3 ms·

Yes, this is the problem with any kind of nuclear reactors: cost of upgrade is too big, so it's cheaper to risk life on a continent than to fix a reactor.

chickenbig 2y ago
> cost of upgrade is too big Are you sure the other reactors were not upgraded, the procedures were not updated, the operators were not better trained? > cheaper to risk life on a continent than to fix a reactor Considering the reactor operators didn't work from home it suggests there was not a great risk in living on a continent with these reactors. Plus why stop at "on a continent" ... this is one world, no planet B etc.
- oneshtein 2y ago
  You assume that nuclear stations are in a world without wars, isn't? In real world, one nuclear country invaded another nuclear country, shelled and then captured two nuclear stations, and use one of them as shelter for soldiers and as ammo depot, while openly claims that they will bomb other nuclear stations in month or two. If a experienced operator of a nuclear station will want to make harm to another nation, can it use a RBMK-1000 type reactor to repeat Chornobyl? It's not a theoretical question any more, because Russians forcefully migrate operators from Ukrainian nuclear station to RF stations and from RF to Ukrainian station.
  - chickenbig 2y ago
    > Yes, this is the problem with any kind of nuclear reactors: cost of upgrade is too big, so it's cheaper to risk life on a continent than to fix a reactor. > You assume that nuclear stations are in a world without wars I was commenting on a statement you made about the cost of upgrade. Somehow you've found a linkage (or absence of a linkage) to war in your response. > In real world, one nuclear country invaded another nuclear country Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons it inherited from the Soviet Union. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Budapest_Memorandum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_and_weapons_of_mass_de... > can it use a RBMK-1000 type reactor to repeat Chornobyl? The captured power stations are not of this kind; they are all VVER. There is also the small matter of Ukraine wanting to build more nuclear power stations.
    - oneshtein 2y ago
      > I was commenting on a statement you made about the cost of upgrade. Somehow you've found a linkage (or absence of a linkage) to war in your response. My comment is about danger of RBK-1000 in real life, which cannot be upgraded to a safe reactor type, because of huge cost of upgrade. > Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons it inherited from the Soviet Union Ukraine can produce more at any time. It's not a hard problem for the country, which developed nukes and missiles for Soviet Union and RF. Currently, the main problem is that Ukraine cannot produce long-range missiles fast enough. > The captured power stations are not of this kind; they are all VVER. Yes, but Russia has RBK-1000 type nuclear reactors in production and they hire former Ukrainian operators to operate their nuclear stations. Do you see a problem here?
      - chickenbig 2y ago
        > cannot be upgraded to a safe reactor According to Wikipedia they have been upgraded to be safer (e.g redesign of the control rods). No such a thing as totally safe, except if the thing does not exist. > Ukraine can produce more at any time The question of getting appropriate nuclear materials looms large. Also all the Atomgrad appear to have all been in Russia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_atomic_bomb_project https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_atomic_bomb_project)
        oneshtein 2y ago
        Safer != safe. > The question of getting appropriate nuclear materials looms large. Ukraine has nuclear reactors. It's not a problem for a nuclear country.
        chickenbig 2y ago
        > Safer != safe. Absolute safety is not achievable. Crossing the road is not safe. Going down the stairs is not safe. > nuclear reactors Reactor plutonium != bomb grade plutonium. The Uranium supply used to be enriched by Russia.
grues-dinner 2y ago
The other RBMK reactors were indeed upgraded after the Chernobyl disaster (and two were built afterwards to improved standards).

chickenbig 2y ago

> cost of upgrade is too big Are you sure the other reactors were not upgraded, the procedures were not updated, the operators were not better trained? > cheaper to risk life on a continent than to fix a reactor Considering the reactor operators didn't work from home it suggests there was not a great risk in living on a continent with these reactors. Plus why stop at "on a continent" ... this is one world, no planet B etc.

oneshtein 2y ago
You assume that nuclear stations are in a world without wars, isn't? In real world, one nuclear country invaded another nuclear country, shelled and then captured two nuclear stations, and use one of them as shelter for soldiers and as ammo depot, while openly claims that they will bomb other nuclear stations in month or two. If a experienced operator of a nuclear station will want to make harm to another nation, can it use a RBMK-1000 type reactor to repeat Chornobyl? It's not a theoretical question any more, because Russians forcefully migrate operators from Ukrainian nuclear station to RF stations and from RF to Ukrainian station.
- chickenbig 2y ago
  > Yes, this is the problem with any kind of nuclear reactors: cost of upgrade is too big, so it's cheaper to risk life on a continent than to fix a reactor. > You assume that nuclear stations are in a world without wars I was commenting on a statement you made about the cost of upgrade. Somehow you've found a linkage (or absence of a linkage) to war in your response. > In real world, one nuclear country invaded another nuclear country Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons it inherited from the Soviet Union. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Budapest_Memorandum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_and_weapons_of_mass_de... > can it use a RBMK-1000 type reactor to repeat Chornobyl? The captured power stations are not of this kind; they are all VVER. There is also the small matter of Ukraine wanting to build more nuclear power stations.
  - oneshtein 2y ago
    > I was commenting on a statement you made about the cost of upgrade. Somehow you've found a linkage (or absence of a linkage) to war in your response. My comment is about danger of RBK-1000 in real life, which cannot be upgraded to a safe reactor type, because of huge cost of upgrade. > Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons it inherited from the Soviet Union Ukraine can produce more at any time. It's not a hard problem for the country, which developed nukes and missiles for Soviet Union and RF. Currently, the main problem is that Ukraine cannot produce long-range missiles fast enough. > The captured power stations are not of this kind; they are all VVER. Yes, but Russia has RBK-1000 type nuclear reactors in production and they hire former Ukrainian operators to operate their nuclear stations. Do you see a problem here?
    - chickenbig 2y ago
      > cannot be upgraded to a safe reactor According to Wikipedia they have been upgraded to be safer (e.g redesign of the control rods). No such a thing as totally safe, except if the thing does not exist. > Ukraine can produce more at any time The question of getting appropriate nuclear materials looms large. Also all the Atomgrad appear to have all been in Russia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_atomic_bomb_project https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_atomic_bomb_project)
      - oneshtein 2y ago
        Safer != safe. > The question of getting appropriate nuclear materials looms large. Ukraine has nuclear reactors. It's not a problem for a nuclear country.
        chickenbig 2y ago
        > Safer != safe. Absolute safety is not achievable. Crossing the road is not safe. Going down the stairs is not safe. > nuclear reactors Reactor plutonium != bomb grade plutonium. The Uranium supply used to be enriched by Russia.

grues-dinner 2y ago

The other RBMK reactors were indeed upgraded after the Chernobyl disaster (and two were built afterwards to improved standards).