The Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in Ukraine is on fire, according to Dmytro Orlov, the mayor of the nearby town of Energodar. Plant provides 25% of Ukraine’s electric power and is the largest in Europe.
Russians were hitting it with artillery fire today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporizhzhia_Nuclear_Power_Pla…
intercst
There are unsubstantiated claims of increased radiation levels in the area. Hoping that isn’t true.
Dumb Russian clucks. Their shells may not penetrate the containment building, but if they knock out the pumps and systems outside of the containment building? Hope the operators shut the thing down cold.
But wait! There is more!
“Moreover, the Russian occupants also targeted the radioactive waste disposal site near Kyiv and the fuel base in Vasylkiv region.
https://currently.att.yahoo.com/news/russian-troops-shell-uk…
Folks wondered why Putin was so hot to capture the Chernobyl plant too.
Steve
Russians were hitting it with artillery fire today.
======================
The fire has been extinguished according to offcials.
But there is significant danger if the fighting causes these nuclear reactors (6) at the site to lose connection to offsite power.
I have posted about the consequences of losing offsite power before on this board. If anyone wants to know what could happen, then ask me.
Jaak (nuclear power engineering manager - retired)
Dumb Russian clucks. Their shells may not penetrate the containment building, but if they knock out the pumps and systems outside of the containment building? Hope the operators shut the thing down cold.
==========================================
No they should not shut the reactors down. Ukraine needs the electricity for the country and the war effort. The Russians will be told by IAEA who are monitoring all nuclear power plants. They will tell Moskva to not interfere with nuclear power plants operations and all power lines to/from these reactors. If Russian cause a nuclear disaster by damaging any nuclear plants, then it can be considered an act of war by Russian on the NATO because radioactive fallout does not stay inside Ukraine boundaries - it can be carried by the wind into Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, Poland, Baltics, Balkans, Austria, Germany and Scandinavia.
Jaak
No they should not shut the reactors down.
I think it was the BBC tonight reporting that 4 units at the plant are already shut down, and they are shutting down the remainder as a precaution.
The Russians will be told by IAEA
I’m pretty sure Putin cares not one whit what the IAEA says, and if NATO lifts a finger, the probability of the war going nuclear rises, a lot.
Steve
I’m pretty sure Putin cares not one whit what the IAEA says, and if NATO lifts a finger, the probability of the war going nuclear rises, a lot.
===============================================
The rest of Europe does care and this will led to a NATO war on Russia.
Jaak
Ukraine informed the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) today that the site of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) had been shelled overnight and Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi immediately spoke with Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal as well as the country’s national nuclear regulator and operator about the serious situation.
Director General Grossi appealed for a halt of the use of force and warned of severe danger if any reactors were hit. He is expected to hold a press conference at 10:30 CET on Friday.
The Ukraine regulatory authority said a fire at the site had not affected “essential” equipment and plant personnel were taking mitigatory actions. There was no reported change in radiation levels at the plant, it said.
The IAEA is putting its Incident and Emergency Centre (IEC) in full response mode due to the situation at the Zaporizhzhia NPP, Director General Grossi said.
The IAEA continues to closely monitor developments at the Zaporizhzhia NPP and remains in constant contact with Ukraine. It will continue to provide regular updates on the situation.
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/update-10-iaea…
Jaak
I think it was the BBC tonight reporting that 4 units at the plant are already shut down, and they are shutting down the remainder as a precaution.
========================================================
Even shut down nuclear reactors need offsite power to keep the reactors cooled. Where are they getting their electricity from for keeping the nuclear reactors cooled?
Jaak
„Their shells may not penetrate the containment building, but if they knock out the pumps and systems outside of the containment building? “
Must be all part and parcel of the ‚genius‘ some Western leaders ascribe to Putin.
But there is significant danger if the fighting causes these nuclear reactors (6) at the site to lose connection to offsite power.
What if they lost power because of a wildfire or tornado? Don’t they have some kind of plan for losing electricity?
DB2
What if they lost power because of a wildfire or tornado? Don’t they have some kind of plan for losing electricity?
Probably. But Jesus F.X. Christ. Let’s use just the teeniest, tiniest, smallest bit of common sense here. They probably have a plan for wildfire or tornado. They probably don’t have a plan for hostile invasion.
On TMF there is a faction that seems bent over backwards to justify Russia invading Ukraine. I get it. Putin is good because Trump likes him. Fine.
But no matter how much you admire Putin, it isn’t the Ukranian’s fault Russia is bombing the nuclear reactors.
Maybe, just maybe, this is the Russian’s fault.
What if they lost power because of a wildfire or tornado? Don’t they have some kind of plan for losing electricity?
These plants are normally self-powered for normal operations and use offsite power sources for backup.
If you lose both then you have a very serious situation.
OTFoolish
Thank you for recommending this post to our Best of feature.
…
syke6: But no matter how much you admire Putin, it isn’t the Ukranian’s fault Russia is bombing the nuclear reactors.
Maybe, just maybe, this is the Russian’s fault.
Oh absolutely … however I often wonder if we should attribute to malice that which may be adequately explained by incompetence and stupidity?
The Russian military leadership (and Vlad) have not shown a whole lot of cleverness so far in this endeavor? Their only answer to the protests at home is threats, arrests and pulling an old grandmother out of a crowd for holding up two signs?
While a large convoy requires a lot of logistical planning last I heard it was still mostly parked on the highway? When the news tries to report the news, they shut them down (ever hear of cell phones and the internet?). Many of the billionaires waited too long to hide their yachts and their currency is probably cheaper than toilet paper? Tanks shooting at nuclear power plants … I suppose a test of the design features?
Attacking populated cities with bombs and heavy artillary is so 1944? You may end up in military control of a humanitarian disaster area at a time when they can’t even seem to feed their own troops? Meanwhile the rest of the world has CNN and a whole lot of other international news on their multiple CRTs.
Tim <has a vision of Russian soldiers holding up signs “WILL SURRENDER FOR FOOD”>
These plants are normally self-powered for normal operations and use offsite power sources for backup.
If you lose both then you have a very serious situation.
OTFoolish
Gravity works well in ours. }};-D
Anymouse
http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/reactors/power-plants/nuclear…
Shutdown systems
All nuclear power reactors in Canada have two independent, fast-acting and equally effective shutdown systems.
The first shutdown system is made up of rods that drop automatically and stop the chain reaction if something irregular is detected.
The second system injects a liquid, or poison, inside the reactor to immediately stop the chain reaction.
Both systems work without power or operator intervention. However, they can also be manually activated.
These systems are regularly and safely tested.
What if they lost power because of a wildfire or tornado? Don’t they have some kind of plan for losing electricity?
—
Probably. But Jesus F.X. Christ. Let’s use just the teeniest, tiniest, smallest bit of common sense here. They probably have a plan for wildfire or tornado. They probably don’t have a plan for hostile invasion.
Probably not, but I was asking about this statement: “But there is significant danger if the fighting causes these nuclear reactors (6) at the site to lose connection to offsite power.”
Losing offsite power is losing offsite power, n’est pas?
DB2
What if they lost power because of a wildfire or tornado? Don’t they have some kind of plan for losing electricity?
DB2
=======================================================================
The only plan is to turn on their emergency diesel generators. However, these diesel generators (the size of locomotives) are not 100% reliable as demonstrated over years of operation at nuclear power plants. That is why they provide redundant diesel generators.
But we all know that large diesel generators like these require large amounts of diesel fuel and cooling water. Most nuclear plants provide one weeks worth of diesel fuel per generator. When the fuel runs out more fuel must be brought in by trucks. If more fuel is not brought in and diesel generators stop, then the Fukushima disaster will start.
Jaak
But we all know that large diesel generators like these require large amounts of diesel fuel and cooling water. Most nuclear plants provide one weeks worth of diesel fuel per generator. When the fuel runs out more fuel must be brought in by trucks. If more fuel is not brought in and diesel generators stop, then the Fukushima disaster will start.
Does this mean they couldn’t shut down the reactors in a week before the diesel runs out? That seems odd.
DB2
The cooling requirements of CAND reactors after the reactors are shut down are as follows:
Cooling systems need electricity to operate. Under normal operation, they get their electricity from the same power grid as the rest of us.
Nuclear power plants in Canada are also equipped with multiple sources of backup power if they get disconnected from the grid.
Sources of backup power include onsite power - that is, the power produced by the plant itself. [This is not allowed by safety regulations in most countries [i.e. USA] when a loss of offsite power (LOOP) occurs]
In addition, the following are available:
Two or three standby power generators [non-safety related]
Two or three emergency power generators [safety related]
Emergency batteries [sized for only 4-8 hours without charging]
[These diesel generators require diesel fuel and cooling water]
You can learn more by watching what would happen in the very unlikely event of a total station blackout – the situation that led to the Fukushima accident following the large tsunami that destroyed all available power sources onsite.
http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/reactors/power-plants/nuclear…
Jaak
Does this mean they couldn’t shut down the reactors in a week before the diesel runs out? That seems odd.
DB2
=======================================================
Not at all odd. That is a well understood “Achilles Heel” of nuclear power plant design and operation. Here is the simple explanation:
On a loss of offsite power situation reactors are shutdown in minutes. The problem then is keeping the reactor core cooled for weeks. The reactor core is radioactive and keeps generating decay heat which is what happened at Fukushima. With no reactor core cooling, the core begins to melt, the fuel cladding reacts with the steam and produces hydrogen, when the hydrogen reaches explosive levels an explosion occurs while the reactor core keeps melting.
Jaak