Zaporizhya Nuclear Power Plant Issues

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the recent issues at the Zaporizhya Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine, including reports of reactor shutdowns and potential radiation leaks. Participants explore the implications of these events within the context of the ongoing civil conflict and the operational challenges faced by the plant.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express concern over reports of a reactor shutdown and possible radiation leaks, citing the unstable situation in Ukraine as a contributing factor.
  • Others challenge the credibility of sensationalist media reports, arguing that the radiation levels mentioned are not alarming and that the situation may be exaggerated.
  • A participant highlights the potential for contamination and unplanned outages as indicators of a chaotic work environment, suggesting that operational corners might be cut due to the ongoing conflict.
  • There are discussions about the adequacy of current nuclear plant designs in the face of societal disruptions, with some suggesting that adjustments may be necessary to ensure safety.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of the situation for the broader nuclear community, questioning whether current political systems can support safe nuclear operations.
  • Some participants propose the need for modular nuclear units that could operate independently, though the feasibility of such designs is questioned.
  • A participant mentions the evolving landscape of renewable energy, suggesting that wind and solar may soon reach price parity with traditional energy sources, which could impact future energy strategies.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit a range of views, with no clear consensus on the severity of the situation at the Zaporizhya Nuclear Power Plant or the implications for nuclear safety and energy policy. Disagreements persist regarding the reliability of information and the potential risks involved.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved questions regarding the definitions and measurements of radiation levels, as well as the broader implications of the ongoing conflict on nuclear safety and operational integrity.

  • #31
difficult question.
it is not in my competence.
Some conclusions can get here
http://forum.pripyat.com/showthread.php?p=227145#post227145

and here

http://forum.atominfo.ru/index.php?showtopic=447&st=1260
if you have not forgotten the Russian language.My opinion (private, there is no official confirmation of this), but
Zaporizhzhya NPP stopped the Russian offensive in 2014. (in August).
"Freedom or Death" for many people (not those that are in politics) ----

not "empty" words.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #32
Apparently the Zaporizhzhya NPP is becoming an object of military contention, reportedly struck by Ukraine missiles aimed at Russian military gear on the site, which has also now been mined apparently.
Is there any report or evaluation on the vulnerability of this installation, not in terms of operating, but in terms of potentially disastrous combat damage?
 
  • #33
etudiant said:
Is there any report or evaluation on the vulnerability of this installation, not in terms of operating, but in terms of potentially disastrous combat damage?
I haven't seen one, but to look for it I would start at iaea.org. Why don't you look there, and tell us what you find.
 
  • #34
anorlunda said:
I haven't seen one, but to look for it I would start at iaea.org. Why don't you look there, and tell us what you find.
I looked, but did not find much beyond the plant status reports.
There is nothing that I could find that actually deals with the issues created by a strike from an errant artillery shell or misguided missile.
 
  • #35
etudiant said:
I looked, but did not find much beyond the plant status reports.
There is nothing that I could find that actually deals with the issues created by a strike from an errant artillery shell or misguided missile.
Too bad the IAEA is not more forthcoming. So here are my personal opinions. Opinions weigh much less than actual studies.

Zaporizhzhya includes a dry spent fuel storage area. Spent fuel can be used to make "dirty bombs". Dirty bombs can spread radiation across a wide area. An artillery shell hitting spent fuel is like a dirty bomb, but not as effective as a bomb which wraps radioactive material around a core explosive. An artillery shell may not even be capable to making a hole in a dry storage cask. So if you are thinking of a parallel to Chernobyl, no.

Russia has plenty of spent fuel available within Russia's own borders. If they want to make dirty bombs, they can do that without Zaporizhzhya. They could then send those bombs all over Ukraine or even all over Europe with cruise missiles. If they want to blow up an operating nuclear plant, they can do that without Zaporizhzhya. Most significant of all, Russia has thousands of nuclear warheads plus the means to deliver them.

So in terms of risks associated with Zaporizhzhya, I see nothing new, and nothing comparable with nuclear weapons.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters
  • #36
anorlunda said:
Too bad the IAEA is not more forthcoming. So here are my personal opinions. Opinions weigh much less than actual studies.

Zaporizhzhya includes a dry spent fuel storage area. Spent fuel can be used to make "dirty bombs". Dirty bombs can spread radiation across a wide area. An artillery shell hitting spent fuel is like a dirty bomb, but not as effective as a bomb which wraps radioactive material around a core explosive. An artillery shell may not even be capable to making a hole in a dry storage cask. So if you are thinking of a parallel to Chernobyl, no.

Russia has plenty of spent fuel available within Russia's own borders. If they want to make dirty bombs, they can do that without Zaporizhzhya. They could then send those bombs all over Ukraine or even all over Europe with cruise missiles. If they want to blow up an operating nuclear plant, they can do that without Zaporizhzhya. Most significant of all, Russia has thousands of nuclear warheads plus the means to deliver them.

So in terms of risks associated with Zaporizhzhya, I see nothing new, and nothing comparable with nuclear weapons.
I hope you are right and I certainly agree that Russia has plenty of nuclear material available, so they don't need this plant. I guess it powers the Donbas, because it is still connected to the grid and being operated by its Ukrainian technicians.
What concerns me is that the plant is still running at least 1 reactor, possibly more, even as it is getting fortified as a bastion under attack. with the general in charge claiming the place has been mined. Assuming an effective Ukrainian counterattack, that could potentially get really ugly.
 
  • #37
etudiant said:
Apparently the Zaporizhzhya NPP is becoming an object of military contention, reportedly struck by Ukraine missiles aimed at Russian military gear on the site
I'm sorry, reported by who, I wonder? Those russians soldiers who were storming the largest NPP in Europe in the beginning of March (when it actually became an "object of military contention") or those who regularly send cruise missiles flying over close by? Or, perhaps, those who have set up a military base inside the perimeter, possibly even mined the reactors, deployed MLRS, and are constantly shelling Ukrainian cities over the Dnipro river from there? And yes, the Armed Forces of Ukraine did successfully attack the russian base camp and their MLRS with precision kamikaze drones in July, taking minimal risks, of course, which I'm sure have been approved at the highest level (they need to protect their cities from shelling even if the russians are using a NPP as a sheild!). On the other hand, there are multiple videos from the locals of the nearby Enerhodar town who reported russian shelling with the time dealy between the launch and arrival of a missle of less than 2 seconds (the closest Ukrainian positions on the other side of the Dnipro river would correspond to a ~9 seconds delay). Had they hit the dry spent fuel storage area mentioned above, we would be talking about some major contamination of the area.

As for status reports and evaluation, the National Nuclear Energy Generating Company of Ukraine (Energoatom) publishes almost daily reports on their Telegram channel: https://t.me/s/energoatom_ua (you may need to use google translate to read it). Note that despite ongoing russian attempts to disconnect the NPP from Ukrainian's power grid and connect it to the russian one, Ukrainian staff are continuing to operate the plant. Some of them had been captured, beaten and tortured, according to the head of Energoatom Mr. Kotin.

In addition, there has been some recent development outlined in the statement by IAEA from today: https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pre...tor-general-statement-on-situation-in-ukraine
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
5K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
5K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
10K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
20K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K