Ukraine warns Chernobyl nuclear plant suffered power outage
axios.com
axios.com
"The spent fuel rods are over 20 years old and have very little heat to dissipate. In most plants, spent fuel that is more than 5 years old sits in dry storage cooled easily by air. Also RBMK (Chernobyl reactor type) has lower burnup than other reactor types, thus lower decay heat."
"There are indeed 20k old fuel rods in a pool. Their heat is low enough that experts I've talked to expect weeks or even months to heat the water enough to dry out the pool. Even then, natural air circulation should be sufficient."
For now I wonder when this will happen.
https://www.nuclear-power.com/nuclear-power-plant/nuclear-fu...
Then you end up with self-driving cars that run over and kill innocent people and reactors that melt down because they didn't think of something.
Yes, but the converse is not true: when one <hand-waves how something bad won't/can't happen>, it does not necessarily mean that <there will be a design failure>.
You are trying to say that act A causes consequence B because many instances of B correlate with A. That is not sound.
No, there haven't been in slightly over 20 years.
https://github.com/yt-dlp/yt-dlp does that, also for free.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/03/04/1046794/the-acti...
Time will tell how it all plays out, though personally I suspect this perspective will be more right than wrong.
It's not a short term proposition, but it's something that ought to be taken into account when e.g. considering how governments allocate subsidies or weigh long-term energy strategies (as Germany is doing now). Any initiative that strengthens the global market for oil and gas has a side effect of destabilizing the rules-based world order.
It's not a bad idea to do it regardless, but you're just trading bad for bad if your primary reason for doing so is to avoid naughty governments.
I'm curious — do you prefer e.g. the Chinese governance model over the democratic model? I'm getting the feeling you believe that autocracy is inevitable and unstoppable, and I wonder if you believe that that fate is also desirable.
The cases where they have been demonstrably effective are comparatively few, and the geopolitical circumstances are substantially different in those than now with Russia invading Ukraine.
Pretending that massively investing in solar, wind and EVs will absolve us of dependency on autocratic regimes is just intellectually dishonest- we are merely trading one for another.
For the record, I do support temporarily ceasing the purchase of oil from Russia. Buying more oil from Venezuela, Iran or Saudi Arabia is not a long term answer, or rare earth metals from China (who is notably not participating in sanctions). Though Russia has yet to ramp up production, they will also become a key player in a post-fossil-fuel world as they are thought to have a full quarter of the accessible supply.
Now the question should be, will following through on the threat mitigate the harm now or in the future? Against Russia, my guess is no. They also haven't been successful against Iran or any number of other counties.
It might be said that the effectiveness of sanctions is entirely reliant upon being able to keep a weak nation weak, rather than preventing a strong nation from preying upon weaker neighbors.
That said, Putin's approval ratings have always been extremely high for a leader, and war (one where you largely control the narrative in your country no less) has been a pretty consistent winner in gaining leaders popularity.
Is there any way to believe such a number? Isn't all independent media in Russia now banned or in hiding?
Like, I just don't see any way this could be reliably measured. If I lived in Russia and someone asked me, of course I'd say that I support the guy, I don't want to go to prison.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_George_W._Bush
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html
You can't trust polling numbers out of Russia but there is historical context for these types of full scale invasions to bring up approval ratings.
I keep hearing this, and yet, the NYT and the international Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons both confirmed that there were chemical weapons in Iraq:
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/24/world/middleeast/question...
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/23/world/middleeast/thousand...
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/16/world/cia-is-said-to-have...
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/12/03/world/middlee...
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middlee...
Did the NYT issue a retraction when I wasn't looking?
This is delusional. There's not enough talent nor capital to replace everything from Caterpillar to Xbox, and much of what's considered domestic is partially or fully imported, eg https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1501361272230752262
Much crazier things have happened than revitalization of national industry. Whether their leadership has the intelligence and will to do this is of course another matter.
It seems that certain kinds of economic integration such as supply-chain interdependence offer more leverage, while other kinds of integration such as buying oil and gas offer less.
Ronald McDonald has killed more people than putin, and even more than all the american presidents combined, so this is not that bad for russian health and obesity issues.
> The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) tweeted that the “heat load of spent fuel storage pool and volume of cooling water at Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant [are] sufficient for effective heat removal without [the] need for electrical supply”.
Here is a post about this by IEAA from March 3rd.
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/update-8-iaea-...
"Due to time elapsed since the 1986 Chornobyl accident, the heat load of the spent fuel storage pool and the volume of cooling water contained in the pool is sufficient to maintain effective heat removal without the need for electrical supply."
If the fuel rods are stored indoors, that building will already be on fire before the rods get that hot.
If the rods aren’t in an enclosed volume, any hydrogen would rapidly diffuse. Eventually it would either oxidise (too spread out for “burn” to feel like the right word) or escape into space.
If they’re in a building which is on fire and while it’s on fire someone sprays water on them, then they’ll produce hydrogen.
IDK if that hydrogen would burn away fast enough to not be an explosion hazard or build up enough that it is, but it shouldn’t come up anyway because any firefighters on site ought to know not to use water in that situation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Nuclear_Power_Plant#...
From your link:
> After the explosion at reactor No. 4, the remaining three reactors at the power plant continued to operate, as the Soviet Union could not afford to shut the plant down.
> …. In October 1991, reactor No. 2 caught fire, and was subsequently shut down.
I always assumed it was totally abandoned after the accident, barring the cleanup work.
Source: me (and others of course)
(I'm sure deep in my comment history here there will be something about me formerly running tours at Chernobyl, I have a lot of contacts, I have met in person with two Chernobyl workers here in Kyiv just today - and I only post information I know to be 100% accurate)
Hello from Kyiv.
I would really like to see proof for that. Not necessarily because I don't believe it, but because anecdotes backed by facts or sources are way more powerful than a random comment on HN.
> I would really like to see proof for that. Not necessarily because I don't believe it, but because anecdotes backed by facts or sources are way more powerful than a random comment on HN.
If there's proof, you probably won't see it for months or years, at least. It's not like the Russians are going to let BBC reporters embed with their interrogation units.
I've been getting some vibes from Ukraine today and yesterday - also from the president himself - that are leaning towards anti-NATO or anti-EU, because besides (some) military aid, supplies, refugees and heavy sanctions that barrel Russia into an economic crisis, they haven't interfered in the actual conflict yet.
I get that this is upsetting.
But I also understand that if NATO involves themselves more directly, the conflict will escalate - and given the apparent state and losses of Russia facing the Ukranian defenses, the escalation will involve nukes. Nobody wins then. Kyiv will be one of the first cities to be targeted, out of spite.
I much prefer Russia to be humiliated and go bankrupt and hopefully end up with political reforms and the deposing of their leader than an escalation.
It's clear to me that Russia needs to be stopped sooner rather than later (this has been clear since the first days of this war - when civilians were being specifically targeted). Putin only becomes more and more emboldened as time marches on. It just keeps getting worse. We don't necessarily get to choose how war will/won't escalate - however IMHO, bombing (for example) a maternity hospital in Europe should be enough reason to unconditionally help.
BTW, the Russian people, by any measure, are majority behind the actions in Ukraine.
Hello from Kyiv (my home, but I am not Ukrainian)
And what about you? Can you say your country, or your world, did everything it could to help the victims from other wars, some of which are ongoing too?
I get you're not happy, and I'm also unhappy at our shitty European leaders who got cozy with Putin and got us dependent on their gas imports instead of going for energy self sufficiency like the US, so our heating bills were basically funding his war machine which is now being used against you, but claiming we're not doing everything we could is a bit exaggerated, no offence.
We obviously can't mobilize NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine, but in Romania, Moldova and other not so wealthy neighboring countries, people are offering their cars and homes for the Ukrainian refugees for free, and the entire West public and private sector, has been helping Ukraine fend off Russia's cyber attacks on your country since the war started, with the US and Microsoft leading the charge and even Romania joining in[1].
I honestly hope the sanctions are hurting Russia enough to back off soon because I don't know what more we can do to help you without straight up going to war.
You said it yourself - you are FUNDING this war.
Honestly, no offense taken.
I know, but it's not like we (the average people) have much choice in the matter. Our stupid politicians screwed us over (and you too) and got us addicted to Russian gas over the course of decades, instead of pursuing nuclear energy double time.
Now, we can't just flip the gas switch off without society collapsing from massiv energy shortages. It will take many years until the dependency to Russian gas is reduced and by that time Ukraine might not be in one piece.
Besides, don't nuclear power plants have safeties built in these days in case of power loss or a lack of attendants? I've pulled up the article about control rods, if I'm reading it correctly, if inserted fully they should stop the reaction. I presume nuclear reactors have failsafes so that the control rods are inserted fully in case of incident.
This nuclear Astro-Turf is really jumping the shark these days...
You think this is in any realistic way affordable or even doable in a significant time? Seriously?
[1]https://de.statista.com/infografik/11385/art-der-heizung-und...
Most of them rent a flat[2] in a city [3].
So heat pumps are nice and you even get money from the state to install them but they're not doable by most of the people.
[1] https://de.statista.com/infografik/11385/art-der-heizung-und...
[2] https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/171237/umfrag...
[3] https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/152879/umfrag...
I have to downvote you, because requiring others to spend their time explaining basic technologies as a rhetorical tactic is *rude*.
Unfortunately it doesn't help most of the citizens of Germany since most of them rent in cities and don't live in houses where they can decide and install easily.
We are still nuclear free too - and we still don't have many military visits to our ports or marine territory considering it's illegal to have a ship or submarine with nuclear weapons or reactor. most navies won't tell you if they have nuclear weapons/reactors so basically they're not allowed here.
(but really, what are we gonna do? we have like two boats.) ;-)
If anything, there is a huge desire to "go back to the glory days". It's pretty much the only country that is still so brazenly colonial (the concept of a francafrique is not even subject to any debate there) and they are regularly pulling "rainbow warrior" types of actions in africa even now. A good example is their complete control on Ivory Coast politics to the point of violently interfering when things don't go their way.
They even had generals openly admit on TV that they greenlit almost every type of war crimes in Algeria, with nothing of consequence happening to them even after their own confession. The past is the past, right?
So yeah I wouldn't hold my breath over the deportations happening anytime soon.
> IAEA sees no critical impact on safety.
The answer seems to be: not really enough to worry about.
scared people watch the news more often.
When I say that scared people watch the news more often I count myself included, since this damn invasion happened I have some news channel 100% of the time because I want to know what hell is going to happen, if I have to stock up or if I need to build a damn nuclear shelter.
I do think that a big chunk of the news media is composed of a band of ruthless, unethical pieces of garbage.
Basically the idea is that by escalating violence, threats, and otherwise increasing "risk" for the other side they can force a negotiated settlement that would be superior to what their actual bargaining position is. At the extreme, this is why Russian military doctrine allows the use of tactical nuclear weapons as they provide a last stop for negotiation before runaway Mutually Assured Destruction scenarios.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon#Risk_o...
> According to several reports, including by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, as a result of the effectiveness and acceptability of USAF use of precision munitions with little collateral damage in the Kosovo conflict in what amounted to strategic destruction once only possible with nuclear weapons or massive bombing, Vladimir Putin, then-secretary of Security Council of Russia, formulated a concept ("escalate to de-escalate") of using both tactical and strategic nuclear threats and strikes to de-escalate or cause an enemy to disengage from a conventional conflict threatening what Russia considers a strategic interest.[21][22][23] The lowered threshold for use of nuclear weapons by Russia is disputed by other experts.[24][25]
> Russia has a military doctrine of "Escalate to De-escalate"
Thinking that putin is crazy is actually a result of talking about all this properly. Because no one in the world can find another explanation.
Chernobyl has been in Russian control since the second or third day of the war. Strategically it is a pathway between Kyiv and Russia. I doubt Russia wants to destroy it, it'll do way more harm to Russia than anyone else, but this is a war and infrastructure is being destroyed.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-without-evidence...
Now it looks like it was a prophecy. I wonder if the Strelok is alive today?
I hope the experts this time around actually know what they're talking about. It's hard to tell armchair experts and real experts apart.
The failure modes of nuclear fission power are just insane. Yes I think it's true that coal has killed far more people, but the economic cost of just one fission plant failure is so high that one serious incident destroys the economics of the entire program. It also tends to make fission power privately uninsurable since once incident would bankrupt the insurance company within weeks.
How much renewable energy and storage could you buy for the containment and cleanup cost associated with Fukushima?
What if a warring nation destroyed a hydroelectric dam and it flooded an entire town? Does this mean we should give up on hydro power?
What would happen if a terrorist gained access to your city's water treatment facility and contaminated it with a bioweapon resistant to chlorine? Does this mean we shouldn't have water delivery for our cities?
What would happen if a terrorist or warring nation gained access to your country's institute of virology where you are performing gain-of-function research, and they unleash a superbug you didn't intend into the population? Should we not perform medical science then?
What would happen if you built a really tall building and a terrorist decided to fly an airplane into it? Should we not build tall buildings anymore?
The newer technologies, with the much smaller reactor cores can greatly limit the destructive capabilities even to the point where a meltdown caused by some unforseen event will be entirely containable.
Almost all interesting tech we're playing with lately does not fall in this category... and there's nothing we can do about it, that's the evolution of tech.
When interstellar-spaceships will be built, they'll practically be equivalent to "planet destroying nukes" and pretty sure accidents will happen (eg. fully scortching a planet inhabited by a few billions). AI if something ~human-level gets capable of a stretch of exponential self-improvement will be similar, but that will probably be the end of bio-humans and nothing we can do about it so no need to worry (just focus on making sure important human knowledge gets passed on to our non-human descendants).
Only way to mitigate this is to DISPERSE (establish colonies on multiple planets) and MULTIPLY (so that an accident with eg. a 99% lethality thing still leaves enough humans around to maintain a technological civilization preserving the knowledge of our ancestors). We're a bloody virus, so better embrace our nature and start to act like an effective one. There's genocide in our pasts, and there's likely exponentially more genocide in our future, we need to be resilient and accept (mass) death as part of our techno-evolution...
That doesn't mean nuclear technology doesn't have advantages. It very much has. Arguably, it's both the cleanest and most consistent way of energy production at the same time.
The trade-off is security, as mentioned by the commenter, is security. If society decides to invest in nuclear energy, it has to be willing to accept the consequences of that choice.
The technology isn't "bad" in and of itself. It's context and intentions leveraging said technology which shifts perceptions towards "good" or "bad". If the Russians would clearly recognize the challenges associated with securing a captured nuclear power plant, and take them to heart, the conversation would steer into a different direction.
But the difference between hydro, tall buildings, etc is the critical physical security aspect nuke plants have. I agree with the point that the nuke plants seem to be capable of pretty safe operations.
But, using the 40 years of activism from the Plowshares movement[0] as one example, doesn't seem like we're capable of securing the plants from "terrorists" with the no-fail rate that I'd somewhat want for nuke physical security. As recently as '12, Oak Ridge of all places was broken into via Plowshares activists.
So if we can't track a known activist group that does this, what are our long term odds of tracking an unknown terror group with good opsec (signal, decentralized org, etc), with 100% success rate? Your comparison to virology fits here, and the two (nuke vs. dangerous medicine) seem to be treated differently in this regard, and that scares me, for one.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plowshares_movementhttps://en....
Arguably the only reason this war is possible is because Germany shutdown all their nuclear plants (there are a few plants left slated to be closed this year) and now rely on Russia for oil & gas. The existing sanctions are hurting, but Russia is still collecting hundreds of millions of dollars a day in oil & gas revenue. That revenue has actually gone up dramatically during the war due to increased gas & oil prices.
Your concern is real, and we should do more to secure our nuclear power from accidents, but in practice energy dependence seems a greater threat to global security than nuclear power plant terrorism (also consider that there is some relation between Iraq exporting oil and wars occurring there). Similarly, the use of coal (which would be unnecessary with more nuclear production) is responsible for a much greater reduction of life span than terrorist attacks and nuclear accidents.
By all accounts, the Russian forces fired missiles at the Zaporizhzhia power plant, and there was a fire on site. I too was somewhat dismissive of the "omg Chernobyl 2.0" rhetoric. It's a PWR, much newer design, quite like most Western PWR designs, with containment, and a lot more passive safety features than something like the RBMKs at Chernobyl. The likely outcome of a missile hitting the containment building itself is a wasted missile, and something hitting the cooling or support facilities would lead most likely to a power cut, not a meltdown, and even if there was a meltdown, it would likely be largely contained.
Still. I do think it's fair to say that firing missiles and causing explosions and/or fires at an operating nuclear power plant has some degree of very real risk of causing a nuclear accident.
It does seem there was very careless firing by the Russians that was targeted at Ukranians. They don't seem to have been targeting the plant in any way, but their firing could have easily damaged the plant further if the Ukranians had taken position deeper inside it. It doesn't seem there was any danger of breaching the nuclear reactor itself, but there was danger of destroying the subsystems required for safe operation of the reactor.
Obviously Russia is the one starting a war and being careless here, but it also does seem Ukraine should not station troops inside a nuclear facility but instead maintain their troops a good distance away from it.