|
Post by nimrod on Feb 26, 2021 16:46:00 GMT -6
Yup on helios, the 1890 start date and the new power plant!
On the nuclear power though, I've got to agree with akosjaccik. I'm not a big fan of including nuclear propulsion. I don't see much benefit that would be provided in a game that tries to be historical. The modeling of battle damage / efficiency / safety / maintenance cost and even who gets it and when would be bit tough to address. Just like oil, not every nation has access to uranium or the means of enriching sufficiently for use as a fuel source. There is a lot of industrial and technological know-how and capabilities that go into safe ship-borne nuclear power plants as well... On the historical note again, ship-borne nuclear power outside of subs and CVs never took off and some of the reasons were political rather than technological or industrial capability / cost / capability driven. So from a historical perspective, I'm just not seeing much value here. The devs can push the game towards fantasy with optimistic weight and power outputs, but if they try to keep it fairly close to history than their just isn't much value here. Personally fantasy nuclear reactors would seem like a good opportunity for a MOD though. Replacing coal in a mid 1930's or 1940's start with fantasy (high-output / low weight / mid maintenance cost) nuklear reactors in the early 50s would be fun to experiment and play with!
If fleet trains and other supply considerations came into the game, I would happily reconsider the game play benefits of nuclear reactors. But right now, I'm just not seeing their value in a historical minded game / simulation.
|
|
|
Post by dohboy on Feb 26, 2021 18:23:36 GMT -6
On the historical note again, ship-borne nuclear power outside of subs and CVs never took off Don't forget the CGNs, the US had them in service for almost 40 years. The benefits of nuclear propulsion would definitely be limited without changes to the way logistics and basing is modeled. Most of the weight savings on CVNs went to aviation fuel, which is irrelevant. Could add munitions capacity, but who cares about torpedoes (the only limited munitions unless ASMs follow the same model) by the time nukes come around?
|
|
|
Post by tornado1555 on Feb 26, 2021 19:04:35 GMT -6
Another thing (or perhaps "in more general terms" instead of "another", more precisely) I'd point out is that I believe I see very little discussion concerning the context of RtW - at least as is currently - when it comes to some particular items on the wishlist. Let's take nuclear propulsion for example - what would be the gameplay benefit? The difference between Medium and Long range settings concern mostly only raiders, and the merits of Extreme range is theoretical at best. If the cost and benefit ratios to weight are over-siplified, the new propulsion may become a quasi-mindless auto-pick such as long-range turbocharged diesels currently. So, apart from the sake of "sure, let's put it in the game", what would be the point? Since I am not a native speaker, I should clear it up that I'm not strictly _against_ such new features, I'd just like to see _meaningful_ choices, not stuff that half the community doesn't use, and the other half isn't even aware what it actually does. Similarly, sub-design. It sounds great, I admit, and yet I don't find the perspective particularly interesting given the currently implemented sub-system (which I find actually to be on a very good level of abstract presence and there are good arguments to be made for why it is in the game as it is in the game), because I can hardly imagine it being rather engaging. Pay more for two more aft tubes for a slightly better chance at sub events? Or take helicopters for example, which - welcome addition they are - sound esentially like PB for ships. They could scout, and they will like have ASW value (which could make them an "auto-pick" over seaplanes if all else is equal) - that's... kind of it, really. Some interesting ideas could surface still, like writing some event prompts around them, or tieing them somehow into the search-and-rescue tech, but once again, this is kinda-sorta exactly my point; we are raising once again a lot of features without really asking much about "how would they fit into the game?" beyond implementing them just for the sake of "coolness". I was, and am still on the same page with wlbjork's opinion, "I personally would rather see employed working on other aspects of the game". Breaking down the "meta", God forbid actually "complicating" a bit some already present features, natively dealing with the speed curve or deck armor weight, fleshing out logistics, fleet trains, invasions, diplomacy, OOB, BG, that sort of thing. It would help a great deal more than more missiles. Depth instead of width. I'd be extremely content with better 1900-~1945 instead of more 1890-1970. Of course, all of this is just personal taste. I think it would not be arrogant of me to say that other are others, including myself, that would strongly agree with you. The main issue at hand, I think, is that RTW2 feels a lot like RTW1, which can be good except for the fact that it still feels as though it is "filling the shoes it is to grow into". From what I've played, RTW2 still feels like it wants its ends date to go from 1925 to 1945 and isn't quite there yet. Like what many have pointed out with shortcomings to the Mission Generator. Increasing the scope to 1970 with all of the massive advances and doctrinal changes while still employing a post-Steam and Iron formula would not work. As far as I can see nuclear power was an essential factor in Naval doctrines of the Cold War. Yes, surface ship nuclear plants were rare or can be represented easily in-game with a "saves weight" technology, but the submarine both on the Nuclear and Diesel/Electric front became a primary fleet component, rather than an anti-convoy auxiliary with occasional anti-fleet roles. By 1950 submarines not only could go faster underwater than on the surface, but Diesel/Electrics were quieter defensively than before, and Nuclear Submarines hardly needed to snorkle and yet were also nearly as fast as a surface ship at top speed. In my view, if nuclear power is too messy and complicated a thing to really implement, it should be instead at least represented in submarines with an alternatively more "blue water" branch compared to what more coastal/defensive role that Diesel/Electric submarines evolved to suit. I'd love to see what shoes this game can fill, and am excited to see it develop further at a time when naval game development needs a good example, but much realism would certainly be missed if we tried to represent the world of 1970 with the mechanics of 1930.
PS- Here's a thought as well that I might copy and paste in the future into suggestions: perhaps we need volunteers to hand create some missions?
It would free up development time a bit, and I myself be willing to learn if I knew it wouldn't break something in the game, having poked around a little bit myself. I've seen other active modders on here that, if willing, would likely be able to greatly increase mission variety and it would also connect these active members of the community with the developer team.
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Feb 27, 2021 7:00:34 GMT -6
possible nuclear power attributes:
pros: - perhaps can move 2 seazones per month? - no smoke so harder to spot? - better capability subs
cons: - considerable added expense to design/build - very expensive (and long?) rebuild when needing to refuel - if the reactor is damaged in battle the ship likely couldn't be repaired, would have to be scrapped making them possibly easy to mission kill - random nuclear accidents would require the ship to be scrapped prematurely, sometimes shortly after being built before participating in a war (see cold war Soviet Navy). could be a realism option to avoid frustration
|
|
|
Post by stevethecat on Feb 27, 2021 7:21:31 GMT -6
Nuclear submarines could be a fair addition without making too much of an issue of surface ships. They would simply be more expensive but better with an added ASW capability.
I just don't think that nuclear-powered surface ships could have enough benefits to outweigh the cost. Even with 1920's Oil you simply never have to worry about range etc.
|
|
|
Post by nimrod on Feb 27, 2021 10:19:22 GMT -6
On the historical note again, ship-borne nuclear power outside of subs and CVs never took off Don't forget the CGNs, the US had them in service for almost 40 years. The benefits of nuclear propulsion would definitely be limited without changes to the way logistics and basing is modeled. Most of the weight savings on CVNs went to aviation fuel, which is irrelevant. Could add munitions capacity, but who cares about torpedoes (the only limited munitions unless ASMs follow the same model) by the time nukes come around? dohboy,
Valid argument on neglecting the CGNs. I appreciate you bringing it up. I'm also forgetting the Kirov's and three commercial nuclear powered vessels and a few Russian icebreakers.
I'm making a judgement / feeling call on the CGN / Kirov's not taking off, my call very well may be wrong. To me both designs were centered around the CVN, without it to protect or kill in the case of the Kirov; the designs wouldn't exist. In conjunction with that the USN CGNs had anti-submarine elements - nuclear powered ships were seen as necessary to defend against the Russian SSN, SSGN that were stalking the USN / NATO battle groups. In my opinion it is the CVN / SSN / SSGN / SSBM that legitimized the CGN / Kirov designs.
Regarding the longevity of the designs, I'm more familiar with CVs so I'll write indirectly through the Enterprise. Decommissioning a nuclear reactor is literally a politically a hot subject that very few want to address head on. It is also a money pit with EPA and other regulatory agencies getting a big piece of the costs. My understanding is that the USA Congress / USN kept the Enterprise in service as long as they did, as it was cheaper to operate her than to decommission her - www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22607/the-navy-could-need-more-than-15-years-and-over-1-5b-to-scrap-uss-enterprise.
What I see as the big value of nuclear powered ships is their ability to run at high speed for very extended time periods - in game this would be moving two sea-zones a turn, consistent high speed in battle. The other value is the excess amount of electrical energy that can made available - radar / sonar, comms, crew comfort, water distillation, electrical gizmos for checking or working on aircraft, (energy weapons), etc. A modern capital ship isn't a boat with guns, it is a city at sea. www.amazon.com/City-at-Sea-Yogi-Kaufman/dp/1557504571
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Feb 27, 2021 15:57:26 GMT -6
For example, what would happen if a 20" AP shell tore into a Nimitz-class supercarrier and hit one of the reactors? In theory, nothing. The nuclear fuel used in reactors isn't the same as that used in nuclear weapons. Even basic A-bombs require specially-enriched uranium in order to produce a nuclear explosion. Furthermore, nuclear weapons work on one of two principles: gun-fission, or implosion. Gun-fission involves firing a small piece of fissile material into a much larger piece at high speed in order to cause fission (this is an oversimplification - I'm not Oppenheimer). Implosion involves surrounding the nuclear fuel with high explosive which, when detonated, compress the fuel until fission occurs. A shell-hit to a nuclear reactor would generate neither type of fission explosion. There would be a massive blast from the steam and feed water pressure, same as with any steam plant, but that would be the extent of it unless the shell managed to cause a high-energy impact between the fuel rods. Even then, the event wouldn't last long enough for a full-scale nuclear reaction, but it might cause a low-level atomic explosion. Ultimately, the biggest threat isn't an explosion - it's the radioactive material the explosion would scatter over the surrounding area (think Chernobyl on a smaller scale). Honestly though? I'm okay with nuclear propulsion being omitted from the game. Supply is already an almost non-issue late game for long-extreme range ships. On the nuclear weapon front, there is something I feel is worth pointing out to everyone: regardless of who is responsible for the employment of nukes, the fact is that any major war between nuclear-armed powers (practically speaking, all nations in the game had the technical capability) would have a strong likelihood of generating a nuclear exchange. Meaning, to be perfectly blunt, this Naval Warfare Simulation would become a Naval Warfare Avoidance Simulation. The two scenarios I was really thinking of were melt-down and "dirty bomb". Either of those could well kill the ship -Three Mile Island shows the devastating impact of a partial meltdown, whilst scattered radioactive material contained even within 2-3 compartments would be a nightmare to completely clean up and decontaminate. Also, those rascally saboteurs need to be watched. They could take out half your fleet if they blow the reactor right!
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Feb 28, 2021 7:18:15 GMT -6
nuclear powered raiders would be fun to mess with - i remember back in the 80s reading different books speculating that the Kirov class BCGN was designed to be able to operate independently in the North Atlantic and be able take on carrier groups with a 'reasonable chance of success' knowing now in reality that was clearly not possible, but it definitely captured my imagination when i was a kid
also in regards to nuclear weapons it might not be practical to have them in tactical battles, but i think they might work if they were events during turn resolution, similar to when you get a message that one of your ships got hit/sunk by subs - perhaps you may randomly lose one or a few ships by a nuclear strike. in this case it may also be possible to permanently lose airbases and ports to nukes if the war escalates even further
i played a TON of Simulations Canada's "Northern Fleet" back in the late 80s/90's (no graphics in the game, just a laminated map/grease pencil to track sub/task force coordinates), and if one side decided to escalate the war from 'Tactical Nuclear Warfare' (nukes at sea only) to 'Operational Nuclear Warfare' there was a chance each turn you would get messages that one/some of your bases was destroyed by a nuclear strike, and also there was a 50% chance each turn that the game would end due to a full nuclear exchange with no game winner
usually the person losing the game would do this since it cost you a LOT of VPs to escalate, however there was also a chance you would get a message that the politicians decided to de-escalate back to tactical nukes meaning you lost a ton of VPs for little to no gain
|
|
|
Post by janxol on Feb 28, 2021 15:45:11 GMT -6
In theory, nothing. The nuclear fuel used in reactors isn't the same as that used in nuclear weapons. Even basic A-bombs require specially-enriched uranium in order to produce a nuclear explosion. Furthermore, nuclear weapons work on one of two principles: gun-fission, or implosion. Gun-fission involves firing a small piece of fissile material into a much larger piece at high speed in order to cause fission (this is an oversimplification - I'm not Oppenheimer). Implosion involves surrounding the nuclear fuel with high explosive which, when detonated, compress the fuel until fission occurs. A shell-hit to a nuclear reactor would generate neither type of fission explosion. There would be a massive blast from the steam and feed water pressure, same as with any steam plant, but that would be the extent of it unless the shell managed to cause a high-energy impact between the fuel rods. Even then, the event wouldn't last long enough for a full-scale nuclear reaction, but it might cause a low-level atomic explosion. Ultimately, the biggest threat isn't an explosion - it's the radioactive material the explosion would scatter over the surrounding area (think Chernobyl on a smaller scale). Honestly though? I'm okay with nuclear propulsion being omitted from the game. Supply is already an almost non-issue late game for long-extreme range ships. On the nuclear weapon front, there is something I feel is worth pointing out to everyone: regardless of who is responsible for the employment of nukes, the fact is that any major war between nuclear-armed powers (practically speaking, all nations in the game had the technical capability) would have a strong likelihood of generating a nuclear exchange. Meaning, to be perfectly blunt, this Naval Warfare Simulation would become a Naval Warfare Avoidance Simulation. The two scenarios I was really thinking of were melt-down and "dirty bomb". Either of those could well kill the ship -Three Mile Island shows the devastating impact of a partial meltdown, whilst scattered radioactive material contained even within 2-3 compartments would be a nightmare to completely clean up and decontaminate. Also, those rascally saboteurs need to be watched. They could take out half your fleet if they blow the reactor right! Not really. Reactors dont tend to explode so you wouldnt "take out half the fleet" by messing with a reactor on a ship. Even meltdown I can only see happening in case of undected sabotage, not really due to battle damage. In terms of battle damage and resulting risk in continuing running the reactor it would immediately go into SCRAM to prevent that. Contamination is the real threat, best case you'd have to seal of a couple of compartments and suffer complete of partial loss of engine power and electricity, worst case you shut everything down and abandon ship immediately. In some sense it would also depend on reactor age/mileage (older/more used reactors contaminate more, not due to technology but because of amassed fission products. Uranium itself (and fresh fuel rods containing it) are actually very safe to handle. You can hold them in your bare hands, no protective gear. Gloves recommended, but not because of radiation, rather because of chemical properties of uranium. You can even hold plutionum if you want, though you can actually feel it be warm in your hand. My university actually has a uranium rod (or maybe plutionium, not sure, maybe both, who knows) to play around with RTGs.
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Feb 28, 2021 23:48:06 GMT -6
The two scenarios I was really thinking of were melt-down and "dirty bomb". Either of those could well kill the ship -Three Mile Island shows the devastating impact of a partial meltdown, whilst scattered radioactive material contained even within 2-3 compartments would be a nightmare to completely clean up and decontaminate. Also, those rascally saboteurs need to be watched. They could take out half your fleet if they blow the reactor right! Not really. Reactors dont tend to explode so you wouldnt "take out half the fleet" by messing with a reactor on a ship. Even meltdown I can only see happening in case of undected sabotage, not really due to battle damage. In terms of battle damage and resulting risk in continuing running the reactor it would immediately go into SCRAM to prevent that. Contamination is the real threat, best case you'd have to seal of a couple of compartments and suffer complete of partial loss of engine power and electricity, worst case you shut everything down and abandon ship immediately. In some sense it would also depend on reactor age/mileage (older/more used reactors contaminate more, not due to technology but because of amassed fission products. Uranium itself (and fresh fuel rods containing it) are actually very safe to handle. You can hold them in your bare hands, no protective gear. Gloves recommended, but not because of radiation, rather because of chemical properties of uranium. You can even hold plutionum if you want, though you can actually feel it be warm in your hand. My university actually has a uranium rod (or maybe plutionium, not sure, maybe both, who knows) to play around with RTGs. With what happened at Chernobyl I wouldn't be surprised if it were possible to detonate 60s-70s Soviet reactors by a specific sequence of damage and flooding.
|
|
|
Post by janxol on Mar 1, 2021 1:26:32 GMT -6
Not really. Reactors dont tend to explode so you wouldnt "take out half the fleet" by messing with a reactor on a ship. Even meltdown I can only see happening in case of undected sabotage, not really due to battle damage. In terms of battle damage and resulting risk in continuing running the reactor it would immediately go into SCRAM to prevent that. Contamination is the real threat, best case you'd have to seal of a couple of compartments and suffer complete of partial loss of engine power and electricity, worst case you shut everything down and abandon ship immediately. In some sense it would also depend on reactor age/mileage (older/more used reactors contaminate more, not due to technology but because of amassed fission products. Uranium itself (and fresh fuel rods containing it) are actually very safe to handle. You can hold them in your bare hands, no protective gear. Gloves recommended, but not because of radiation, rather because of chemical properties of uranium. You can even hold plutionum if you want, though you can actually feel it be warm in your hand. My university actually has a uranium rod (or maybe plutionium, not sure, maybe both, who knows) to play around with RTGs. With what happened at Chernobyl I wouldn't be surprised if it were possible to detonate 60s-70s Soviet reactors by a specific sequence of damage and flooding. What Chernobyl shows is that its very possible to detonate a reactor by disabling automated safety systems and actively ignoring the operations manual and protocols. What happened there were a few bad decisions and a tragedy of errors, which is why I would attribute this kind of event - in-game - to sabotage rather than damage. The reactor had a design quirk, which was a flaw, but if it was operated properly, it wouldn't matter. Even if the crew decided not the mess with automated SCRAM system - which they disabled so it wouldnt interfere with whatever they were doing - it may have been avoided.
For damage effects I would probably look to incidendts that were caused by malfunctions, preferably marine reactors too. For example K-19 nuclear incident, which would also be within the timeframe of the DLC. The cause was a coolant system leak, which could very well happen due to battle damage as well.
And all of that is purely academic, even if interesting to at least some, since we don't know if nuclear propulsion will be added, only that it may be considered.
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Mar 1, 2021 3:04:04 GMT -6
The two scenarios I was really thinking of were melt-down and "dirty bomb". Either of those could well kill the ship -Three Mile Island shows the devastating impact of a partial meltdown, whilst scattered radioactive material contained even within 2-3 compartments would be a nightmare to completely clean up and decontaminate. Also, those rascally saboteurs need to be watched. They could take out half your fleet if they blow the reactor right! Not really. Reactors dont tend to explode so you wouldnt "take out half the fleet" by messing with a reactor on a ship. Even meltdown I can only see happening in case of undected sabotage, not really due to battle damage. In terms of battle damage and resulting risk in continuing running the reactor it would immediately go into SCRAM to prevent that. Contamination is the real threat, best case you'd have to seal of a couple of compartments and suffer complete of partial loss of engine power and electricity, worst case you shut everything down and abandon ship immediately. In some sense it would also depend on reactor age/mileage (older/more used reactors contaminate more, not due to technology but because of amassed fission products. Uranium itself (and fresh fuel rods containing it) are actually very safe to handle. You can hold them in your bare hands, no protective gear. Gloves recommended, but not because of radiation, rather because of chemical properties of uranium. You can even hold plutionum if you want, though you can actually feel it be warm in your hand. My university actually has a uranium rod (or maybe plutionium, not sure, maybe both, who knows) to play around with RTGs. SCRAM is not a magic wand that prevents any nuclear reactor incidents. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima (the "big 3") all performed the SCRAM procedure - and all underwent a disaster anyway. Reactors might not "tend to" explode, but on the other side of the coin, the two IES Level Seven disasters - Fukushima and Chernobyl - were reactor explosions that spread nuclear material over a large area. Also worth pointing out that this incidents occurred on land, without battle damage to contend with. Swap in battle/sabotage damage for bad design/training/decisions and similar situations could occur.
|
|
|
Post by janxol on Mar 1, 2021 3:52:38 GMT -6
Not really. Reactors dont tend to explode so you wouldnt "take out half the fleet" by messing with a reactor on a ship. Even meltdown I can only see happening in case of undected sabotage, not really due to battle damage. In terms of battle damage and resulting risk in continuing running the reactor it would immediately go into SCRAM to prevent that. Contamination is the real threat, best case you'd have to seal of a couple of compartments and suffer complete of partial loss of engine power and electricity, worst case you shut everything down and abandon ship immediately. In some sense it would also depend on reactor age/mileage (older/more used reactors contaminate more, not due to technology but because of amassed fission products. Uranium itself (and fresh fuel rods containing it) are actually very safe to handle. You can hold them in your bare hands, no protective gear. Gloves recommended, but not because of radiation, rather because of chemical properties of uranium. You can even hold plutionum if you want, though you can actually feel it be warm in your hand. My university actually has a uranium rod (or maybe plutionium, not sure, maybe both, who knows) to play around with RTGs. SCRAM is not a magic wand that prevents any nuclear reactor incidents. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima (the "big 3") all performed the SCRAM procedure - and all underwent a disaster anyway. Reactors might not "tend to" explode, but on the other side of the coin, the two IES Level Seven disasters - Fukushima and Chernobyl - were reactor explosions that spread nuclear material over a large area. Also worth pointing out that this incidents occurred on land, without battle damage to contend with. Swap in battle/sabotage damage for bad design/training/decisions and similar situations could occur.
Only Chernobyl had a reactor explosion, Fukushima did not. Explosion in Fukushima was a hydrogen explosion outisde the reactor, hence the release of radioactive products was much lesser than Chernobyl.
In case of both Fukushima nad Three Mile Island SCRAM was successful, but the cooling system failed to deal with decay heat due to malfunctions. In case of Chernobyl automated SCRAM system was disabled and the manual SCRAM occured too late to be effective (and the design of the control rods made things worse at this point). And I do not claim SCRAM is a magic wand, as there are other modes of failure. In fact, I'd say the cooling system might be the most fragile part of the system. Still contamination of the ship is a far more likely outcome.
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Mar 1, 2021 3:55:56 GMT -6
With what happened at Chernobyl I wouldn't be surprised if it were possible to detonate 60s-70s Soviet reactors by a specific sequence of damage and flooding. What Chernobyl shows is that its very possible to detonate a reactor by disabling automated safety systems and actively ignoring the operations manual and protocols. What happened there were a few bad decisions and a tragedy of errors, which is why I would attribute this kind of event - in-game - to sabotage rather than damage. The reactor had a design quirk, which was a flaw, but if it was operated properly, it wouldn't matter. Even if the crew decided not the mess with automated SCRAM system - which they disabled so it wouldnt interfere with whatever they were doing - it may have been avoided.
For damage effects I would probably look to incidendts that were caused by malfunctions, preferably marine reactors too. For example K-19 nuclear incident, which would also be within the timeframe of the DLC. The cause was a coolant system leak, which could very well happen due to battle damage as well.
And all of that is purely academic, even if interesting to at least some, since we don't know if nuclear propulsion will be added, only that it may be considered.
My understanding of the Chernobyl explosion is that the SCRAM is what actually detonated the reactor, and it was actually activated according to procedure, albeit manually because the automatic system was shut off. The cooling water inside the reactor had all turned to steam and that caused the rods to be partially stuck, and their graphite tips provided the source of the ridiculous power spike. Now, I’m not a physicist, but the positive void coefficient and SCRAM flaw together makes it seem possible for battle damage to detonate a soviet reactor, because flooding might actually cause reactor output to increase, and SCRAMing the reactor in that state would actually blow it up
|
|
|
Post by janxol on Mar 1, 2021 4:20:28 GMT -6
What Chernobyl shows is that its very possible to detonate a reactor by disabling automated safety systems and actively ignoring the operations manual and protocols. What happened there were a few bad decisions and a tragedy of errors, which is why I would attribute this kind of event - in-game - to sabotage rather than damage. The reactor had a design quirk, which was a flaw, but if it was operated properly, it wouldn't matter. Even if the crew decided not the mess with automated SCRAM system - which they disabled so it wouldnt interfere with whatever they were doing - it may have been avoided.
For damage effects I would probably look to incidendts that were caused by malfunctions, preferably marine reactors too. For example K-19 nuclear incident, which would also be within the timeframe of the DLC. The cause was a coolant system leak, which could very well happen due to battle damage as well.
And all of that is purely academic, even if interesting to at least some, since we don't know if nuclear propulsion will be added, only that it may be considered.
My understanding of the Chernobyl explosion is that the SCRAM is what actually detonated the reactor, and it was actually activated according to procedure, albeit manually because the automatic system was shut off. The cooling water inside the reactor had all turned to steam and that caused the rods to be partially stuck, and their graphite tips provided the source of the ridiculous power spike. Now, I’m not a physicist, but the positive void coefficient and SCRAM flaw together makes it seem possible for battle damage to detonate a soviet reactor, because flooding might actually cause reactor output to increase, and SCRAMing the reactor in that state would actually blow it up The automatic SCRAM was disabled and the manual SCRAM occured when situation was so bad that it did indeed make it worse due to the peculiar design of control rods. You are correct about the graphite. At this point the rod displaced water, still present in the lower section of the reactor, which was decreasing reactor output, with graphite, which caused the power spike. If the SCRAM occured earlier that "may" have been averted, as the spike wouldn't put the reactor past the "point of no return", causing the steam explosion. Also, I'm pretty sure flooding - and especially flooding with cold water - will decrease the neutron flux and power output, as water is a good neutron absorbent.
But generally - if reactor is already in critical condition and the control rods happen to have graphite on the end, like the RBMK at Chernobyl, it can make bad situation worse - as Chernobyl demonstrated. I'm not sure which reactors did or did not have such a control rod design.
|
|