Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant

Case Study
Roselle 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 10 18 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 km 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 worsthit 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. Neverthe-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. baseload), and hence ideally matched to increasing urbanization worldwide.

Global warming necessitates the development of new forms of lowemissions, 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.