3 ms·

> Strategically, it was useful for Russian politics to have something as risky as the Chernobyl nuke power station in the Ukraine during the soviet union era, i

> Strategically, it was useful for Russian politics to have something as risky as the Chernobyl nuke power station in the Ukraine during the soviet union era, ie different country if anything went wrong nothing to do with us sort of thing. The same type of reactor as Chernobyl is still in operation at the Leningrad NPP

Terry_Roll 5y ago
It would appear that some countries also view nuke power stations like offensive firewalls, that's the Baltic sea nations captured in some respect. Germany's car industry and Russian Oil wealth is also a partnership I see.
djcapelis 5y ago
> The same type of reactor as Chernobyl is still in operation at the Leningrad NPP Along with three units each in Kursk and Smolensk NPPs. Plus I think a lot of people don't realize some of the other reactor units at Chernobyl continued operating until the last one finally shut down in 2000.
arcticbull 5y ago
The other reactors at Chernobyl continued to operate for years after the incident at reactor 4. The last reactor there closed in 2000, and only as a result of being strongly incentivized by the international community. All the RBMK reactors were retrofitted with additional safeties after the incident. They're not really a risk.
natmaka 5y ago
"The very architecture of the Chernobyl reactor was faulty", often repeated in some media, is a lie, and therefore the more-or-less implicit "our architecture cannot lead to such a disaster" falls flat.
- Terry_Roll 5y ago
  On the wiki page, a weakness was powergrid failure and the minute or two it took for the diesel generators to come online. They looked at whether any of the energy from the reactor turbines could be used to keep the water pumps going in this 1-2minute window until the diesel generators were up to full speed. It needed a massive amount of water to pumped around which explains why many nuke power stations are positioned on the coast. Of course, wiki is wiki, but is no more or less valid or invalid, than other reports when being mindful of bias. In terms of Chernobyl and radiation leaks, an airburst instead of ground burst would spread more radiation and could parts of the Ukraine become radioactive wasteland to prevent Nato pushing right upto Russia border? Russia hasnt moved an inch, but NATO has so could NATO end up on the wrong side of history with this one? Wars are always good distractions for domestic failures.

Terry_Roll 5y ago

It would appear that some countries also view nuke power stations like offensive firewalls, that's the Baltic sea nations captured in some respect. Germany's car industry and Russian Oil wealth is also a partnership I see.

djcapelis 5y ago

> The same type of reactor as Chernobyl is still in operation at the Leningrad NPP Along with three units each in Kursk and Smolensk NPPs. Plus I think a lot of people don't realize some of the other reactor units at Chernobyl continued operating until the last one finally shut down in 2000.

arcticbull 5y ago

The other reactors at Chernobyl continued to operate for years after the incident at reactor 4. The last reactor there closed in 2000, and only as a result of being strongly incentivized by the international community. All the RBMK reactors were retrofitted with additional safeties after the incident. They're not really a risk.

natmaka 5y ago

"The very architecture of the Chernobyl reactor was faulty", often repeated in some media, is a lie, and therefore the more-or-less implicit "our architecture cannot lead to such a disaster" falls flat.

Terry_Roll 5y ago
On the wiki page, a weakness was powergrid failure and the minute or two it took for the diesel generators to come online. They looked at whether any of the energy from the reactor turbines could be used to keep the water pumps going in this 1-2minute window until the diesel generators were up to full speed. It needed a massive amount of water to pumped around which explains why many nuke power stations are positioned on the coast. Of course, wiki is wiki, but is no more or less valid or invalid, than other reports when being mindful of bias. In terms of Chernobyl and radiation leaks, an airburst instead of ground burst would spread more radiation and could parts of the Ukraine become radioactive wasteland to prevent Nato pushing right upto Russia border? Russia hasnt moved an inch, but NATO has so could NATO end up on the wrong side of history with this one? Wars are always good distractions for domestic failures.