3 ms·

Not to mention the site will need to continually rebuild the sarcophagus around it until half-lifing makes the sarcophagus unneeded. The current one is only de

Not to mention the site will need to continually rebuild the sarcophagus around it until half-lifing makes the sarcophagus unneeded. The current one is only designed to last 100 years.

KptMarchewa 5y ago
"only"
- barkingcat 5y ago
  Yes "only", meaning it's insufficient for the long run. It's estimated that the ruins will remain highly radiactive for 20,000 years, meaning that a scarcophagus-like containment is needed at least for that long. If human technology remains as is (ok I am really hoping for tech advancements in this area), we will need to build 200 of such structures if the design specifications work as planned. The area is only "safe" because we keep the site contained. Without renewal of the containment structure, the radiation will spread. https://www.power-technology.com/features/making-chernobyl-safe-a-timeline/ https://www.power-technology.com/features/making-chernobyl-s... "Meanwhile, Reactor No. 4, now covered by the New Safe Confinement, is estimated to remain highly radioactive for up to 20,000 years. "
  - KptMarchewa 5y ago
    We do fuck all about carbon dioxide killing our planet, but are "extremely concerned" about the fact that people will have to spend some money on one building. That's as close to "non-concern" as we can have.
- yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
  On the scale of the relevant half lives, yes, "only" a century:)
throwawayboise 5y ago
The objective of the New Safe Confinement is to shelter the site and allow for safe demolition of the structure and disposal of the material on the site. There will probably be some sort of "cap" over the site for a long time but it will not need to be as expensive or technically sophisticated once that work is done.
- barkingcat 5y ago
  I'm considering the "safe demolition and disposal" to cost multiple orders of what it would cost to rebuild the containment ... so yes, at some point the new containment cap need not be as expensive, but by the time we have gotten to that point, the site will probably have consumed a lot more money than just building the same containment over and over again. Some future leader(s) would probably do the calculations and just say "let's build another 100-year-containment so the next generation can deal with the disposal" and pocket the money. It's the "tech debt" discussion embodied in real life.

Not to mention the site will need to continually rebuild the sarcophagus around it until half-lifing makes the sarcophagus unneeded. The current one is only designed to last 100 years.

KptMarchewa 5y ago

"only"

barkingcat 5y ago
Yes "only", meaning it's insufficient for the long run. It's estimated that the ruins will remain highly radiactive for 20,000 years, meaning that a scarcophagus-like containment is needed at least for that long. If human technology remains as is (ok I am really hoping for tech advancements in this area), we will need to build 200 of such structures if the design specifications work as planned. The area is only "safe" because we keep the site contained. Without renewal of the containment structure, the radiation will spread. https://www.power-technology.com/features/making-chernobyl-safe-a-timeline/ https://www.power-technology.com/features/making-chernobyl-s... "Meanwhile, Reactor No. 4, now covered by the New Safe Confinement, is estimated to remain highly radioactive for up to 20,000 years. "
- KptMarchewa 5y ago
  We do fuck all about carbon dioxide killing our planet, but are "extremely concerned" about the fact that people will have to spend some money on one building. That's as close to "non-concern" as we can have.
yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
On the scale of the relevant half lives, yes, "only" a century:)

throwawayboise 5y ago

The objective of the New Safe Confinement is to shelter the site and allow for safe demolition of the structure and disposal of the material on the site. There will probably be some sort of "cap" over the site for a long time but it will not need to be as expensive or technically sophisticated once that work is done.

barkingcat 5y ago
I'm considering the "safe demolition and disposal" to cost multiple orders of what it would cost to rebuild the containment ... so yes, at some point the new containment cap need not be as expensive, but by the time we have gotten to that point, the site will probably have consumed a lot more money than just building the same containment over and over again. Some future leader(s) would probably do the calculations and just say "let's build another 100-year-containment so the next generation can deal with the disposal" and pocket the money. It's the "tech debt" discussion embodied in real life.