4 ms·

A few artillery shells probably won't breach the containment. Missile shielding is part of the plant design (I don't know what level of shielding; US plants are

A few artillery shells probably won't breach the containment. Missile shielding is part of the plant design (I don't know what level of shielding; US plants are designed to withstand a strike by an airliner). Not saying that the attack is thus acceptable, just saying that it will take a concerted effort to breach the containment.

throwanem 5y ago
How old's the plant? To what design is it built? I feel like the CFIT design basis is already a little optimistic, but we also don't know that that was the design basis in this case.
- Zandikar 5y ago
  completed in 1989, with a 6th reactor added in 1995. For what it's worth, the russian convoy is firing on the administrative building, not the power units themselves, but I don't know specifically what is in said admin bldg or what the ramifications for operation/shutdown of the power units/cooling systems works if the admin building burns down and/or gets shot up.
andbberger 5y ago
You'd think that nuclear energy would be pretty compelling economically if other power generation methods had to be designed to withstand a strike from an airliner
- caslon 5y ago
  If an unprotected solar farm gets hit by a plane, some property damage happens. If an unprotected nuclear reactor were to get hit, we all know what would happen.
  - andbberger 5y ago
    the danger of radiation has been greatly exaggerated and pales in comparison the existential risk of climate change. even accounting for black swan events like getting hit by an airliner, coal plants emit drastically more radiation than nuclear. it's not a rational risk assessment. making nuclear energy economically unfeasible by mandating that things be drastically overbuilt has doomed us all to climate catastrophe
    - caslon 5y ago
      I don't disagree that nuclear energy is good; I'm pointing out that you're strawmanning. A solar farm doesn't have to be protected from missiles, because if it gets hit with missiles, only it is destroyed. It harms nothing around it, if it gets destroyed or fails in some fashion. If you want to represent nuclear, do it honestly; there are a million reasons why it's a good thing, a weak strawman doesn't help your case.
      - andbberger 5y ago
        it's not a strawman. designing to requirements driven by fear and not rational risk assessment can make feasible technology infeasible. if we designed airliners with a safety factor in line with people's fear of flying and not the actual risk of failure, they would never be able to get off the ground. yet we require that nuclear power plants tolerate any conceivable failure mode, no matter how unlikely, or dangerous. that's not rational.
        TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
        It's far less rational to keep building expensive and unsafe generation when cheaper and safer generation is already available - and can be built more quickly. And that's before equivalent spending on research, plus tax breaks and subsidies.
    - hinkley 5y ago
      That may be true for the number of actual plants we have, but public sentiment against nuclear is why we don't have 10, even 100 times as many plants as we do now. If you start shifting decimal points two positions to the right, and diminishing the distance between plants, between plants and critical habitat, by an order of magnitude (separation is square root of density per area), those numbers aren't quite as rosy. 100 might sound like hyperbole, but if, somehow, nuclear was guilt-free power, we'd be using at least twice as much power as we currently do. Eventually that much waste heat becomes its own problem (requiring more cooling to 'deal with')
adastra22 5y ago
Soviet era plants don’t have containment shells. I don’t know about this one though.
- Symmetry 5y ago
  This one has a smaller core than a RBMK so it was cheap enough to have a containment shell that the Soviets were willing to pay for one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VVER#Safety_barriers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VVER#Safety_barriers
- maxerickson 5y ago
  I'm certainly no expert, but I read a little bit about it before I commented. The reactors here do have a building intended to serve as containment. I didn't really see much assessment of how robust it is. This is from last week and discusses the practical impacts of war around the plant being a major issue even if the plant isn't involved: https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/02/24/most-immediate-nuclear-danger-in-ukraine-isn-t-chernobyl-pub-86521 https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/02/24/most-immediate-nucl... That article briefly mentions this page, where the CEO of Ukraine's nuclear operator states that they are protected: https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/A-guide-Nuclear-power-in-Ukraine https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/A-guide-Nuclear-... "In addition, Ukrainian power units are ready even for an aircraft crash, because the containment and the reactor vessel designed to withstand corresponding risks." Russia doesn't need to control the immediate areas around nuclear plants in the initial phases of their invasion, it's lunacy that they aren't carefully avoiding them.
  - mulmen 5y ago
    > Russia doesn't need to control the immediate areas around nuclear plants in the initial phases of their invasion, it's lunacy that they aren't carefully avoiding them. We are over a week in, I think this is beyond the initial invasion timeframe. Russia has faced fierce resistance so I can understand a desire to weaken that defense. It’s a lot harder to stage a defense when you have no electricity. Strategically it makes a lot of sense for Russia to overtake or shut down the power grid. If they do that with physical damage then there’s no need to control the immediate vicinity.

throwanem 5y ago

How old's the plant? To what design is it built? I feel like the CFIT design basis is already a little optimistic, but we also don't know that that was the design basis in this case.

Zandikar 5y ago
completed in 1989, with a 6th reactor added in 1995. For what it's worth, the russian convoy is firing on the administrative building, not the power units themselves, but I don't know specifically what is in said admin bldg or what the ramifications for operation/shutdown of the power units/cooling systems works if the admin building burns down and/or gets shot up.

andbberger 5y ago

You'd think that nuclear energy would be pretty compelling economically if other power generation methods had to be designed to withstand a strike from an airliner

caslon 5y ago
If an unprotected solar farm gets hit by a plane, some property damage happens. If an unprotected nuclear reactor were to get hit, we all know what would happen.
- andbberger 5y ago
  the danger of radiation has been greatly exaggerated and pales in comparison the existential risk of climate change. even accounting for black swan events like getting hit by an airliner, coal plants emit drastically more radiation than nuclear. it's not a rational risk assessment. making nuclear energy economically unfeasible by mandating that things be drastically overbuilt has doomed us all to climate catastrophe
  - caslon 5y ago
    I don't disagree that nuclear energy is good; I'm pointing out that you're strawmanning. A solar farm doesn't have to be protected from missiles, because if it gets hit with missiles, only it is destroyed. It harms nothing around it, if it gets destroyed or fails in some fashion. If you want to represent nuclear, do it honestly; there are a million reasons why it's a good thing, a weak strawman doesn't help your case.
    - andbberger 5y ago
      it's not a strawman. designing to requirements driven by fear and not rational risk assessment can make feasible technology infeasible. if we designed airliners with a safety factor in line with people's fear of flying and not the actual risk of failure, they would never be able to get off the ground. yet we require that nuclear power plants tolerate any conceivable failure mode, no matter how unlikely, or dangerous. that's not rational.
      - TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
        It's far less rational to keep building expensive and unsafe generation when cheaper and safer generation is already available - and can be built more quickly. And that's before equivalent spending on research, plus tax breaks and subsidies.
  - hinkley 5y ago
    That may be true for the number of actual plants we have, but public sentiment against nuclear is why we don't have 10, even 100 times as many plants as we do now. If you start shifting decimal points two positions to the right, and diminishing the distance between plants, between plants and critical habitat, by an order of magnitude (separation is square root of density per area), those numbers aren't quite as rosy. 100 might sound like hyperbole, but if, somehow, nuclear was guilt-free power, we'd be using at least twice as much power as we currently do. Eventually that much waste heat becomes its own problem (requiring more cooling to 'deal with')

adastra22 5y ago

Soviet era plants don’t have containment shells. I don’t know about this one though.

Symmetry 5y ago
This one has a smaller core than a RBMK so it was cheap enough to have a containment shell that the Soviets were willing to pay for one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VVER#Safety_barriers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VVER#Safety_barriers
maxerickson 5y ago
I'm certainly no expert, but I read a little bit about it before I commented. The reactors here do have a building intended to serve as containment. I didn't really see much assessment of how robust it is. This is from last week and discusses the practical impacts of war around the plant being a major issue even if the plant isn't involved: https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/02/24/most-immediate-nuclear-danger-in-ukraine-isn-t-chernobyl-pub-86521 https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/02/24/most-immediate-nucl... That article briefly mentions this page, where the CEO of Ukraine's nuclear operator states that they are protected: https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/A-guide-Nuclear-power-in-Ukraine https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/A-guide-Nuclear-... "In addition, Ukrainian power units are ready even for an aircraft crash, because the containment and the reactor vessel designed to withstand corresponding risks." Russia doesn't need to control the immediate areas around nuclear plants in the initial phases of their invasion, it's lunacy that they aren't carefully avoiding them.
- mulmen 5y ago
  > Russia doesn't need to control the immediate areas around nuclear plants in the initial phases of their invasion, it's lunacy that they aren't carefully avoiding them. We are over a week in, I think this is beyond the initial invasion timeframe. Russia has faced fierce resistance so I can understand a desire to weaken that defense. It’s a lot harder to stage a defense when you have no electricity. Strategically it makes a lot of sense for Russia to overtake or shut down the power grid. If they do that with physical damage then there’s no need to control the immediate vicinity.