Chernobyl Chernobyl Reactors 1-3: Fuel Removal After 2000 Shutdown

[Paterick Meyer]

The current state of Chernobyl site very much looks like a giant permanent source of kickbacks.

For example:
Of course! As long as it is there, all parties involved can continue to demand more $$$ for the ongoing cleanup. I bet they love the "ongoing" part, all of them: Ukrainian bureaucrats, Western companies, Ukrainian companies.
Another billion-gobbling plan. As if we *need* that reactor dismantled. What for? Someone is eager to grow plutonium-laced veggies on the nearby fields?

The basements and ground floors of Chernobyl Unit 4 can be just filled with concrete, completely covering all corium and heavily contaminated structures; then the remaining structures on top can be dismantled. But that is way too CHEAP!

Seriously. Just seriously. So what your saying is that we don't need to get rid of the biggest man-made catastrophe EVER. I'm sorry, but "fill the basements with concrete" WOULD NOT WORK. Were not talking about a couple of small lumps of uranium here and there, no, were talking about the single most radioactive place on the planet, and you want to "fill the basements with concrete", and knock down the upper levels, exposing the reactor core and reigniting a huge radioactive bonfire, killing everyone within a 400 kilometer radius? By the way, NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING, is cheap when your dealing with radiation, not even death! do you know what they had to do with the bodies of the SL-1 plant operators? they had to bury one of them with the wreckage of the reactor, and the other two were buried in lead and tungsten coffins under five feet of concrete, and that was only a minor catastrophe! The reactor containment around Chernobyl was a hasty job with very little planing, and it is already brittle and cracking. if nothing is done soon, then it could contaminate the water supply, crack open or even explode again. And you want to "fill the basements with concrete". shame on you for even suggesting that they are doing it for a profit. shame on you.

 

[Paterick Meyer]

Why bother with the step 1, considering how costly it is, and that it will inevitably disturb the material and spread around some radioactive dust?

What's the problem with leaving melted fuel and high-level waste where it is now?

because the high level waste is slowly melting into the ground, and if it reaches the water table, then it could contaminate the water of most of Europe. also the sarcophagus was not built as a permanent structure.

 

[Paterick Meyer]

You're right, even if they did somehow completely clear and decontaminate the site and turned it into a big green field of grass, that piece of land would have little to no economic value and would be a complete waste of effort and money.

The Chernobyl exclusion zone is a bustling haven for variously environmental and scientific research. It would probably be a better decision to just build a secondary sarcophagus to reduce radiation levels in Pripyat and surrounding areas to normal background levels.

The only place in Chernobyl that has DANGEROUS levels of radiation is inside the reactor block itself. All of the nuclear fuel is contained entirely inside the sarcophagus and poses no environmental threat.

yes it does

 

[nikkkom]

Seriously. Just seriously. So what your saying is that we don't need to get rid of the biggest man-made catastrophe EVER. I'm sorry, but "fill the basements with concrete" WOULD NOT WORK. Were not talking about a couple of small lumps of uranium here and there, no, were talking about the single most radioactive place on the planet, and you want to "fill the basements with concrete"

Yes, I do. Concrete is good at shielding from radiation, it prevents access by people, animals, and rainwater. What's not to like?

and knock down the upper levels, exposing the reactor core and reigniting a huge radioactive bonfire

I want nothing of the sort. I do not propose exposing anything. (Not to mention that exposing the core now would not ignite any fire. It's not physically hot anymore, it is "only" very radioactive. BTW, _even now_ it has access to air, former reactor core and adjacent rooms/cavities are by no means airtight. Do you see any fires? Smoke?)

 

[nikkkom]

because the high level waste is slowly melting into the ground

No, it does not. It is only marginally warmer than ambient air.

 

[LabratSR]

December 2015 Drone Footage of the New Safe Containment

 

[nikkkom]

The current state of Chernobyl site very much looks like a giant permanent source of kickbacks.

We are 26 years after disaster and it's still nowhere near that state. That tell a lot about nuclear industry, and about Ukrainian government.

Having a first-hand knowledge about said government, I don't expect prospects of rapid changes; I am sure massive squandering of money while making some progress at glacial pace will continue.

Three years later after above quote: nothing has changed. The video is a testament that any progress on site is indeed glacial. "New Safe Confinement" is still not in place. 2016 is the tenth year since its construction began in 2007.

 

[jim hardy]

The video is a testament that any progress on site is indeed glacial. "New Safe Confinement" is still not in place. 2016 is the tenth year since its construction began in 2007.

continental drift outruns most things in our nuclear industry, too .

Toward the end of my career i picked up Gorbachev's Peristroika . He understood bureaucracy.

All i know to do is watch the show. Parkinson's Law of Delay pokes such fun at bureaucracy it actually becomes fun to watch, at least from where i fit in the organization - a couple notches below Homer Simpson . If you can find a copy i recommend it.

old jim

 

[mheslep]

biggest man-made catastrophe EVER.

Bhopal Disaster (3787 fatalities, 1/2 million exposed), the Titanic (1500 fatalities), Minamata (2265), WWII and all the wars for that matter, ...

 

[mfb]

Wanggongchang Explosion - killed 20,000

Great smog of London - killed thousands, injured ~100,000.

Wilhelm Gustloff - got sunk in WW II, 9000 died, including ~5000 children.
And many more (and that list only includes ships sunk by submarines)

As usual, Wikipedia has a list.

Various military actions had death tolls exceeding those numbers significantly, but usually it is unclear what counts as "one event". The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings are certainly one event each, with a death toll of >100,000 and >50,000 respectively.