EDIT: according to child comments, a meltdown is unlikely/impossible, but spread of radioactive particles due to a direct strike is possible.
This is, so far as I know, the first time anyone has carried out a military attack on an operating nuclear plant. Nobody knows yet how that really plays out. But it looks like we all get to find out.
On the other hand, I don't know whether the VVER design contemplates shelling, either.
The Israelis bombed an Iraqi plant in the 80s I think.
Both the Iranians and the Israelis actually bombed the site one different operations in different years. Thereafter Saddam is now known to have said.
"Once Iraq walks out victorious [over Iran], there will not be any Israel"
It was both justified and didn't represent the risk that attacking this reactor represents.
Chernobyl caused between ~100 and ~16,000 deaths, depending sensitively on how one models the effects of small (sub-natural-background) radiation increases over a large population.
One could argue, at most, that this would be equivalent to a radiological weapon ("dirty bomb"). But even then it wouldn't be correct because of the important difference between purposeful radiological dispersal and radiological dispersal as a side-effect of a legitimate military action.
These insane people I think need to watch the Tsar bomba go off. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwlNPhn64TA
We aren't talking about fatman and little boy. Talking about thousands of H bombs and literally the apocalypse for the human race.
In a war situation, shutting off highways and disabling power plants or oil refineries are all strategic targets that affect both the military and civilians. But shutting down a refinery is different than dumping all of the chemical tanks into the water supply, setting oil fields on fire, or making the nuclear plant blow up.
The chief issue is that, unlike something like cultural artifacts, power plants have significant strategic military importance. Perhaps a rule that (a) fighting be confined outside a certain perimeter and (b) plant workers have special protected status like medics, and are required to obey shutdown orders if the invading military takes control of the perimeter (so that the invaders don't have incentive to physically destroy the plant).
Not saying that the attack is thus acceptable, just saying that it will take a concerted effort to breach the containment.
For what it's worth, the russian convoy is firing on the administrative building, not the power units themselves, but I don't know specifically what is in said admin bldg or what the ramifications for operation/shutdown of the power units/cooling systems works if the admin building burns down and/or gets shot up.
it's not a rational risk assessment.
making nuclear energy economically unfeasible by mandating that things be drastically overbuilt has doomed us all to climate catastrophe
If you want to represent nuclear, do it honestly; there are a million reasons why it's a good thing, a weak strawman doesn't help your case.
if we designed airliners with a safety factor in line with people's fear of flying and not the actual risk of failure, they would never be able to get off the ground.
yet we require that nuclear power plants tolerate any conceivable failure mode, no matter how unlikely, or dangerous.
that's not rational.
And that's before equivalent spending on research, plus tax breaks and subsidies.
100 might sound like hyperbole, but if, somehow, nuclear was guilt-free power, we'd be using at least twice as much power as we currently do. Eventually that much waste heat becomes its own problem (requiring more cooling to 'deal with')
I was more talking about the distance between plants as a function of the odds of encountering the Precautionary Principle with regards to radiation events, but heat pollution is something that I've already seen happen in a town near where I grew up, where an artificial lake intended as a cooling pond ended up being unfit for recreation due to encephalitis-inducing microbes that enjoyed the heat of the cooling system.
Heat pollution at the plant can be problematic depending on where the plant is and what cooling system you use. On the consumption end it exponentially contributes to the heat island effect. Not a huge exponent, but an exponent nonetheless. Doubling power consumption more than doubles heat pump power budgets, and pushes nearby systems that previously relied on passive cooling into requiring active cooling, which pushes more systems into active cooling, on and on.
I think the only time I ever really disagreed with George Carlin was his bit about how arrogant humans are to think that we can possibly ever do enough to alter the climate. Turns out we can. There are just so many of us doing our own little game of externalities. I wonder if he were alive today what he'd have to say about it.
This is from last week and discusses the practical impacts of war around the plant being a major issue even if the plant isn't involved:
https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/02/24/most-immediate-nucl...
That article briefly mentions this page, where the CEO of Ukraine's nuclear operator states that they are protected:
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/A-guide-Nuclear-...
"In addition, Ukrainian power units are ready even for an aircraft crash, because the containment and the reactor vessel designed to withstand corresponding risks."
Russia doesn't need to control the immediate areas around nuclear plants in the initial phases of their invasion, it's lunacy that they aren't carefully avoiding them.
We are over a week in, I think this is beyond the initial invasion timeframe. Russia has faced fierce resistance so I can understand a desire to weaken that defense.
It’s a lot harder to stage a defense when you have no electricity. Strategically it makes a lot of sense for Russia to overtake or shut down the power grid. If they do that with physical damage then there’s no need to control the immediate vicinity.
But based on what happened in Fukushima, critical electrical/cooling systems and backups would have to be damaged in order to pose catastrophic risk.
While this is unlikely I'll probably lose some hours of sleep on this.
I very much doubt the Russians would do this on purpose (fallout would risk the whole operation and possibly Russian territory too) although the fighting around there is incredibly stupid.
Not exactly a brilliant strategy - unless you're deranged and really don't care about your people.
Neither are good, but they wouldn't be nearly as bad as Chernobyl or a nuclear weapon strike.
a) "the way Chernobyl did" is technically correct (the VVER reactor that Zaporizhzhia is uses a difference containment strategy), but a distinction without meaning - a meltdown is a meltdown.
b) "anymore" - Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant was built between 1980 and 1996.
It's true that it is a safer design than Chernobyl, but yes it absolutely can still meltdown.
> The most significant risk is a breach of the reactor chamber fragmenting the fuel rods and spreading radioactive particles around
Note that this "spreading radioactive particles around" is probably more dangerous to health than a meltdown.
Put in different terms: We're basically talking about the equivalent of a dirty bomb.
I'd say that how much radioactive waste gets expelled or leaked and how much energy goes into it makes all the difference in the world and each meltdown is probably unique.
If radiation escapes it would be a "dirty bomb" equivalent event, it will speed up sanctions and nations will urge Russia to allow experts to inspect the damage.
A meltdown/explosion is possible if they damage safety systems/shielding. Still won't be seen serious as a "nuke detonation" event, but countries that receive fallout will be pissed off.
If Russia continues causing more nuclear pollution that affects it neighbors, yes, it could mean war scalation.