Comment by rmind | Hacker News Reader

Comment by rmind | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I agree that INES Level 7 accident (well, a disaster at this level) is very unlikely and VVER-1200 generally ought to be matching the quality of the Western designs at this point. Even if the level 7 disaster would happen, the 50 km distance is not great and it's "living on the edge", but it ought to be just about enough for the population to be okay.

However, there are some points you miss:

- There is a lot of space for smaller accidents which can happen, including nuclear fuel leaks. Belarusian Power Plant is very close to River Neris and, as far as I know, uses its water for cooling. River Neris goes through Lithuanian capital Vilnius and there is a great concern that accidents can contaminate the water.

- See my point in a post bellow about the nuclear power plants not being built equal, even if they use the same reactor technology.

- Both political systems produced nuclear disasters, but accidents above INES Level 5 only occurred in the Soviet Union; I am not including Fukushima, because its cause was a natural disaster: earthquake followed by tsunami (and their 1960s tech was still holding in the immediate aftermath). Poor quality standards, general attitude to safety, disregard to procedures, etc -- these are the common problems in such political systems like the Soviet one. Also, many of the accidents in the West occurred in 1950s when the nuclear technology was still in its early days. So, no, I don't draw the equality between different political systems in the context of nuclear safety, although perhaps it shouldn't be overestimated either.

> River Neris goes through Lithuanian capital Vilnius and there is a great concern that accidents can contaminate the water.

A power plant needs access to water for cooling. Belarus is a land-locked country without access to sea, so all of its rivers also flow through other countries. Its watershed is divided between Nemunas, Daugava, and Dnieper, which have Vilnius, Riga, and Kiev situated on them. It seems like there's no place you can build a power plant there without risking a potential contamination of water which would then run through a capital of another state.

Also, Lithuanian Ignalina power plant was using the water eventually getting into Daugava river, running through Riga, a capital of the neighboring Latvia. I can't see why Lithuania itself thinks it's ok to risk potential contamination of water of a neighboring country capital, but not ok when someone else is doing the same to them.

You have a point here, but I think the proximity is still concerning: compare the distance between Ignalina and Riga with the distance between Belarus' Power Plant and Vilnius.

It is worth mentioning that the UN commission has decided that the location of the Belarusian power plant was chosen in violation of the Espoo Convention. That's why it's not OK.

Leningrad NPP is at about the same distance from Saint Petersburg, Kursk NPP from Kursk, etc. There's a power plant in the suburbs of Antwerp, another one in Lyon, another two near Toronto, etc. There's a French NPP 20 km from Luxembourg and a Swiss NPP on German border. What is your point here?

In the Soviet and other totalitarian systems the government could build wherever the hell they wanted, so their decision making is really far from exemplary. I have no idea why would you build an NPP so close to densely populated areas these days, if you have other options. I can see the issue in a smaller and densely populated country like Netherlands, but not in France which is quite more spacious.

A hundred years ago you could happily buy all sorts of drugs in your local pharmacy, but it doesn't mean it was healthy for people. We came a long way with the safety standards and general attitude towards safety. So, the point here is: embrace it instead of looking for excuses. There really were better sites to build the Belarusian NPP, but they built it in violation of the Espoo convention instead of embracing safety and cooperation with your neighbours.

P.S. It is an official recommendation by the Association of Regulators of Western Europe (WENRA) to avoid building NPPs closer than 100 km to the big cities. WENRA was established in 1999, though, so it's relatively recent.

I don't know whether Belarus signed the Espoo convention, or is a member of Association of Regulators of Western Europe, etc.. If your point is, "why don't my neighbours play according to my rules", I can see where you're coming from, but not necessarily agree.

Belarus suffered the most from Chernobyl accident, with 70% of fallout in its territory. And Chernobyl NPP wasn't even in their country. I might think that they are well positioned to do everything they can to prevent any nuclear accident happening in their NPP.

Leningrad NPP close to Saint Petersburg is inside same Russia. same with Kursk. Russia can do whatever they want inside their country. biggest issue I see here is that NPP is built close to other countries' border, very close to capital of other country despite all neighbor's objections.

that is main issue.

> Also, Lithuanian Ignalina power plant was using the water eventually getting into Daugava river, running through Riga, a capital of the neighboring Latvia. I can't see why Lithuania itself thinks it's ok to risk potential contamination of water of a neighboring country capital, but not ok when someone else is doing the same to them.

I guess under Soviet regime Lithuanians and Latvians didn’t have any say in the matter where the nuclear power plant must be built (or be built at all).

I guess after that regime fell, Lithuanians had much say in whether to continue operating that plant, and between 1990 and 2009 their say was "aye".

I guess you must have a secret plan none of us are aware of on how to transition the entire country off nuclear power and diversify its energy sources overnight.

"Overnight" is a straw man. If Lithuania was extremely worried about not polluting Latvia capital's river, it wouldn't take them 19 years.

Oh and polluting rivers being the only factor in this matter is not strawman? Changing entire country’s energy infrastructure takes decades, let alone absorbing that economically. Especially when you’re a newly formed country that at the same time needs to change every other aspect of itself to move from socialist to capitalist economy, society and infrastructure serving them.

Given the circumstances, I’d call 19 years a great success in this case.

> Lithuania imports 70% of its power from Belarus, and the average price of electricity is among the highest in EU.

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignalina_Nuclear_Power_Plant#S...

> I guess under Soviet regime Lithuanians and Latvians didn’t have any say in the matter where the nuclear power plant must be built (or be built at all).

Why didn't they shut off the plant then right after the Iron Curtain fell? In fact, they actually opposed the closure of that very plant.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com