
2. The construction was of low quality.
3. The reason for the explosion was a poorly thought out experiment run by unqualified people. They were mostly electrical types . Nuclear reactor persons were not consulted and included.
4. All safety precautions were DELIBERATELY bypassed on order of party functionaries who wanted to prove to their superiors how well they managed the test. Despite protests of operating personnel the minimum amount of control rods were pulled out. The results were what they were.
5. The affected Chornobyl Reactor #4 had an unblemished safety record until that time.
6. There were at that time some 17 plants of the same design operating throughout the USSR and nothing like Chornobyl disaster happened before or since.
7. The three most responsible persons for this disaster were put on show trial and sentenced to hard labor somewhere in central Asia. Their current fate is unknown.

The point of this brief analysis is that if a nuclear plant is operated as it should be and ALL safety precautions are meticulously observed, they are as safe if not more so, than a refinery or a chemical plant.

Another comment:
According to the First Law of Thermodynamics, energy cannot be created or destroyed. The heat generated by condensing the low pressure steam and absorbed by the cooling water is usually dissipated by the nearby body of water. It has been observed that its temperature rises which causes growth of algae and/or other water borne weeds which in turn affects the aquatic life. Yes, it is clean but not free. Also there is the pesky problem of the disposal of the wastes which are not clean.

Very truly yours, Martha Pelensky

]]> By: John B. Ashmun http://www.pennwellblogs.com/nuclear_notions/2009/03/31/three-mile-island-%e2%80%93-thirty-years-after/#comment-134 John B. Ashmun Wed, 01 Apr 2009 16:02:33 +0000 http://www.pennwellblogs.com/nuclear_notions/2009/03/31/three-mile-island-%e2%80%93-thirty-years-after/#comment-134 Good substantiation for more nuclear power! Heavily subsidized switch grass, noisy, ugly windmills and solar screens producing interruptible power never to exceed some 10-15% of the country's needs should take a far back seat to high potential, clean nuclear, long established oil & gas and coal sources which are being aimed at with more taxes. Good substantiation for more nuclear power! Heavily subsidized switch grass, noisy, ugly windmills and solar screens producing interruptible power never to exceed some 10-15% of the country’s needs should take a far back seat to high potential, clean nuclear, long established oil & gas and coal sources which are being aimed at with more taxes.

]]>