Zaporizhya Nuclear Power Plant Issues

Click For Summary
Reports indicate a renewed reactor shutdown at Ukraine's Zaporizhya nuclear power station, raising concerns about possible radiation leaks amid ongoing civil unrest and poor weather conditions. Electrical issues may have led to the shutdown, which could potentially cause coolant releases, although claims of a "huge radiation leak" have been dismissed as exaggerated. The situation is complicated by Ukraine's reliance on Westinghouse fuel, which has faced scrutiny from Russian media, despite assurances that there are no significant supply issues. Some discussions suggest that contamination and outages reflect a chaotic operational environment, potentially exacerbated by the country's instability. Overall, the nuclear community should remain vigilant, as the current circumstances highlight the need for robust safety measures in nuclear plant operations.
  • #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 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
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K