15 ms·

Thankfully the reactors are behind the camera streaming the administrative building. Hopefully nothing goes wrong during the takeover. The reactor containment i

Thankfully the reactors are behind the camera streaming the administrative building. Hopefully nothing goes wrong during the takeover. The reactor containment itself is robust, but the potential for human error in a war that keeps escalating should not be discounted.

ianai 5y ago
I’ve read/heard the point is to destroy the reactor for the Russians. They’ve attempted to reach out to the Russians to no avail. It produces 1/4 the country’s power.
HWR_14 5y ago
Internet speculation is that the power plant will be shut down once taken over. Which at least minimizes the ongoing risk of human error. Heck, shutting down is probably a far simpler process than continuing to run - nuclear power plants are designed to be shut down if necessary.
- staticassertion 5y ago
  I mean, they're also designed to run, and they do that most of the time.
- Muromec 5y ago
  Well, shutting down nuclear reactor is not a simple process — it has to be actively cooled for weeks after being disconnected, which requires power, which you don’t have because you shut it down. So there should be either on-site generators (burning fuel) or external power . That’s why power stations usually have multiple reactors which are serviced on schedule, so it always has some generation happening. None of it can be relied on during the war. Shutting down and not having power to cooldown is how Fukushima happened. Emergency shutdown drill is how Chornobyl’ happened
  - rapnie 5y ago
    > Emergency shutdown drill is how Chornobyl’ happened And not being informed of well-known (in higher Soviet echelons) serious reactor flaws, like the grafite on the rods being inserted into the reactor core initially spiking the fission process significantly.
  - bertil 5y ago
    I was about to mention that reactors often have fuel generators but I remember that the invading force is famous for selling the gas from their tanks to pocket the money…
  - HPsquared 5y ago
    Shutting down is a much safer condition than operating. The decay heat decreases massively over time (huge difference between minutes / hours / days /weeks) and gets safer the longer it has been off. Also if it's online, the electricity needs to go somewhere: any disruption to the electrical grid and it'd have to go off - probably at a bad time. Better to go through the shutdown in a planned manner while the outside situation is (relatively) stable.
    - eurasiantiger 5y ago
      What would happen if the grid connection was severed by bombing? Is there no emergency shutdown mechanism where the output is just dumped into some artificial load? Then again, a 5700MW resistor might require a bit of cooling.
      - thedougd 5y ago
        Stoo the turbines and dump the st team/heat into the lake instead?
      - HPsquared 5y ago
        It's reactor heat -> (heat exchanger) -> steam -> (steam turbine) -> electricity. If you disconnect the load, you need to stop putting steam through the turbine and dump it somewhere else (i.e. a condenser). All steam turbine plants (including coal) have something similar.
      - robryk 5y ago
        First, reactor protection systems will start reducing power down to 40% nominal if the turbogenerator load disappears (search for URB in https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/34/083/34083100.pdf https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/...). The power would not be dumped into a resistor: the power would be dumped in form of heat with the turbogenerator disconnected from steam. I expect that you can "just" dump it in the condenser and use the standard cooling of the condenser to dump it into the local body of water. If that's insufficient, one can dump steam from the secondary loop into atmosphere (which necessitates adding water there). You can play with a vver-1000 simulator and see how many of these things work; the simulator whose manual I'm citing above can be easily found on the internet.
  - usrusr 5y ago
    Given the quality of Russian supply planning and execution it seems as if the biggest danger could be emergency generator fuel supplies getting forcefully repurposed. Good luck doing a safe shutdown...
- pintxo 5y ago
  Given the continuous need for cooling and containment, and within the context of a war, does it really matter if a fission power plant is running or shut down in terms of environmental security?
  - HPsquared 5y ago
    They're much less hazardous in a "cold shutdown" state. Decay heat is highest immediately after shutdown and decreases over time.
  - formerly_proven 5y ago
    Russian forces have been destroying substations to kill electricity and this is the largest power station in Ukraine. It is not unreasonable at all to think that shutting it down and making it hard to get back up (to destabilize or shut down the Ukrainian power grid) is part of the Russian attack strategy.
    - rightbyte 5y ago
      It seems trivial to cut the big power lines if you want to cut power?
      - formerly_proven 5y ago
        Ukraine is a big country. Meanwhile, this power plant represents 40 % of Ukraine's nuclear power generating capacity, which in turn is responsible for ~50 % of power generation. So this one plant is around 20 % of the total generating capacity in Ukraine. Since Ukraine is no longer connected to the Ex-Soviet power grid, it is now an isolated grid and has to generate all electricity domestically. That's why the Ukraine is trying to create an interconnection with the EU grid as quickly as possible.
oddmiral 5y ago
Anything can go wrong AFTER takeover. Russians can convert power plant into nuclear landmine and blow up it on retreat. This is war between two nuclear states, so nuclear weapon will be used eventually.
- lb1lf 5y ago
  -Unless the Russian forces have way better connections than we give them credit for, they can not control which way the wind blows. At the moment, the winds come from the southeast, so a lot of the fallout would end up in Russia.
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    As far as I can tell, this power station is in the south-east. A wind from the south-east would dump fallout in central Ukraine, not Russia.
    - lb1lf 5y ago
      -Most definitely, but there'd be plenty to spare for Russia, too. Blown up nuclear power plants are equal opportunity weapons.
      - Muromec 5y ago
        Judging from the way this war develops, it’s nit like they care about Russia that much
- Scea91 5y ago
  > This is war between two nuclear states, so nuclear weapon will be used eventually. Ukraine is not a nuclear state as it does not have nuclear weapons.
  - twaw 5y ago

ianai 5y ago

I’ve read/heard the point is to destroy the reactor for the Russians. They’ve attempted to reach out to the Russians to no avail. It produces 1/4 the country’s power.

HWR_14 5y ago

Internet speculation is that the power plant will be shut down once taken over. Which at least minimizes the ongoing risk of human error. Heck, shutting down is probably a far simpler process than continuing to run - nuclear power plants are designed to be shut down if necessary.

staticassertion 5y ago
I mean, they're also designed to run, and they do that most of the time.
Muromec 5y ago
Well, shutting down nuclear reactor is not a simple process — it has to be actively cooled for weeks after being disconnected, which requires power, which you don’t have because you shut it down. So there should be either on-site generators (burning fuel) or external power . That’s why power stations usually have multiple reactors which are serviced on schedule, so it always has some generation happening. None of it can be relied on during the war. Shutting down and not having power to cooldown is how Fukushima happened. Emergency shutdown drill is how Chornobyl’ happened
- rapnie 5y ago
  > Emergency shutdown drill is how Chornobyl’ happened And not being informed of well-known (in higher Soviet echelons) serious reactor flaws, like the grafite on the rods being inserted into the reactor core initially spiking the fission process significantly.
- bertil 5y ago
  I was about to mention that reactors often have fuel generators but I remember that the invading force is famous for selling the gas from their tanks to pocket the money…
- HPsquared 5y ago
  Shutting down is a much safer condition than operating. The decay heat decreases massively over time (huge difference between minutes / hours / days /weeks) and gets safer the longer it has been off. Also if it's online, the electricity needs to go somewhere: any disruption to the electrical grid and it'd have to go off - probably at a bad time. Better to go through the shutdown in a planned manner while the outside situation is (relatively) stable.
  - eurasiantiger 5y ago
    What would happen if the grid connection was severed by bombing? Is there no emergency shutdown mechanism where the output is just dumped into some artificial load? Then again, a 5700MW resistor might require a bit of cooling.
    - thedougd 5y ago
      Stoo the turbines and dump the st team/heat into the lake instead?
    - HPsquared 5y ago
      It's reactor heat -> (heat exchanger) -> steam -> (steam turbine) -> electricity. If you disconnect the load, you need to stop putting steam through the turbine and dump it somewhere else (i.e. a condenser). All steam turbine plants (including coal) have something similar.
    - robryk 5y ago
      First, reactor protection systems will start reducing power down to 40% nominal if the turbogenerator load disappears (search for URB in https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/34/083/34083100.pdf https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/...). The power would not be dumped into a resistor: the power would be dumped in form of heat with the turbogenerator disconnected from steam. I expect that you can "just" dump it in the condenser and use the standard cooling of the condenser to dump it into the local body of water. If that's insufficient, one can dump steam from the secondary loop into atmosphere (which necessitates adding water there). You can play with a vver-1000 simulator and see how many of these things work; the simulator whose manual I'm citing above can be easily found on the internet.
- usrusr 5y ago
  Given the quality of Russian supply planning and execution it seems as if the biggest danger could be emergency generator fuel supplies getting forcefully repurposed. Good luck doing a safe shutdown...
pintxo 5y ago
Given the continuous need for cooling and containment, and within the context of a war, does it really matter if a fission power plant is running or shut down in terms of environmental security?
- HPsquared 5y ago
  They're much less hazardous in a "cold shutdown" state. Decay heat is highest immediately after shutdown and decreases over time.
- formerly_proven 5y ago
  Russian forces have been destroying substations to kill electricity and this is the largest power station in Ukraine. It is not unreasonable at all to think that shutting it down and making it hard to get back up (to destabilize or shut down the Ukrainian power grid) is part of the Russian attack strategy.
  - rightbyte 5y ago
    It seems trivial to cut the big power lines if you want to cut power?
    - formerly_proven 5y ago
      Ukraine is a big country. Meanwhile, this power plant represents 40 % of Ukraine's nuclear power generating capacity, which in turn is responsible for ~50 % of power generation. So this one plant is around 20 % of the total generating capacity in Ukraine. Since Ukraine is no longer connected to the Ex-Soviet power grid, it is now an isolated grid and has to generate all electricity domestically. That's why the Ukraine is trying to create an interconnection with the EU grid as quickly as possible.

oddmiral 5y ago

Anything can go wrong AFTER takeover. Russians can convert power plant into nuclear landmine and blow up it on retreat. This is war between two nuclear states, so nuclear weapon will be used eventually.

lb1lf 5y ago
-Unless the Russian forces have way better connections than we give them credit for, they can not control which way the wind blows. At the moment, the winds come from the southeast, so a lot of the fallout would end up in Russia.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  As far as I can tell, this power station is in the south-east. A wind from the south-east would dump fallout in central Ukraine, not Russia.
  - lb1lf 5y ago
    -Most definitely, but there'd be plenty to spare for Russia, too. Blown up nuclear power plants are equal opportunity weapons.
    - Muromec 5y ago
      Judging from the way this war develops, it’s nit like they care about Russia that much
Scea91 5y ago
> This is war between two nuclear states, so nuclear weapon will be used eventually. Ukraine is not a nuclear state as it does not have nuclear weapons.
- twaw 5y ago