Slashdot Mirror


Vast New Tomb Now Covers The Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster Site (slashdot.org)

The final stage of the Chernobyl clean-up took over 20 years to build -- and will seal up the site for the next 100 years. Slashdot reader MrKaos writes: 30 years and seven months since the explosion...the project known as the 'Shelter Implementation Plan' has been rolled into place, sealing the crippled Chernobyl reactor. More than 10,000 people were involved in the project, which includes an advanced ventilation systems and remote controlled robotic cranes to dismantle the existing Soviet-built structure and reactor. This sarcophagus -- or New Safe Confinement -- is taller than the Statue of Liberty and larger than Wembley stadium.
Over one million people worked on the initial clean-up, the BBC reports, calling this new sarcophagus "the largest object people have ever moved," and its installation was apparently pretty surreal. "World leaders jostle with global executives and anonymous men dressed in full camouflage as platters of shrimp, foie gras and cheesecake are passed around by white-gloved staff...just 330 feet away from the site of the worst nuclear disaster in history."

33 of 173 comments (clear)

  1. Re:100 years? by Jeremi · · Score: 5, Funny

    What happens then?

    Cthulhu awakens.

    --


    I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  2. Documentary by Joce640k · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The BBS did an excellent documentary on this last week, well worth watching:

    https://thepiratebay.org/torre...

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:Documentary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Instead of futzing around with a 1.26 GiB torrent, you can just watch it on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    2. Re:Documentary by msk · · Score: 2

      TBBS

    3. Re:Documentary by epyT-R · · Score: 2

      You also get an increased chance of getting warning letters and/or a summons in the mailbox.

  3. Re:100 years? by JBMcB · · Score: 2, Informative

    Most of the high level stuff will have decayed significantly by then. Send workers in, chop up what's left, seal it up in drums and throw it in an abandoned salt mine.

    Or, technology might be available to recycle it into new nuclear fuel.

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
  4. Camouflage by freeze128 · · Score: 2

    They were camouflaged as plates of shrimp? WTF? I doubt that will keep you safe from radiation.

  5. Sources by borcharc · · Score: 2

    It would nice if there were some primary sources in this post.....

    1. Re:Sources by Xenographic · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is Slashdot, you have to hope that one of the comments will take pity on you and give you a link:

      http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170101-a-new-tomb-for-the-most-dangerous-disaster-site-in-the-world

    2. Re:Sources by MrKaos · · Score: 4, Informative

      It would nice if there were some primary sources in this post.....

      Apologies, I've had food poisoning all week and not enough energy to filter out what I thought were the best primary sources, many of which are pdfs that I'm still getting through myself. Here are the ones that cover the salient details:

      I would link to the Ukraine body of law that governs all this this however I don't speak the language.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  6. Re:Kicking the can down the road.. by simplypeachy · · Score: 4, Informative

    The existing sarcophagus is already at end-of-life. Some of it has already fallen in and the rest is waiting to collapse. It was a rush job at the time. As well as that, it is just a simple, static covering. The new construction is weatherproofed in and out, made of much more modern materials and enjoyed the luxury of planning and worldwide expertise. It also has a remotely-operated series of cranes and platforms which will be used to dismantle the doomed interior which will mean it's not only averting another catastrophe (existing structure collapsing) it is also designed to actively "solve" the problem of what to do with the place.

  7. Explosion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    It sounds impressive. There was an "explosion" of water to steam, then the reactor fire.

    Many people think the reactor exploded like a bomb. There's also many people who think that happened at Three Mile Island. It seems the media tends to exaggerate, and even lie for effect.

    Not that it matters much, it's just most people accept what they read. People are still telling me Russians hacked voting machines. And that the Speaker's Mace and Paul Ryan's logo is Nazi symbology. Even people who are normally intelligent. The internet has made things worse in some ways.

    1. Re:Explosion by serviscope_minor · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well the opinion seems to be that Chernobyl went prompt critical, which is more or less what bombs do. Except of course without the implosion it didn't explode in the same way exactly.

      Plus steam explosions are a real thing. The SL1 reactor also had a steam explosion due to a prompt criticality event. That causes the 12 ton reactor vessel to jump 3 meters in the air where it literally hit the ceiling of the containment vessel.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  8. Re:100 years? by Freischutz · · Score: 2, Funny

    What happens then?

    Cthulhu awakens.

    I'm pretty sure Cthulhu has already awakened and he has an orange comb-over.

  9. Where are the Nuclear power fans now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    One failed reactor =

    25 years of cleanup effort
    $235b cost (which of course - tax payers all around Europe are shouldering)
    thousands of lives lost
    ecological repercussions for centuries to come in the region

    Stop nuclear power now before we have more accidents like these.

    1. Re:Where are the Nuclear power fans now? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      To be fair, it was one reactor that would not have ever been built anywhere but in the Soviet Union (no containment dome) run by people dumber than a animated TV show (The Simpsons).

      Of course, nobody suspected that the oh-so-smart Japanese would site emergency generators where they could get flooded when the containment wall was overrun (just like their consulting geologists told them it would).

      If engineers ran the world, things would be more boring but quite a bit safer. Instead we get the Soviet Union, the Universal Kleptocracy and, god help us, Donald.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Where are the Nuclear power fans now? by ledow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We lose more than 235bn a year from people skiving from work (and that's in GBP, not USD!).

      We lose more than 235bn a year.

      "Abolishing open borders 'could cost Germany â235 bn'"

      "20 global banks have paid $235bn in fines since the 2008 financial crisis"

      "Brexit risks losing the UK £235bn in trade"

      Those are JUST the search results for that exact number. In the grand scheme of things, worldwide, one $235bn accident every 30 years is really chickenfeed. Especially against the entire energy market and its ramifications.

      Big numbers are only scary when they are bigger numbers than anything else. And they are made more scary when, like your 235bn and some of those above, they are basically made up to sound scarier.

    3. Re:Where are the Nuclear power fans now? by Solandri · · Score: 2
      A better way to analyze the cost is to compare against the value of electricity generated. Here's a graph of nuclear power generation over the last 45 years. Generation has been about 2300 TWh per year for the last 20 years. The 25 years before that ramped up roughly as a triangle, so call it 2200/2 = 1100 TWh per year average.

      This gives us a total of 73,500 TWh generated by nuclear power over the last 45 years. 20*2300 + 25*(2200/2) = 73500.

      Using a global average electricity price of $0.20 per kWh, this is $14.7 trillion dollars worth of electricity generated by nuclear over the last 45 years.

      Chernoby cleanup cost $235 billion, Fukushima was around $200 billion. Three Mile Island was about $1 billion. These are the only major commercial nuclear accidents in history, and their total cost is $436 billion.

      $436 billion / $14.7 trillion = 0.02966. Or about 3%.

      So the cleanup costs for the nuclear accidents is about 3% of the price of the electricity nuclear generates. Or 0.6 cents per kWh.

      Doesn't seem so expensive when you put it in proper perspective, does it? For even more perspective, compare to the subsidies for different power sources:
      • Geothermal's subsidy costs about twice as much (1.25 cents/kWh).
      • Wind's subsidy is nearly 9x more expensive (5.25 cents/kWh).
      • Solar's subsidy is 161x more expensive than nuclear's cleanup costs (96.8 cents/kWh).
    4. Re:Where are the Nuclear power fans now? by ledow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How many people has coal-fired, gas-fired, oil-fired power stations killed?

      Just because it's not in one nice incident all wrapped in a nice little sarcophagus for you, it doesn't mean it was casualty-free.

      Again, RELATIVELY SPEAKING, nuclear is safer, cleaner, less impact on the environment, cheaper, and even cheaper to clean up if it does go wrong than almost ANYTHING else.

      Even solar has a human cost, you just don't see it because people aren't lying on the floor outside every solar power plant.

    5. Re:Where are the Nuclear power fans now? by MrKaos · · Score: 2

      So the cleanup costs for nuclear accidents so far is about 3% of the price of the electricity nuclear generates. Or 0.6 cents per kWh so far.

      Thank you, your insights are very interesting however I think you mean those are the cost's incurred so far. It would also be interesting to map in energetic costs as well.

      Chernoby cleanup cost $235 billion, Fukushima was around $200 billion. Three Mile Island was about $1 billion.

      This is the cost to *ESTABLISH* cleaning up Chernobyl, now the work begins. We have not established the clean-up costs for Fukushima, only estimated, incurring and accumulating.

      I have not looked at the status of TMI, have all the core elements been removed? Don't we still have to dismantle the facility? Will it require a NSC? Will Fukushima?

      How much does it cost to dismantle a reactor core that has been operating for 60 years. Will every Nuclear reactor need a NSC to dismantle it?

      These are the only major commercial nuclear accidents in history, and their total cost is $436 billion.

      I guess Lake Karachay and Hanford were done on purpose so do clean up costs there count?

      What about the cost of the 'non-major' accidents added together, are those costs externalized, like carbon?

      What about the cost of spent fuel containment, not the test site at Yucca, a site that can contain radio-products without leaking?

      Infrastructure to said containment facility (incidentally, that's why you want to pick a place that works)?

      Cost per reactor decommissioning?

      What about decommissioning of Enrichment facilities?

      Mine tailings clean up, or are those costs externalized onto other countries?

      It would be interesting to see the impact of decommissioning even if you ignored everything else. I think it has only been done once and on 150Mw reactor, IIRC it was Yankee Rowe however I am not sure if they have been able to remove the spent fuel. I'll dig out the numbers if I can find them.

      Doesn't seem so expensive when you put it in proper perspective, does it? For even more perspective, compare to the subsidies for different power sources [ncpa.org]:

      You've missed out the value of the insurance subsidies for damaged caused, which are forced onto the taxpayer. Geothermal, wind and Solar don't get that kind of massive underwriting of liability as a form of corporate welfare because they don't need it. That's the flip side of Capacity Factor.

      If these did not exist no one would invest in nuclear power as the liability cannot be calculated. Imagine what a hypothetical Indian Point INES7 accident would do to the asset value of NYC. How do you calculate that liability?

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  10. Re:100 years? by Rockoon · · Score: 3, Informative

    Most plutonium is pretty safe.

    Pretty much only Pu-238 and Pu-241 are alarmingly dangerous, and any that is there will remain alarmingly dangerous for between hundreds and thousands of years. Isotopes like Pu-237, Pu-243, Pu-245, and Pu-246 have mostly all decayed by now, while Isotopes like Pu-239, Pu-240, Pu-242, and Pu-244 all have such long half-lives that while "dangerous", are not alarmingly so to varying degrees (you could safely handle Pu-244.)

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
  11. Re:Kicking the can down the road.. by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Isn;t this really just making a bigger headache for the people that have to deal with this in 100 years time?

    No.

    The original sarcophagus is falling apart. It was built by people who could only stay in the zone for a few minutes at a time and has no welds, bolts, or anything else. It's basically just a big pile of heavy stuff on top of the reactor.

    Something has to be done. Now.

    This new dome has plenty of space inside it and lots of cranes and robots built-in to dismantle the old stuff. When it's finished work a few years from now there will be easy access to the reactor, lots of space, and many years left over to think about what to do next.

    --
    No sig today...
  12. Wild Life by Max_W · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Strangely the wild life is booming in the Chernobyl Zone. Just google "wild life in Chernobyl zone" and see Images.

    It seems there is nothing worse than a Homo sapiens for the nature.

    1. Re:Wild Life by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not sure it's all that strange. Keep in mind that wildlife will still likely thrive even with high birth defect rates, early deaths by cancer, and other unpleasant side-effects from living in higher-than-normal radiation. We would find such a situation appalling among humans, but nature is a bit more brutally pragmatic about such things. Human populations obviously have a much more detrimental effect on populations than radiation.

      On the plus side, this gives us a great model for what a post-apocalyptic world should look like 30 years after the bombs fall, or whatever other disaster strikes. It's sort of eerie. I've never like the Fallout aesthetic that implies nothing grows in an irradiated region, even if I understand *why* they did it.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  13. Re:100 years? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2, Informative

    The deadly dose of Plutonium for a 80kg human is something like 60 micrograms. I guess to get the exact number you can google for it.

    So much to your idea of safety.

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  14. Re:100 years? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Informative

    Because of alpha decay. Best not to eat or breathe it. But washing your hands, wearing a mask and not having lunch on the worksite would keep you all safe and happy. Plutonium in non critical amounts is easy to work around. The rest of the stuff, not so much.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  15. WMDs in Iraq by SumDog · · Score: 2

    From the article:

    >Shortly after the accident, Hans Blix was flown to Chernobyl. Blix would later become better known for chairing the United Nations commission responsible for disarming Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction in the run up to the 2003 war.

    Wait what, the WMDs that didn't exist? The mustard gas that American sold Iraq and relabelling it as WMD? Why even include that bullshit BBC? You just want to keep that narrative going however you can?

  16. Re:100 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm pretty sure Cthulhu has already awakened and he has an orange comb-over.

    Four years of this. Hooray.

    (Translation: Jesus Christ. Shut up.)

  17. Re:100 years? by Rockoon · · Score: 2

    The deadly dose of Plutonium...

    Which isotope?

    Why is it that the fear-monger guy is the least specific, the least informative?

    ...for a 80kg human is something like 60 micrograms.

    its something like you didnt even bother to look it up, because if you had, it wouldnt be "something like" .. you would have a solid number instead of a vague guess that you can back away from later.

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
  18. Re:100 years? by cstacy · · Score: 2

    What happens then?

    The robotic arms, mutated from a century of radiation, break out of the tomb and begin their ravaging trek towards a major city.

  19. At Banqiao. "thousands" means "49"? by raymorris · · Score: 2

    > thousands of lives lost

    You have a typo there. I think you meant to type "49" (38 directly, 11 from cancer). At the time, it was thought that many more people might die 20 years later from cancer (rather than 25 years later from old age, car accidents, etc) but evidence indicates that hasn't happened much - cancer rates haven't increased as much as was feared. One claim that "6,000 workers will die from cancer due to radiation" was debunked when it was pointed out that there haven't even been 6,000 TOTAL deaths of workers, from all sources combined (including car accidents, etc.)

    > Where are the Nuclear power fans now?

    Well a bunch of them are having a fancy party 100 meters from the reactor. Because it's safe to do so.

    Others might be at Banqiao, where a hydroelectric dam failure killed 170,000 people. Maybe they are at Machchu Dam (5,000) killed,
    Vajont Dam (2,000) or South Fork (2,200).

  20. Re:documentary on Chernobyl by khallow · · Score: 2

    10's of thousands died fighting the fire

    Yea, 49 is a big number.

    Score one for safe and clean nuclear energy.

    Because everyone runs their power plants like cold war Soviet technocrats?

  21. Re:100 years? by MrKaos · · Score: 3, Informative

    The deadly dose of Plutonium...

    Which isotope?

    Plutonium 239. As an oxide it is an inhalant, plutonium chloride and nitrate is organically bound easily in the blood and bones because they are iron analogues. These are the main concerns for bio-accumulation of nuclear industry effluents persistent in the environment for 24,000 years and why I'm optimistic that NSC is going to help control the release of any more of these effluents into the environment.

    ...for a 80kg human is something like 60 micrograms.

    you would have a solid number instead of a vague guess that you can back away from later.

    In 1944 , Robert Stone, the head of the Plutonium Project Health Division, made the earliest estimate of a permissible burden for plutonium by scaling the radium standard on the basis of the radiological differences between radium and plutonium. Those included the difference in their radioactivities and that of their daughters and the difference in the average energy of their alpha particles. The result indicated that, gram for gram, plutonium was a factor of 50 less toxic than radium, and the standard was set to 5 micrograms.

    In July 1945, Wright Langham insisted that the 5-microgram standard be reduced by a factor of 5 on the basis of animal experiments that showed that plutonium was distributed in the bone differently, and more dangerously, than radium. Thus, the maximum permissible body burden for plutonium was set at 1 microgram.

    Following those experiments, discussions at the Chalk River Conferences in Ontario, Canada, (1949 to 1953) led to further reductions in the plutonium standard to 0.65 micrograms, or 40 nanocuries, for a maximum permissible body burden. Since then, no further changes have been made.

    Considering that the experiments were part of the Manhattan project and some of the subjects involved were not informed some of the specific results may still be classified.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.