Jump to content

Reseach Reactor Meltdown Causes


Recommended Posts

can we get a list causes for a melt down? right now it seems very random and inconsistent, so there is no way of knowing if you are experiencing a bug/ error.  

- had meltdown from the reactor running of of fuel.  (also  seen it not blow up when it ran out of fuel)

-meltdown while reactor completely submerged in -5C water with gas vent overpressure. ( still managed to vent fallout while underwater before eventually exploding)

-meltdown while partialy submerged (can vent steam) in cold water.

all the times my reactor has exploded it is below 60 C, has consistent cold water flowing in, has fuel* (iv seen it explode transitioning from very low fuel to 0 fuel cause meltdown but very inconsistent.

anyway please give us more info on the reactor so i know WTF is going on lol.  if its just supose to blow up randomly it would be nice t know that so we are not searching for bugs or variables that do not exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prior to the current release I had managed to quickly test in sandbox mode. These are my findings:

  • Operating without coolant: Boom!
  • Operating with overpressure (i.e.: can't vent used coolant) Boom!

Minor difference to take into account now is that automation port functionality is different. One could deactivate the whole research station/reactor before.

Now it only toggles availability to deliver fuel to it. This means it cannot be shut down once fed and the amount of fuel will maintain building activity until it runs out giving sense to the whole slider thingy in its options.  This means that the automation "META" changes significantly.

Feel free to add to the meltdown conditions if there are more.  (I'm currently away from my main pc for testing)

 

b9c97325176ed521642f7af9b42fa190682a13bc

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, JRup said:

giving sense to the whole slider thingy in its options.

Slider thingy was removed :P Now it's a 3kg fixed I think. No fuel always blew up the reactor even in testing... The only thing that the automation change accomplished is a certain meltdown without fail :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, sakura_sk said:

Slider thingy was removed :P Now it's a 3kg fixed I think. No fuel always blew up the reactor even in testing... The only thing that the automation change accomplished is a certain meltdown without fail :lol:

I do not think that is quite as intended. Or else, Klei is having a big laugh...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so when loading a save that is right before the reactor melting down from no fuel, I flip the auto feed off and the reactor doesnt explode when reaching 0 fuel, it still has a request for 10 kg fuel tho.

  Another time reactor was getting vent overpressure at 20 kg steam pressure.  Earlier I wasn't reaching overpressure till around 600kg steam.  when 20kg caused overpressure there was sand tiles forming a few tiles beneath the reactor, but not within 2 tiles.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I highly doubt there was fire during nuclear explosion. Heck there is NEVER a fire during explosion, so stop using god damn gasoline everywhere, stupid movie studios catering to dumb uneducated masses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, cpy said:

I highly doubt there was fire during nuclear explosion. Heck there is NEVER a fire during explosion, so stop using god damn gasoline everywhere, stupid movie studios catering to dumb uneducated masses.

Several older models used fire to control reactions, including (IIRC) Chernobyl. Which exploded due to the fire getting too big without burning itself out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, cpy said:

I highly doubt there was fire during nuclear explosion. Heck there is NEVER a fire during explosion, so stop using god damn gasoline everywhere, stupid movie studios catering to dumb uneducated masses.

Relax. Sure, everybody competent knows that nuclear reactors either explode by a steam explosion (Chernobyl) or in a hydrogen explosion (Fukushima). The first one does not create flames, the second one creates an invisible flame or explosion (very briefly). To be fair, Windscale had nicely burning graphite, but because some no-fun person had insisted they put filters in the chimneys, nobody outside got to see the pretty flames. Also, neither Windscale nor TMI blew up. What a disappointment.

But neither steam nor hydrogen explosions will do it for the pyromaniacs and neither will be understood as an "dramatic explosion" by average people. Hence there are two major consumer groups that need the stupid gasoline fire to feel they are getting their money's worth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Yunru said:

Several older models used fire to control reactions, including (IIRC) Chernobyl. Which exploded due to the fire getting too big without burning itself out. 

That sentence made me sure that you have no clue about how nuclear reactors work. Reactors with fire? What in the world? The only thing on fire there was damn bitumen roof and wood that ignited due to extremely hot molten stuff exploding around. Soviets loved to put bitumen roofs everywhere. I know I live in ex soviet satellite state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cpy said:

That sentence made me sure that you have no clue about how nuclear reactors work. Reactors with fire? What in the world? The only thing on fire there was damn bitumen roof and wood that ignited due to extremely hot molten stuff exploding around. Soviets loved to put bitumen roofs everywhere. I know I live in ex soviet satellite state.

They managed to avoid a graphite-fire narrowly, if I remember correctly. The really hilarious thing (in a very bad way) was that they blew up their reactor running a test to see whether it would still cool itself with the pumps off. They got a more definite answer than they expected for that. Today I think it must have been dupes at the controls there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used 2 thermoaquatuner with super coolant, and my reactor still explode :shock: (in this situation, it break due to overpressure in the room).

1911098093_Sanstitre.thumb.jpg.ab398159f938fd30e83655a5aca7da86.jpg

A interesting point : when the reactor explode, it breaks the tiles (expect the bunker ones) and the building in the "front" (pump, ladders, auto-sweeper, etc), but the buildings in the "background" (pipes, tempshift plates, etc) stay intacts.

My advice : if you confine the reactor in a room (bunker if you don't want your room to break), add a second sheet. If you have only one sheet of tiles, the debris from explosion can teleports through the wall, and contaminate the outside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cpy said:

That sentence made me sure that you have no clue about how nuclear reactors work.

And that sentences confirms that you didn't do your research. 

Yes, fire was a control method for graphite-moderated nuclear reactors. (IIRC, because the fire would burn out the oxygen, thus actually suppressing any fire. Predictably, it didn't work on at least one occasion.) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Gouflax said:

A interesting point : when the reactor explode, it breaks the tiles (expect the bunker ones) and the building in the "front" (pump, ladders, auto-sweeper, etc), but the buildings in the "background" (pipes, tempshift plates, etc) stay intacts.

It uses meteros as projectiles created by the explosion and those didn`t damage pipes (after one update back in the base game to make space more managable).

4 hours ago, Gurgel said:

They managed to avoid a graphite-fire narrowly

Iirc the firemen that came to the power plant after the explosion saw burning graphite from the reactor so it eventually ignited but i`m not sure if it was before or after the explosion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/16/2021 at 4:53 PM, Yunru said:

Several older models used fire to control reactions, including (IIRC) Chernobyl. Which exploded due to the fire getting too big without burning itself out. 

I am wondering how fire was used to control reactions??? Fire getting too big? 

if you mean fire="a process in which substances combine chemically with oxygen from the air and typically give out bright light, heat, and smoke; combustion or burning" then it is wrong - there is no fire as such while normal reactor operations.

if you mean fire=heat ...

There were two explosions in Chernobyl. The first one (the bigger one) was the steam one due to overpressure=overheat (no fire, just overheat due to nuclear reactions that have nothing to do with oxygen). The second one was the fire - when the shield was broken by the first explosion air = oxygen made its way to very hot graphite.

The problem was not with the pumps (they were switched off as per the plan to test the regime, there is always the second loop of power supply -diesel generators that pick up when needed - actually they failed at Fukisuma but not Chernobyl). The guy in charge switched off the automatic emergency system that would have brought the control rods into the working chamber to slow down the reaction and consequently overheating. 

If the emergency system had not been MANUALLY switched off, the reactor would have cooled down and it would have required 24 hours or so to bring it back online. The guy could loose his compensation or job but no disaster would have happened. Human factor/mistake.

The problem is not due to design - one may argue about the positive void coefficient associated with RBMK but Fukusima had another design but it did not help. The problem with idiots (who consider themselves to be very smart) that no matter what will break safety barriers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Please be aware that the content of this thread may be outdated and no longer applicable.

×
×
  • Create New...