Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant

Case StudyRoselle Marie D. Azucena, MAN, MBA

Case Abstract

Introduction

The Chernobyl Power Complex, lying about 130 km north of Kiev, Ukraine,

and about 20 kilometer south of the border with Belarus, consisted of four

nuclear reactors of the RBMK-1000 design, units 1 and 2 being constructed

between 1970 and 1977, while units 3 and 4 of the same design were completed

in 1983.

The April 1986 disaster at the Chernobyl nuclear power in plant

in Ukraine was the product of a flawed Soviet reactor design coupled with serious

mistakes made by the plant operators. It was a direct consequence of Cold War

isolation and the resulting lack of any safety culture.

On 25 April, prior to a routine shutdown, the reactor crew at Chernobyl 4

began preparing for a test to determine how long turbines would spin and supply

power to the main circulating pumps following a loss of main electrical power

supply. A series of operator actions, including the disabling of automatic

shutdown mechanisms, preceded the attempted test early on 26 April. By the

time that the operator moved to shut down the reactor, the reactor was in an

extremely unstable condition. A peculiarity of the design of the control rods

caused a dramatic power surge as they were inserted into the into the reactor

The interaction of very hot fuel with the cooling water led to fuel fragmentation

along with rapid steam production and an increase in pressure. The overpressure

caused the 1000 t cover plate of the reactor to become partially detached,

rupturing the fuel channels and jamming all the control rods, which by that time

were only halfway down. Intense steam generation then spread throughout the

whole core (fed by water dumped into the core due to the rupture of the

emergency cooling circuit) causing a steam explosion and releasing fission

products to the atmosphere. About two to three seconds later, a second

explosion threw out fragments from the fuel channels and hot graphite.

The Immediate Impact

Two workers died as a result of these explosions. The graphite (about a

quarter of the 1200 tonnes of it was estimated to have been ejected) and fuel

became incandescent and started a number of fires, causing the main release of

radioactivity into the environment. A total of about 14 EBq (14 x 1018 Bq) of

radioactivity was released, over half of it being from biologically-inert noble

gases.

. A further 28 people died within a few weeks as a result of acute radiation

poisoning.

The Effects of the Disaster

National and international spread of radioactive substances

Four hundred times more radioactive material was released from Chernobyl than

by the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. The disaster released 1/100 to 1/1000 of

the total amount of radioactivity released by nuclear weapons testing during the

1950s and 1960s. Approximately 100,000 km² of land was significantly

contaminated with fallout, with the worst hit regions being in Belarus, Ukraine and

Russia. Slighter levels of contamination were detected over all of Europe except

for the Iberian Peninsula.

The evacuation of Pripyat on 27 April 36 hours after the initial explosions, was

silently completed before the disaster became known outside the Soviet Union.

The rise in radiation levels had at that time already been measured in Finland,

but a civil service strike delayed the response. Contamination from the Chernobyl

accident was scattered irregularly depending on weather conditions, much of it

deposited on mountainous regions such as the Alps, the Welsh mountains and

the Scottish Highlands, where adiabatic cooling caused radioactive rainfall.

Sweden and Norway also received heavy fallout when the contaminated air

collided with a cold front, bringing rain.

Residual radioactivity in the environment

Rivers, lakes and reservoirs were also affected wherein contamination in the

aquatic resources where reported. Groundwater was not badly affected by the

Chernobyl accident.

Concerning flora and fauna, after the disaster, four square kilometers

of pine forest directly downwind of the reactor turned reddish-brown and died,

earning the name of the "Red Forest". Some animals in the worst-hit areas also

died or stopped reproducing. The horses left on an island in the Pripyat River

6 km (4 mi) from the power plant died when their thyroid glands were destroyed

by radiation.  Some cattle on the same island died and those that survived were

stunted because of thyroid damage.

Impact to Humans

In the aftermath of the accident, 237 people suffered from acute radiation

sickness (ARS), of whom 31 died within the first three months. Most of the

victims were fire and rescue workers trying to bring the accident under control,

who were not fully aware of how dangerous the exposure to radiation in

the smoke was.

On the death toll of the accident, the report states that twenty-eight

emergency workers ("liquidators") died from acute radiation syndrome

including beta burns and 15 patients died from thyroid cancer in the following

years, and it roughly estimated that cancer deaths caused by Chernobyl may

reach a total of about 4000 among the 5 million persons residing in the

contaminated areas.

Statement of the Problem:

As a result of the incidence, the issue will be,” Is it still beneficial to use nuclear technology in providing cheap and clean energy or do the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks?” Will we explore other alternatives?.

Alternative Solutions

What sort of energy source to be used for a particular purpose should in the end

be reflected in its overall value considering the cost, benefit, safety and reliability

Fossil Fuels:

The World's Fossil Fuels are a finite resource that will be consumed within

500 years at present and projected future rates of consumption. In addition these

are often accompanied by substantial pollutants and of course their major waste

by-product, carbon-dioxide gas, is the major Greenhouse emission of concern.

There is general consensus within the Scientific Community that a new phase

of global warming induced by carbon-dioxide emissions is currently underway

and that the World's temperature will rise significantly within the next century.

There is still substantial debate about the climatic consequences of this

temperature rise although there is little doubt that the world's climate will be

different in 100 years time if we continue to increase our rate of consumption of

fossil fuels. Given that there is no clear consensus on the outcome of the global

warming and that some of the consequences are very dire indeed, the safe

course of action is to limit the amount of Global Warming and hence to limit the

amount of Greenhouse gas emission.

Oil:

Oil is the most precious and least abundant of the world's fossil fuels. Never-

the-less the amount of Oil on the Earth is likely at least the range of several

trillion barrels of Oil once non-conventional sources of Oil are considered. These

include the Heavy Oil deposits of South America, the Oil sands of Western

Canada and shale Oil found throughout the World. In addition as the price of Oil

increases, previously abandoned fields become economic to re-extract.

Consequently despite constantly increasing Oil production throughout the world,

there is likely at least a century of usable Oil available in the world. A more useful

question is: At what price will petroleum and gasoline be widely displaced as the

fuel of choice for transport? It has already been largely displaced as a fuel for

Electricity.

Coal

Coal is the most abundant fossil fuel. It is found throughout the world and

current proven reserves are sufficient for at least 300 years of exploitation.

Although coal is cheap, it is dangerous to mine (thousands of miners die every

year all over the world) and is bulky and expensive to transport. Because coal

has relatively low energy content for its weight, a lot of it is required to produce a

given amount of electricity. For example, A 1000 MW coal power station requires

about 8,600,000 kg of coal per day, compared to 74 kg per day of uranium for

the equivalent sized nuclear power plant. In addition coal-based power plants

produce vast amounts of pollutants, including radioactivity, in addition to the C02

emissions which contribute to global-warming.

Natural Gas

Natural Gas reserves are intermediate between Coal and Oil. It is currently

the most favoured fuel source for new electricity production with the USA. Natural

gas combined-cycle generators can reach 60% efficiency for converting heat

energy into electricity. Natural gas also produces 40 -50 % fewer CO2 emissions

for the same amount of electricity generated as Coal. However the price of

Natural Gas is steadily rising and the costs associated with sequestration of the

generated CO2 are not yet included in the price of electricity passed on the

consumer.

Nuclear Fission

The cost of Nuclear Fission Power is dominated by the capital cost of

construction of the plant. These reactors also have significant increases in

Uranium efficiency and substantial increases in operating life of the plant (60

years). In addition the proponents claim a ten-fold increase in safety of operation

over previous generation reactors. Disposal of Nuclear Waste remains a topic of

intense debate and controversy.

Nuclear Fission is currently unique in that the costs of decommissioning and

waste disposal are fully reflected in the price of the generated electricity.

The nuclear industry has longer-term plans to develop advanced reactors

that are over 50 times more efficient in their use of Uranium and which consume

a large fraction of the long-lived waste generated from current (2nd generation)

reactors. In addition these plants may also be used to efficiently produce

Hydrogen for use as a transportation fuel and to de-salinate sea water. These

are the Fourth Generation Nuclear Reactors and are not expected to be ready for

deployment before 2020.

There is a large and very vocal opposition to Nuclear Fission power because

of the radioactive material produced in the process of generating energy and

from Nuclear Proliferation concerns. There are also claims that Nuclear Power

is more expensive than alternative energy generation schemes. There are

also numerous websites and a document that counter such claims and offer

strong opinion that Nuclear Power is the best energy option.

Nuclear Fusion

Nuclear Fusion is often proposed as the ultimate energy source. Great progress

has been made in this field in the 50 years since it was first proposed.

Construction has started for the next generation Fusion Test Reactor (the ITER).

Its projected start date is 2016. It will be operated for the 10 years following to

learn the about the Physics and Engineering required to build and operate a

commercially competitive Power Plant. It is projected to produce 500 MegaWatts

of energy at full power. However much research and development still needs to

be done on the project.

Solar

Solar energy has made significant progress and is displacing fossil fuel

technologies from many niche applications.

a. Solar Thermal

These are technologies that concentrate sunlight to produce intense heat or light.

Many significant technology hurdles have been overcome through ingenious

design and the use of advanced materials. Nevertheless despite many years of

effort these technologies produce electricity at far higher cost than coal-based

production. The exceptions are when these are located in sunlight rich regions

with poor access of Fossil Fuels or where the full cost of Fossil Fuels are passed

on to the consumer. Solar

b. Solar PhotoVoltaics

PhotoVoltaic systems convert sunlight directly into electricity by utilizing the

Quantum-Mechanical properties of light. There has been great progress at both

increasing the efficiency of solar cells for use in concentrator systems and in

decreasing the cost of large array converters.

Wind

Wind Power utilizes modern-versions of wind-mills to produce electricity. Its

use is growing world-wide. In countries with high-cost electricity production,

favorable geography and anti-nuclear policies, it is almost cost-competitive with

conventional electricity generation as an additional source of power-production.

Its main drawback is its intermittent availability. This means that on average it

produces only about 25 -35% of its peak capacity when averaged over a year

and so it requires backup for windless days. Large-scale wind use requires

capital to both build the wind-powered turbines and backup facilities.

There is a vocal environmental opposition to Wind Power from those who

oppose the visual impact of wind-turbines on the landscape, its danger to bird life

and noise. There are numerous websites that counter such claims.

Biomass

Biomass projects utilize various biological processes to generate

hydrocarbon fuels like Methane Gas and Diesel fuel. Modern Biomass projects

focus on methane gas from refuse and biodiesel fuel from algae, plants and

waste products.

There is intense, world-wide research into this energy source as Biodiesel

could well become cost competitive as the price of conventional Oil increases.

There are numerous hobbyists who create Biodiesel fuel for their own use.

However, presently available crops are rather inefficient at converting sunlight

into useful fuel which makes biomass unsuitable for large-scale electricity

production. 

Geothermal Energy

Geothermal energy relies on converting heat trapped underground to

generate useful power. In most cases this means converting the heat to

electricity via the same techniques employed by Fossil Fuel power stations.

There are in addition several locations in the world where Geothermal energy is

also used to provide district heating.

Geothermal has the advantage over Wind and Solar power of being available

24 hours a day.

Conclusions

The supporters of all the energy sources described here have answers to

problems ascribed to them. The fossil Fuel advocates are pursuing carbon

sequestration projects. The Biomass, Solar and Wind Power advocates claim

that costs will continue to diminish with the aid of government subsidies to ramp

up production and to support continued research and development. The Nuclear

Power industry advertise that their 3rd generation reactors will provide electricity

at less than half the cost of the average second generation reactor and be at

least 10 times safer. In addition they believe that there are now safe and reliable

means to dispose of waste over the long term. Further-more the industry claim

that the Fourth Generation reactors will completely burn all the 238U in natural

Uranium and/or fully utilize Thorium while generating one tenth to one hundred

the waste of present reactors. If perfected, there is sufficient accessible Uranium

and Thorium to enable these reactors to provide enough energy to power an

advanced civilization for everyone living on Earth for well over 1 million years.

Of all the energy sources discussed here, Nuclear Fission Power is the

lowest-cost form of non-greenhouse energy production. The second-generation

reactors currently operating at World's best-practice level consistently produce

low-cost electricity with no greenhouse gas emissions at high reliability. The

French decision to go all-Nuclear has paid-off handsomely and Sweden has the

almost the lowest priced electricty in Europe. Furthermore,

Denmarks' Greenhouse Gas emissions per capita are substantially greater than

both France and Sweden since the Danes use coal power for the majority of their

electricity needs even with their commitment to Wind Power.

In the the longer term advanced reactors, fusion-fission hybrids and

accelerator driven systems that efficiently use the World's abundant Thorium and

Uranium reserves have the capability to power a planet-wide advanced

civilization essentially indefinitely. They also have the capability to generate

energy from and dispose of the long-lived transuranic waste. However this

technology will always require strict safe-guards and independent oversight.

Nuclear power plants seem like risky investments, which in turn raises

investors' demands on return and the cost of borrowing money to finance the

projects. Yet nuclear power enjoys low operating costs, which can make it

competitive on the basis of the electricity price needed to recover the capital

investment over a plant's lifetime. And if governments eventually cap carbon

dioxide emissions through either an emissions charge or a regulatory

requirement, as they are likely to do in the next decade or so, then nuclear

energy will be more attractive relative to fossil fuels.

Recommendations

Nuclear Power for electricity

Nuclear power generation is an established part of the world's electricity mix

providing in 2012 some 11% of world electricity of 22,752 TWh (cf. coal 40.3%,

oil 5%, natural gas 22.4%, hydro 16.5% and other 5%). It is especially suitable for

large-scale, continuous electricity demand which requires reliability (i.e. base-

load), and hence ideally matched to increasing urbanization worldwide.

Global warming necessitates the development of new forms of low-

emissions, base-load power generating capacity. To assess the financial,

regulatory, and proliferation concerns confronting nuclear energy and to develop

strategies for addressing the barriers to the deployment of new reactors, careful

considerations should be observed.

Undeniably there are more benefits than drawbacks in using nuclear energy

than any other source, however if the measures given below are considered,

then nuclear energy remains the best option.

1. Ensure that the insights from the construction of a new reactors in

conforms with the highest safety standard and a detailed study on

lessons learned from recent worldwide efforts to build new nuclear

reactors, incorporate the worldwide recommendations, and hold

forums to discuss these issues with nuclear industry officials and

other stakeholders.

2.  Governments should vigilantly and proactively enforce its current

regulations and encourage a strong safety culture to reduce the risk of

significant operating events that can lead to extensive plant

shutdowns. They should also create a new research and development

program in nuclear engineering to provide the advanced tools needed

to analyze the safety of reactor designs, fuels, siting options, etc. This

would allow to independently analyze new reactor designs with the

expectation that such an approach can lead to transparently safer and

less costly projects.

3. The new administration should encourage public investments in low

carbon-emitting electric generation alternatives, including new nuclear

power plants. This is in particular in addressing global warming.

4. The Energy Department should fund projects that find creative

solutions via global partnerships to the nuclear waste created from

reactor operation; these grants should include representatives from

the countries under discussion. Importantly, the nuclear industry

should strive to reduce the proliferation potential of its reactors and

fuel-cycle facilities and regularly revisit this risk.

5. Develop standards for the physical protection of fissile materials to

assure the physical security of civilian nuclear fuel-cycle facilities and

power reactors. A variety of interest groups, including regulators, the

nuclear industry, experts, and nongovernmental organizations, should

be consulted as part of this process.

6. Develop standards for the physical protection of fissile materials to

assure the physical security of civilian nuclear fuel-cycle facilities and

power reactors. A variety of interest groups, including regulators, the

nuclear industry, experts, and nongovernmental organizations, should

be consulted as part of this process.

7. The construction and operation of new power plants and fuel-cycle

facilities raises the risks of nuclear weapons proliferation. Given that

the use of a nuclear weapon or an accidental explosion anywhere in

the world might bring about a global renunciation of nuclear energy, it

is in the interest of the global nuclear industry to be centrally involved

in stemming weapons proliferation.