5 ms·

So how will the power plant be cooled?

ggm 3y ago
It's going to have to be powered down probably. On the grounds of who suffers more, I tend to think this goes to Ukraine because of the costs of loss of electricity and sheer area flooded, and impact to ordinary folk. But that said I read this is a major problem for the Crimean peninsula so its arguable this one hurts everyone, and whichever side did it, has to incur some blowback costs. It is possible in the horrible metrics of modern warfare the impact to a successful defence of Crimea and troop movements is worse for Russia than the unimaginable pain of life without power, dislocation and living the swamp for Ukranians citizenry. I am very glad I am not a military planner. I wouldn't want the stress of doing this kind of calculus.
- gdy 3y ago
  "this is a major problem for the Crimean peninsula" The major problem was the Ukraine cutting all the water supply to Crimea in 2014 [0] and electricity in 2015. [1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Crimean_Canal#2014%E2%80%932022 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Crimean_Canal#2014%E2%80... [1] https://www.refworld.org/docid/56a7a04e4.html https://www.refworld.org/docid/56a7a04e4.html
  - ggm 3y ago
    So strategically, the Russians have had nearly a decade to adjust. Which means the burden of water loss/destruction as an immediate problem lies with Ukraine. Therefore in my model of the calculus of war the pain lies heavier on Ukraine, and for that reason if no other I believe the act was perpetrated by the Russians either cynically to demoralise deelectrify and dehouse, or for direct tactical gain to halt the advance in mud, or both.
    - gdy 3y ago
      "the Russians have had nearly a decade to adjust" Adjust how? After the start of the war Russia reenabled the flow of water to Crimea as soon as it could. "I believe the act was perpetrated by the Russians either cynically to demoralise deelectrify and dehouse" Firstly, what is the point of that from the military perspective? And according to Putin, the regions where the fighting is going, 'voted' to join Russia and antagonizing population even further serves no end. Secondly, attributing such meaningless callousness to Russians is either russophobia or the result of thoughtless consumption of Western propaganda. Thirdly, what adjective would you use to the Ukrainians shelling of small Russian cities and villages near boarder?
      - misstang 3y ago
        Russian military history going back centuries showcases scorched earth tactics. Russian have burned Russia during war to defeat enemies. This is a long standing Russian military doctrine. Everything can be rebuilt. It’s been done before. Tanks can’t roll in mud. Seems simple and convincing enough, specially when retreat would have possibly fatal political consequences. Russian history has more to add to this conversation regarding the “population” and taking in of their considerations when Russia’s elite made and make decisions. The population itself historically seems to have accepted this state of affairs. (It is not “Russophobia” to remind of Russian military’s history when discussing Russian military tactics.)
        gdy 3y ago
        You are confused. Russian forces retreated in the Ukraine in the previous year but didn't use this 'scorched earth tactics' you try to attribute to Russian military doctrine. Kherson was left as it was right before the retreat just like other cities and towns. "to remind of Russian military’s history" Actually, you haven't reminded of anything specific.
        lisasays 3y ago
        Kherson was left as it was right before the retreat just like other cities and towns. Only because they were routed (and the whole front in that region collapsed, basically) so quickly that they didn't have time to roll out the usual scorched-earth tactic that is their calling card. Blowing up that dam sure helped them get caught up towards that end, though.
- T-A 3y ago
  > It's going to have to be powered down probably. All six reactors were shut down last year [1]. Cooling is still needed due to the residual heat produced by natural decay of the fuel even when the reactors are not running. At the currently reported rate of 5 cm / hour, the water level in the reservoir will have sunk below 12.7 m by Friday morning (local time). It will then no longer be possible to pump water from the reservoir to the reactors. There are alternative sources, however [2]: There are a number of alternative sources of water. A main one is the large cooling pond next to the site that by design is kept above the height of the reservoir. As the reactors have been shut down for many months it is estimated that this pond will be sufficient to provide water for cooling for some months. The Agency will confirm this very shortly. [1] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/9/11/last-reactor-at-ukraines-zaporizhzhia-nuclear-plant-shut-down https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/9/11/last-reactor-at-ukr... [2] https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/iaea-director-general-statement-to-the-iaea-board-of-governors https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/iaea-director-...

ggm 3y ago

It's going to have to be powered down probably. On the grounds of who suffers more, I tend to think this goes to Ukraine because of the costs of loss of electricity and sheer area flooded, and impact to ordinary folk. But that said I read this is a major problem for the Crimean peninsula so its arguable this one hurts everyone, and whichever side did it, has to incur some blowback costs. It is possible in the horrible metrics of modern warfare the impact to a successful defence of Crimea and troop movements is worse for Russia than the unimaginable pain of life without power, dislocation and living the swamp for Ukranians citizenry. I am very glad I am not a military planner. I wouldn't want the stress of doing this kind of calculus.

gdy 3y ago
"this is a major problem for the Crimean peninsula" The major problem was the Ukraine cutting all the water supply to Crimea in 2014 [0] and electricity in 2015. [1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Crimean_Canal#2014%E2%80%932022 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Crimean_Canal#2014%E2%80... [1] https://www.refworld.org/docid/56a7a04e4.html https://www.refworld.org/docid/56a7a04e4.html
- ggm 3y ago
  So strategically, the Russians have had nearly a decade to adjust. Which means the burden of water loss/destruction as an immediate problem lies with Ukraine. Therefore in my model of the calculus of war the pain lies heavier on Ukraine, and for that reason if no other I believe the act was perpetrated by the Russians either cynically to demoralise deelectrify and dehouse, or for direct tactical gain to halt the advance in mud, or both.
  - gdy 3y ago
    "the Russians have had nearly a decade to adjust" Adjust how? After the start of the war Russia reenabled the flow of water to Crimea as soon as it could. "I believe the act was perpetrated by the Russians either cynically to demoralise deelectrify and dehouse" Firstly, what is the point of that from the military perspective? And according to Putin, the regions where the fighting is going, 'voted' to join Russia and antagonizing population even further serves no end. Secondly, attributing such meaningless callousness to Russians is either russophobia or the result of thoughtless consumption of Western propaganda. Thirdly, what adjective would you use to the Ukrainians shelling of small Russian cities and villages near boarder?
    - misstang 3y ago
      Russian military history going back centuries showcases scorched earth tactics. Russian have burned Russia during war to defeat enemies. This is a long standing Russian military doctrine. Everything can be rebuilt. It’s been done before. Tanks can’t roll in mud. Seems simple and convincing enough, specially when retreat would have possibly fatal political consequences. Russian history has more to add to this conversation regarding the “population” and taking in of their considerations when Russia’s elite made and make decisions. The population itself historically seems to have accepted this state of affairs. (It is not “Russophobia” to remind of Russian military’s history when discussing Russian military tactics.)
      - gdy 3y ago
        You are confused. Russian forces retreated in the Ukraine in the previous year but didn't use this 'scorched earth tactics' you try to attribute to Russian military doctrine. Kherson was left as it was right before the retreat just like other cities and towns. "to remind of Russian military’s history" Actually, you haven't reminded of anything specific.
        lisasays 3y ago
        Kherson was left as it was right before the retreat just like other cities and towns. Only because they were routed (and the whole front in that region collapsed, basically) so quickly that they didn't have time to roll out the usual scorched-earth tactic that is their calling card. Blowing up that dam sure helped them get caught up towards that end, though.
T-A 3y ago
> It's going to have to be powered down probably. All six reactors were shut down last year [1]. Cooling is still needed due to the residual heat produced by natural decay of the fuel even when the reactors are not running. At the currently reported rate of 5 cm / hour, the water level in the reservoir will have sunk below 12.7 m by Friday morning (local time). It will then no longer be possible to pump water from the reservoir to the reactors. There are alternative sources, however [2]: There are a number of alternative sources of water. A main one is the large cooling pond next to the site that by design is kept above the height of the reservoir. As the reactors have been shut down for many months it is estimated that this pond will be sufficient to provide water for cooling for some months. The Agency will confirm this very shortly. [1] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/9/11/last-reactor-at-ukraines-zaporizhzhia-nuclear-plant-shut-down https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/9/11/last-reactor-at-ukr... [2] https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/iaea-director-general-statement-to-the-iaea-board-of-governors https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/iaea-director-...