Why do articles on grid failure always conveniently omit the FACT that the decades of spent fuel sitting at reactor sites, and the reactors themselves, require grid power or grid power pumped fuel to keep them from boiling dry, and releasing the most deadly substances on earth in an unquenchable eternal nuclear fire killing 9 million species on this planet including those who have "prepared"? IS THIS A TRUE STATEMENT? LINKS?
Well, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl are only 2 examples of what not to do during a reactor malfunction! Grid or not Murphy works overtime.
It's subjective. If the spent fuel is from enriched uranium fuel or mixed metal oxide then yes. If it's natural or depleted uranium from a breader reactor then most of the time it does not need active cooling. This problem was created by anti nuclear nimbys. Actually Obama quietly restarted the US nuclear spent fuel recycling program back around 2014. New and recycled fuel is extremely stable. Plutonium blend fuel may be stored in water because it puts off more radiation, not because it needs cooling. They were both boiling water reactors. Then Chernobyl used graphite control rods which burned after the reactor core melted down.
Im more worried about Hanford then any thing else, that sucker is a disaster waiting to happen, and its close now!
After living and working there, I'm far more worried about active attempts at sabotage of operating plants.
As a matter of fact, TMI was a PWR, not a BWR. Chernobyl had graphite control rods, yes. However, the core was also graphite moderated. That much carbon fueled the fire once started, and it was that fire that did the melting. Containment and shielding was totally inadequate, the Russian design was known to be faulty. In both cases, TMI and Chernobyl, human error made the problem far worse than it needed to be. I can't help much with your research on Chernobyl, but get thee to a library and take a copy of the Rogovin Report home to read.
https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=778476 https://tmi2kml.inl.gov/Documents/2... To The Public (Rogovin Report) (1980-01).pdf
@john316 Good find. FWIW, I knew the shift supervisor on the shift immediately before the incident. He confirmed to me that the Rogovin investigation was thoro and accurate. Chernobyl, of course, we don't have nearly the details, but a short search on line will kick out a couple of analyses done by numerous more or less knowledgeable scientific groups.
Fukushima was a different animal altogether. The incident was not caused by or worsened by man, it was entirely caused by nature. The investigations that followed found that the event was foreseeable, and could have been mitigated with some design changes. Back to the OP's concern over cooling requirements. Contrary to some opinions, cooling is not required "forever" tho' there for sure some needed until the decay heat is reduced enough for processing further. That further processing involves removal of activated fission products and reprocessing of the un"burnt" fuel for reuse. Can there be accidents? Of course. Will the planet be consumed in biblical fire and "every living thing" die? Simple answer, no.
