Slashdot Mirror
Chernobyl Reactor Restarted, Claimed Safe for Y2K
Ydeologi writes "Usually when you hear 'Chernobyl' and 'Y2K' in the same sentence, it's because someone's using the infamous 1986 nuclear catastrophe as a metaphor to scale the predicted impact of Y2K.
But here [MSNBC story], it's no metaphor. The Ukranians say they need money and they need electricity; this was their answer. Funny thing that Y2K concerns are preceding the more obvious ones -- say, uh, the reactor with the 'spotty' history."
The only reactors that come close to not sucking are CANDU rectors, the only 'brand' to be both deployed internationaly (hehe, sory about selling those to India) and without significant incedent.
What doesn't make sense to me is why they would bother with Chernobly anyway. Would there be anything salvagable from the original working system? I would've thought that the whole thing might have fallen apart.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
As long as the moderator rods aren't made of graphite any more...
There were several reactors at Chernobyl. One exploded, and it took a second one with it. The reactor that they are restarting was neither of these; it was only down for 5 months.
I'm getting a bit bored with these Y2k problems everyone is talking about... We all know there's not a thing gonna happen besides the sporadic blackout. Any company that is delivering any kind of service to the public has taken all the precautions that are needed. And even if something fails while generating electricity or distributing water than the worst thing that is gonna happen that the service stops for some time. It's certainly not gonna blow or anything ridiculous like that. The only ppl interested in Y2K stories are the media because they still don't understand what it stands for but did hear someone say the words computer, technology and explosion. That's it, nothing to see here, certainly no .sig
Hey, if the Ukranians really need the reacor and they say it is safe, more power to them. they are the ones who will be irradiated if the reactor blows.
Please Note: W2K is not suitable for use in nuclear reactors, life support systems, or other mission-critical applications. Manufacturer hereby disclaims any responsibility from meltdown, end of world situation, or the re-emergence of disco.
--
for some reason i feel an urge to dig a fall out shelter all of a sudden. but seriously, what are they thinking? most of the workers at it will probably develop cancer and/or die from full fledged radiation sickness. ahh well.
Hmm.. If nothing else, having a giant concrete enclosed reactor nearby would be bad for morale.
M: Hey Pyotr, what's Ivan doing?
P: Oh, he's just roasting some marshmallows on reactor 4.
How on earth did they clear away all the radiation?! I thought that area would deadly for many many years. I mean, the decay would take decades (centuries?) right? Is my feeble grasp of physics missing something here?
:)
Not only that, but I thought they pretty much just built walls of cement around the reactor. Did they tunnel their way back in and switich it on?
Help me out here, if they wasn't on MSNBC, I'd swear it was some kind of prank (or at the very least, another devious plot for Bruce Perens to somehow get more Karma
Finkployd
I think we owe to ourselves as humans to embrace nuclear power. Regardless of the alleged danger. How can we advance as a species if we don't take chances?
*oops*
Upon closer examination of the article, it's the #4 reactor that was encased in carbonite, they were talking about #3
Finkployd
[T]he Ukrainian government says it needs $1.2 billion from the West to finish construction of two new reactors to replace the output that will be lost by closing Chernobyl.
There's nothing quite like nuclear suicide to raise the ante in international treaty negotiations. The Ukrainian economy has taken a harsh beating since the USSR fell apart, and they do need this electricity if they hope to get their industries cranking again.
The fact that this action will precipitate an international crisis and help get the financial aid flowing again is just an added bonus.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
Gee.. It's too bad that Russia isn't 5 days worth of time zones ahead of the east coast.
If it were, when Chernobyl goes bang, we could turn off all OUR nuclear power plants in time for the fuel to cool off!
(Reference: this comment)
------
If a tree falls on an anonymous coward yelling 'first post' in the forest, does anybody hear?
iirc when a meltdown occurs the core heats to the point where it literally burs itself into the ground; i think i heard somewhere that to this day the core of this thing is still in this state, burning its way down to the center of the earth. anyone know what the latest theories are on this, and if it affects much of anything?
-- the opinions stated above aren't those of my employer. in fact, they're probably not even my own. you know what, ju
I read a newspaper article yesterday about this. IIRC, the G7 nations had agreed to give the Ukraine about a billion dollars to build new reactors to replace Chernobyl, but haven't coughed up the dough yet. Since they need power, the government feels it neccessary to re-open the old plant.
(I was surprised too, I thought the whole area was going to be un-inhabitable for the next few hundred years)
Dana
(*after crawling back out from under my desk*)
I thought major portions of Chernobyl were still radioactive, and would be for another 50 years or so? I seem to remember some sort of 'discovery channel' type program about it.
The Ukranians have stated that their equipment is "far too obsolete to be affected by any computer problems."
I don't know if something was lost (or gained) in the translation though.
But it's true. Only us sophisticated countries have anything to fear from a complete meltdown of the electronic infrastructure. We're addicted to technology and the withdrawls, should it be taken away for even a minute, would be ugly.
The original Chernobyl accident was triggered by a careless 'experiment', it did not blow up all by itself. It is unlikely that such disregard of security measures will take place again at the same place.
And by the way, Roblimo:
$your_post =~ s/Ukranians/Ukrainians/g
And about a week later, the background radiation count in the U.S. spiked, to levels not seen since the late 1950's. It wasn't Chernobyl, it was the DOE "secretly" cracking open two bad missle silos and a melted reactor, hoping that the newspaper headlines about fallout arriving from Chernobyl would cover their actions.
That kind of behavior is why I so completely trust the nuclear power industry, and those who regulate it.
I have a secret. Chernobyl is in Ukraine - not in Russia. It is close to Russia though.
You would think that after a disaster such as the one in 1986 would have made some impact on what a country sees as a viable source of energy. I am sorry that is not the case. The only way you can make sure that no mistakes are involved is to make sure no humans are involved. Its sad to see that instead of looking for more sustanable solutions, they are choosing to invest money in something that will cost more than the initial benifit of energy. Most of the children in that area are suffering from thyroid cancer because of the initial disaster. I am curious too see how much money it is costing the country to treat the radiation related illnesses. But I am quite sure that when the radiation has finnaly faded, the cost of treating radiation-related illnesses will far exceed any economic benifits that the Chernoble plant has brought to Ukrain(sp?). Also take into account that you have to house the depleated uranium. I do not think there is much though put into this at all. Our sins shall be visited upon our sons and daughters. This is especially true with regard to radioactive substances.
Two of the Chernobyl reactors have been operating for many years, restarted shortly after the accident. The one that is being restarted now has been down for a normal outage since February. It's Unit 4 that is fux0red and enclosed in the "sarcophagus".
This kind of stuff is the most dangerous legacy from the cold war. Even in the west, where we at least have enough money to handle this stuff with proper security, the long term cleanup/deposit of the large amounts of highly radioactive is still an unsolved problem. We don't really know what do with it.
...
The situation in some the former eastern block, especially in the former USSR, however is much worse. These governments are cronically cash starved with some countries on the brink of insolvency. Pensions and salraies are often not being paid (or payed several weeks/months too late) and the old communist order has collapsed with (in some regions) not much of anything new to replace it. It is this abscence of government which makes the large stockpiles of nuclear fuel, weapons and waste very dangerous. Some/Much of the Russian nuclear (submarine) fleet is rotting in their harbors because there's no money/parts for repairs. Nuclear reactors (any many other vital parts of the infrastructure) don't get proper servicing/repairs. With authority breaking down to such a degree that even high caliber weapons are for sale by corrupt army officials, the question of strongly contaminated or even wapons grade materals is a serious one.
Even if we quit using nuclear power anytime soon (would be nice but don't hold your breath) we'll be stuck with large amounts of highly radioactive stuff for the next few thousand years
I was six when the Chernobyl accident happened, so my memories, and my insight, into the time are rather limited. I do remember how scared my parents were however, I do remember hardly being allowed to play outside that whole summer, and I do remember that we only got powdered milk for about six months.
Sometimes I wonder about how much time the downfall in this area took off my life, but then I come to and look at the smoke rising from the highway just a few hundred meters from my house, and wonder how much that is taking off even as we speak.
Nuclear Power as it stands is a dirty, nasty, dangerous business. We are playing with forces which we know can destroy us all, we are creating toxins and wastes that we hardly know how to deal with, and we are putting trust in that the next generations will solve our problems for us. However, it is not alone. POWER is a dirty bussiness. As much as nuclear power is a killer, so are all the other ways we have today. Anyone here going to tell me that greenhouse effect is not real? or that it isn't a bigger deal to our children than having to deal with nuclear waste? or that hydro-electric damns aren't gigantic destruction of some of our last real ecological systems?
The Ukranians need power. For them to have a chance at rebuilding their economy, they will need all the power they can get, and we cannot expect them to pay the price for the global bad conscience about what we are ruthlessly doing power our way of life. If we want that reactor shut down, we are going to have to give them an option, and we obviously aren't.
Until then, I guess we'll just have to stack up on iodine pills and hope that the wind is going the other way next time...
-
We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.
I hope it safe, and I suppose it is. After all, the 1986 accident that spewed radation all over europe was caused by operator error. Hopefully they've learned, but it seems that they're being quite arrogant about it. Hold your breath europe...when we US people are partying New Year's Eve, you'll be in your radation bunkers.
But if you're already being increadibly reckless with your environment, what is the additional harm in a little nuclear fallout, should it come to that? (Nevermind that the stuff doesn't exactly respect borders or even continents.)
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
I thought major portions of Chernobyl were still radioactive, and would be for another 50 years or so? I seem to remember some sort of 'discovery channel' type program about it.
Anti nuclear environmentalist wacko tree-hugging propoganda. Sure, the nuclear fire was awesome, but don't fall for that 'million years of uninhabitible for a thousand miles' bs. Do you think they would allow nuclear reactors in the us if they were so dangerous? It's kind of ironic. The anti nuclear wackos have the best intentions at heart. But nuclear power is much more clean than, say, coal. And what about the damed fish? (sorry, pun intended - see note that follows my incredible Rush Limbaugh inspired wisdom) The entire pollution that was caused by the fire at Chernobyl is nothing compared to the output of the worlds "coal reactors"
note:
That reminds me of a joke.
What did the fish say when it ran into the cement wall?
Dam!
Relax a little bit, please.. I know that the rest of Chernobyl (the reactors other than no. 4) have operated fairly safely for quite a long time. Nobody should draw the line from Chernobyl to Y2K -- it just brings up old fears. (Remember, NBC is the one that brought us that stupid Y2K movie...) The true problem is the latent radiation that workers are probably getting exposed to. (but I don't know how much is there..)
Old USSR reactors mostly rely on good old-fashioned analog techonoly, so Y2K should not be a big issue. Besides, while Soviet reactors may not be as safe as their western counterpars, they are by no means unsafe. After all, what happened in 1986, happened because some engineers thought it might be a good idea to turn off safety systems an do some experiments. There have been nuclear acidents in the US too..
And there's one like it in the US, that is, it's in a sheet metal shed instead of a concrete container.
Chernobyl 3 (it was 4 that blew up) was restarted because there wasn't enough fossil fuel on hand to heat the building to keep the cooling water from freezing. Restarting it runs heat through everything for another winter. C1 and C2 were mothballed years ago.
I hope this paragraph puts your mind at ease, you won't have an explosion with your reactors, because Chernobyl wasn't an accident. The Russian engineers were testing the safety features of the core. They pulled out the moderator rods and shut off the cooling pumps to see how quickly the core would warm up. The core warmed up so fast, the sliders on the rods welded in place, the rods couldn't be zipped back in, and the rest, as they say, is history. So unless your engineers are as dumb as the Russians, you've got nothing to worry about.
Nuclear Power as it stands is a dirty, nasty, dangerous business. We are playing with forces which we know can destroy us all, we are creating toxins and wastes that we hardly know how to deal with, and we are putting trust in that the next generations will solve our problems for us.
Nuclear power is considerably less dirty, nasty and dangerous than most practical alternatives today. A catastrophic failure of a nuclear power plant (and Chernobyl was about as bad as it can get) might kill a few dozen people, but perfectly normal operation of a coal or oil burning power plant kills a lot more people by releasing all sorts of nasty chemicals into the atmosphere, which then cause lung cancer and similar diseases. (I recall seeing a figure of 28,000 deaths per year quoted, but I can't find a reference right not. Oh well.) Then you have coal mine accidents, general pollution, etc. "Forces that can destroy us all" is ludicrous hyperbole, even a loaf of bread is radioactive and it contains those same forces.
Anyone here going to tell me that greenhouse effect is not real?
I will tell you that it is too early to tell. Global temperatures are rising, but not in the way it should be according to the standard global warming thoery. The reason for it may well be unrelated, as the Earth's average temperature goes up and down anyway. Less than 20 years ago there was widespread fear of a new Ice Age, ie. global cooling, based on exactly the same data.
Just the same, if the global warming theory is correct, the problem is fossil fuels. Nuclear power plants produce next to no greenhouse gases. Nuclear power is not ideal, but solar and wind power just aren't going to cut it, now or quite possibly ever, for places like Finland.
And a few links:
- http://www.oneworld.org/energy/
- http://www.newscientist. com/nsplus/insight/global/faq.html
Getting back on topic, most Russian nuclear reactors are sufficiently primitive in design that they have very little software to even worry about. Russian reactors have far worse problems than Y2K, despite everything I said above I don't exactly like living near both Sosnovyi Bor and Ignalina...A neutral view of most types of energy
The New Scientist's global warming FAQ
Cheers,
-j.
Wow! *THE* John Holmes of porn fame?!
Well, consider that Cernobyl's meltdown could have been prevented, were it not for the fact that Chernobyl's safety mechanisms and procedures made most other nuclear reactor workers cringe even then. If they've improved since then, which I'm sure they have (even the most scatterbrained comittee of politicians, pointy-haired bosses, and Windows zealots couldn't possibly be that stupid), then more power to the Ukranians (no pun intended).
All the same, I think I'll wait a few years to see how this thing runs before I go to the Ukraine...
The stupidity of people will never cease to amaze me. Not the stupidity of putting back up a nuclear reactor, but the stupidity of the tards trying to stop it for some reason or another.
HELLO!!!! We are running ourselves into the ground with Fossil fuels (no pun intended) and there won't be any left, but NOOOO! We cant have nuclear power because that might reck the environment! Yeah, makes sense to me.
People are idiots. I hate them.
My rod is solid!
Revelations 8:11 talks about a star named Wormwood, which is what Chernyobl means, making waters bitter and killing people. Obviously the 1986 disaster was not the one the Bible was talking about.
I was just talking to a friend about how we were falling behind the timetable for the Apocalypse...This is just the kind of breath of fresh air we needed to prevent pushing the end of the world back another thousand years.
I can't wait to watch Jack van Impe next week!
I am my own home. - Banana Yoshimoto
This is a general response to those who are wondering what's happening.
Only the reactor 4 (the one that blew up) was shut down. Reactors 1 - 3 never stopped working.
Nobody has lived in Chernobyl since the accident because the radiation levels are too high. Nevertheless the plant was never shut down.
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
AND THAT GOES TWICE FOR YOUR LITTLE PUPPY DOG!
Assuming that you think nuclear power is a good idea...
Assuming that the Former Soviet Countries have reliable industry techniques to control this stuff...
Assuming that the residual radiation in the area has subsided...
This is a very bad idea.
The reactors that melted down are not safe. They were covered with a "sarcophagus" of just plain concrete. Even last year, they were talking about the leaks from this thing getting so bad that they had to go in and repair it, but didn't have the $$.
When the reactors melted, they sacrificed thousands of soldiers that went in to put this concrete over the reactor. They didn't even give them protective equipment. All they gave them was some "anti-radiation" pills that prevented them from getting violently ill.
It's still impossible to get into the area. The residual radiation is too much, even if you don't take into account that it's leaking.
The facilities themselves are in a poor state. Iron beams that form the infrastructure of the facilities are weakened because of the extreme temperatures. Most of the switches on the control panels are melted together. This isn't like TMI, where there was an incidental release of radiation. Theis was a melt-down of critical proportions, just like a nuclear bomb went off.
The radiation from Chernobyl wasn't even reported by the Soviets. They wouldn't have said anything to the West. The only reason that we knew about this is that Finland detected the radioactive cloud over half a continent away (Geography lesson--the Ukraine is located on the Black Sea, way down south, and Finland is on the Arctic Circle). So, this radiation was strong enough to drift all the way north across eastern Europe and still be detected.
So, how do you pull off restarting the reactors?
1) Rebuilt all the facilities from scratch.
2) Get a team of *very* protected specialists to start up the equipment.
3) Network the reactors with a remote control station somewhere in Kiev.
4) Pray like hell--Ukrainians are Catholic.
Supposedly, the thing is Y2K safe, but who cares? I mean, this is such American thinking. Who cares about Y2K when there's Y-now.
I do what the voices on my console tell me to do.
Okay, now walk outside, on the cloudiest day of the year, and look around you. How many lights, placed where, and of what wattage, would you need to employ to achieve this level of illumination without your insignificant solar power???
Thousands of persons still use the sun to illuminate almost every significant activity, to dry their clothes, to warm themselves. Consider, too, the work accomplished by the sun in creating wind, harnessed by green plants to provide practically all our food, etc.
Solar power is far greater than your imagination can conceive -- it is merely our so-far limited ability to harness even a tiny fraction of this power which leaves us wanting more energy. It isn't the sun which "can't produce!"
That must have been the same week that aliens abducted the President of the United States and the CIA stole your tin foil hat.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Seriously, folks... I come by my Y2K tremors honestly.. I've worked in the technological headquarters of rather a large number of brokerages and banks. With these eyes I have observed such stupidity and ignorance as would seem incredible to a trusting soul such as yourself.
Then again, you don't know me -- so, did you read the recent story about how NASA lost the probe orbiting Mars? Seems some bright coder failed to translate correctly from metric to feet in calculating the orbit, and it burned up because it entered the atmosphere (at about 60 miles instead of 150). Of course, you have to go to BBC for the horrendous details... the authorities and their media don't want you to realize how bone-headed even NASA's coders -- arguably brighter and more motivated than most -- can be.
If you're living in some cozy suburban home with a fireplace and you have plenty of water and fuel stockpiled, or you're down south where the temperature probably won't drop much below 45 degrees (F) the week after the New Year, you're probably safe enough. But those of us in NYC and other environments highly dependent on deeply interconnected technology have plenty of reason to fear. Just a couple of months ago, a sudden, completely unexpected rainstorm that fell only on Manhattan in the early morning knocked out the subways. So the buses and cabs were also effectively out of service since so many crowded onto them. If you were on your way to the hospital that morning, or desperately needed to get to the airport, you had a tiny taste of what COULD happen here the week of Jan. 1st.
When was the last time you heard of a predicted, expected power-outage??? They still happen in the greater NY metropolitan area -- even just last summer, blocks in uptown Manhattan were completely cut off for more than 24 hours, just because of high demand during a predicted heat wave!
The real danger is that relatively tiny technical failures can quickly cascade into life-threatening consequences in apparently unrelated systems. Remember the implications of complexity theory (one good reason to read the notes prefacing chapters of Jurassic Park, regardless of how you felt about the movie).
Yeah well i saw an aritcle on "Ukrainian Industry" about three years ago??? and it seems that they are not i need of electricity like they are in need of cleaner factories. They do not even put the basic scrubbing systems on their plants that have black smoke bellowing out of them 24 hours a day.
And does mr. smartass know what do those "factories" produce? Those over-polluting "factories" are either steel plants or, and mostly -- surprise -- power plants. Coal-burning ones because this is what Ukraine has.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
This is the typical reaction of the West (read US media). There is real need of the electricity there. This reactor may be spotty in it's reputation because of the accident but then that's the reason it's an accident. Do we go around asking whether US will use nuclear bomb on some country when clearly the history shows that the US is the only country that has used nuclear bombs ever and that was not an accident.
It means "Black Table", in reference to the fertile black soil in the region, and the flatness of the local terrain.
If you subscribe to conspiracy theories, at least make them somewhat consistent with reality.
As long as they have stoped the practice of refueling while the reactor is at power.(They didnt do shutdowns before) They tried to refuel number 4 during power operations a misalignment of the new fuel rods occured and created a supercritical reaction which produced a great deal of heat and basicaly caused the graphite coolant to phase change to a gas (like water to steam) and blew the top off of the pressure cooker (reactor). The China syndrome is impossible as the pressure/temp inside the earth is far greater then what any little reactor core could produce. (not to mention heat disapation) Supercritical reaction only means the fision produced more free neutrons then were required for the current reaction. Supercritical is not always a bad thing as when going from 10% power to 11% power all reactors do it. Subcritical meams fewer. Critical by itself means just the right number for current power levels.
You are correct, perhaps I should have more carefully worded my statement. *Currently*, solar power is not a reasonable option. I certainly expect that to change in the future. Unfortunately, we're forced to live in the present, which, according to the article, is where the Ukrainians (sp?) are having their trouble.
The radiation wasn't nearly as harsh as everyone thinks. I'm not saying that there isn't any, or it won't make you dreadfully ill if you go mushroom picking in the forests nearby... Its the general fear of anything radioactive that has people thinking that just coming close to Chernobyl will cause instant death.
I personally have an uncle that was a soldier detailed in the construction of the sarcophagus. He's still fine and healthy today.
The employees at Chernobyl are bussed to and from the reactor every morning, because they're not allowed to live overly close to it. Other than that, its business as usual. Just some doors in the reactor building are welded shut. =)
If the west is so upset about Chernobyl, why don't they remember their promises of financial aid to Ukraine to build replacement reactors so Chernobyl can be shut down????
The western European countries, plus Canada and the USA backed out of their promises. So naturally, Ukraine backs out of its promise to shut down Chernobyl. Considering that in winter, in many towns, electrical power is only on every second hour, Ukraine has little choice. Ukrainian computer users find UPS backups as indispensible. =]
Anyone in the west who wants to complain about Chernobyl, they should direct their complaints to their own governments.
My 2 kopecks.
please
Almost all of the energy on earth originally came from the sun. Even if we exploded all of our nuclear bombs it would be peanuts compared to what the sun puts out.
We're playing word games. Solar power is plentiful, we just can't harness it right now. While it's nice to dream of the future, we have to be a little practical. Let's just hope they have Chernobyl under control this time.
Well - as long as they don't upgrade to Windows 2000, I guess were ok.
Put your tinfoil hat back on and get back in the box!
The US has around 128 Nuclear Power Plants not to mention all of our Nuclear powered Navy, which has been running for over 30 years. The Navy has lost two Nuclear subs the Thresher and the Scorpion. Neither has anything to do with nuclear propulsion Plants. One was lost the same place and time as a Soviet sub [hint], the other had a battery room explosion. There was TMI. The US had similar experience to Chernobyl with SL1 which was a portable Army Reactor "Two people Died". All in all I dont know of many other major industries with this kind of safety record. More people died making the Golden Gate Bridge.
Get a free ipod.
Actually I remember seeing a program recently about how that sarcophagus was decaying very rapidly from the exposure to the radiation within. It was a program about designing robots that could withstand the intense radiation within to study the inside of the cement shell. Most robots could only last a short time before basically dying and becoming completely unusable. Parts of the sarcophagus are crumbling and there are holes starting to appear in it. I wouldn't go within 200 miles of that site and still hope to have "normal" children afterwards.
Then go do your f*cking homeweork.  Just because you read slashdot, does not mean that you know sh*t about any technology that you are not personally fixated on.
Having already experienced the effects of one nuclear meltdown in Tjernobyl I would not like to experience a second one. They need international assistance - now! That's my $0.02...
There are two basic complaints with Yucca Mountain.
1. A permanent dump for nuclear waste needs to be geologically stable. Five-meter-thick concrete walls don't do you much good if the earth's crust goes "pop". Shortly after Yucca Mountain was declared "stable", a fairly significant earthquake hit it. This does not inspire confidence in the site's long term ability to safely contain dangerous waste.
2. The state of Nevada has no nuclear reactors, and thus produces no nuclear waste. From what I recall hearing when I lived there, this was decided by referendum and may reasonably be described as the preference of the folks who live there. Many people thus feel that it is unjust for the DOE to dump most of the nation's waste in Nevada. Thus the omnipresent "Nevada Is Not A Wasteland" bumper stickers.
So there is a little more to the debate than "people who don't know much about nuclear energy."
-Mars
...require extraordinary proof. And I don't see any proof, extraordinary or otherwise, from you. When you've gone and done _your_ f*cking homework, come back and tell us where to find verifiable links to whatever it is you're spewing.
*WE* hastened the collapse of the Soviet system by straining its economy?!?? Please elaborate on this point. *THEY* are the ones who adopted Communism as their fundamental economic model. Communism, especially as put into practice by centralized governments, does not work. Because it contradicts the most fundamental aspects of human nature, it can't be used as the basis of a sustainable economy, with or without Western interference.
How, exactly, are the (apparently inevitable) aftereffects of the 1917 revolution *OUR* fault?
The point is that when considering a nuclear
power plant, it's more to worry about than just the energy resource being defect.
Perhaps the extra cooling that is needed, and
that is supposed to arrive at 22.31, doesn't
start because the year is 1900, and it doesn't start for 100 years...
Perhaps the reactor is supposed to stop at 04.00,
but it doesn't because the computer can't figure out what to do, because it doesn't understand the
date.
Result: the reactor operates out of limit and regulations --> it overheats, and has a meltdown
--> mayhem.
For the most part the y2k-bug is blow out of
proportions, but some parts of it is really serious.
Why do people often make the assumption, that
everybody here is from the US?
Slashdot has a lot of European readers, and
Norway, Sweden, Germany, France, Belgium, United
Kingdom, etc. may all suffer from nuclear
disasters in eastern Europe.
All of you that are interested in this story should seek out a documentary called "Pripyat". It played here in Olympia, WA, as part of our local film society's annual film festival (yay!) this year and it is an AMAZING sight...
Chernobyl is surrounded by The Zone, a 20km (IIRC) area that is cordoned off. There is an entire city that sits abandoned within the zone(there's a special issue of Scientific American on the stands now, an issue on gigantic engineering projects, that includes a double-page photograph overlooking this city). Armed guards control access to the zone, which is supposed to have been completely evacuated, but of course there are still people living there.
The filmmakers of Pripyat didn't do much editorializing - they pretty much just set up the camera and let it roll. Their subjects include an elderly couple who live a primitive lifestyle within the zone, a worker who travels to the zone every day for her job testing for radiation, and best of all: the Chernobyl plant safety manager! It even includes a bit of a tour of the plant! The safety officer goes on quite a bit about the heavy responsibility he bears, and then shows the camera crew how wonderful their lunches are and how they're free of charge, and then laments that he only wishes he got PAID for his job... yup, after many months on the job, this guy, the frickin' plant safety officer, still hadn't ever been paid. Talk about pushing a willie button... that oughta be enough to give anyone the heebie jeebies. That and the fact that all the controls and electronics looked vintage 1952, and the rest of the building appeared to be a little shaky in the maintenance department.
Anyway, if you have a cool video store in your neighborhood, it'd be worth your while to ask them to get it in for you when it becomes available. HIGHLY recommended!
CANDU - CANadian Deuterium Uranium. The system is heavy-water moderated (the process of slowing down neutrons to "thermal" and therefore nucleus capturable speeds); and the heavy-water comes out of normal water (in the case of most Canadian reactors, Lake Huron). Deuterium, a naturally occuring stable isotope of hydrogen combines chemically with oxygen making heavy water. Tritium, an unstable isotope of hydrogen is _rarely_ found in nature. In the process of slowing down neutrons in a reactor, a very small amount of deuterium gets converted into tritium. In the amounts produced within the CANDU reactor, you would have to wait a _long_ time to get enough tritium for a fusion device (ie. several half lives of the substance; ie. it would decay faster than you could produce it; ie. forever) Fission relies on a greater release of energy from the splitting of a nucleus then the energy taken to split it. As iron seems to be about the limit for keeping a positive energy ballance, deuterium and tritium _cannot_ be used in fission devices. It does however turn out that in order to produce temperatures of the magnitude required for thermonuclear fusion, a "conventional" thermonuclear fission device is used. In some high-yield devices, a casing of stable, uranium is used which under the intense neutron flux fron the fusion reaction gets convertes to fissionable plutonium, drasticly increasing the power of the device. So... 1) CANDU reactors are not bomb factories (unless converted to "breeder" reactors, which is more expensive than building a custom facillity). 2) Tritium can not be used in "fission" devices. Altough "fission" devices are used to trigger "fusion" devices. 3) All reactors may not suck, but thermonuclear fission based energy does: a) The plant may be safe, but the waste material sure as hell isn't; AND it has to be put in a safe place for _hundreds of thousands of years_. c) Decomissioning of the plant is not straight forward or safe. What do you do with an intensly radioactive caldera? How do you transport it? b) The infrastructure for mining, processing and transporting nuclear material is _far_ from safe; opening up the possibility of a nasty spill (which does occur from time to time) c) The economics of all of the above are terrible. If all of the subsidies were removed, it would _the_ most expensive mass power generation system in use.
So are they holding their NYE party at the reactor this year? :)
Let me first make a summary of some of the facts known to me...
The Chernobyl plant (or Chornobyl as the Oekrainian people call it now), consisted out of 5 RBMK reactors..
The 1st reactor was brought back on line Oktober 1995 and the 4th this year, if I recall it right..
The Chernobyl plant is unique, because it was designed for two purposes:
1) Supplying power
2) Producing nucleair weapons.. This is also one of the main reasons, it lacks a containment structure.
During the construction of the plant, some engineers came to the believe, that the plant had structural design flaws in the cooling system and pleeded to halt the construction, these engineers where taken of the project and Russia made sure that the carrier ended as well..
The #4 reactor of the Chernobyl plant, exploded after series of human errors, when conducting a 'safety test'.
Before running the safety test, all three safety systems where disabled.
The test was performed to see, how long the reactor could hold out, when shutting it down and not generating power, without external power to the water cooling pumps & controls and without the backup power generators online.. Also, the emergency core cooling system was taken off-line..
The reactor was deliberaty put below a power output of 700MW, the strict minimum limit to garanty safe operations of all support systems and the reactor it self.. After a series of major human ignorance and errors that followed, mainly the work of Deputy chief engineer Dyatlov, who also lead the test, the reactor #4 finally exploded.
In the immidiate vicinity, there where about 135000 people, who where only evacuated days after the incident happend... It took around 8000-10000 lives of worksman, mostly soldiers (liquidators), to put out the fire and to seal of the reactor, by building 'the Sarcophagus'. (Almost) all people, who did the footage on the accident, by helicopter, died.
The radiation level in the surrounding environment, was much faster reduced, than scienctist would have expected, helped by a natural process called 'chitin'.
Envision how in the western world, these rescue workers would be dressed like and than look at the liquidators
Since 1996, a lot of modifications are done to the Chornobyl reactors, but the basic design, with it's flaws, wasn't changed, nor is the situation surrounding these reactors...
In 1997 Russia agreed to build more reactors, based on the RBMK models in Chornobyl..
In 1986, Russia could find 10.000 souls, who were send into their dead, to end the disaster..
In 1999, Ukrainian people know a lot more about radiation... Today, the area around Chernobyl is still inhabitat by Oekrainian people, who feel they are left alone by the government..
Unemployment is sky high, as you would expect, so no source of income and medical threatment is done under very bad conditions, by idealistic people who don't care about their own lives...
What if it would happend again now?
What if they decide to run Y2K 'tests'?
Check for more info these links: this and this
"The odds of a meltdown are one in 10,000 years. The plants have safe and reliable controls that are protected from any breakdown with three safety systems." Vitaly Sklyarov, Minister of Power for the Ukrainian SSR., February 1986
I don't think Chernobyl caused radiation spike in US. In early 60s Soviet Union exploded 100 (one hunred) megatons surface thermonuclear device. This is 5000 (five thousands) Hiroshima bombs. US estimation was from 75 to 120 mmegatons. Now THAT was a radiation spike. Chernobyl is nothing compared to that bomb.
I don't think Chernobyl caused radiation spike in US. In early 60s Soviet Union exploded 100 (one hundred) megatons surface thermonuclear device. This is equivalent to 5000 (five thousand) Hiroshima bombs. Seismic analysis made in US estimated explosion from 75 to 120 megatons. Now THAT was a radiation spike. Chernobyl is just nothing compared to that bomb.
i don't appreciate having my flesh burned off by my adventurous neighbors. i don't care if they are advancing society. i realize anarchists like me are dying out but i think it's better to just let us die off naturally, then go do your little experiments to get everyone killed. thanks.
Read my lips: There is absolutely zero, nada, nil chance that anything in Chernobyl will fail due to Y2K. How do I know? Because ALL of the equipment used in Chernobyl was manufactured pre-computer era. The hardware is too primitive to be affected by anything related to Y2K. Saw a documentary on it and they directly addressed the issue. So sleep tight, Ukranians. :) Y2K is literally the least of your Chernobyl worries.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
The energy plant at chernobyl had/has 6 reactors. One of them (I believe #4) was the one that suffered the accident; the others are still running although due to frequent problems repairs will soon force their shutdown too (they say in two years). Now, are Soviet reactors very good? no, they are not as safe as the U.S. ones. But as someone noted, they have never really failed either except Chernobyl #4 and that only because of negligent testing (they turned off colling system for a day). And, let me repeat, they are restarting a DIFFERENT reactor!
Those Russian-Ukranian engineers look like a bunch of lunch ladies, with their puffy faces and stupid paper hats.
If they'd just lose some weight, put on jumpsuits and white hardhats, and generally try to look more American, I'd feel better about the whole thing. (Jeez, I'd better post this one anonymously)
The russian design uses graphite to replace the huge pool of water that western reactors are bathed in, not the moderating rods. Carbon (or water) slow the neutrons down to make fission more likely. The rods (made of beryllium? in both designs) absorb the neutrons altogether, and stop the reaction.
Because the russian reactors are "dry", a fire in the graphite blocks is a definite possibility. They should have enclosed the reactor in a containment vessel like we do. Cheapskates.
I'm cool like a fool in a swimming p-p-pfft-pool
There are two real problems with nuclear power: Disposal of spent fuel (waste) and accidents. Once you analyze them, you realize there is but one problem with nuclear power: Longevity.
Accidents are the joker card in this game. Nuclear power would be fantasic -- if nothing ever went wrong. Unfortunately, one of the few constants in our existance seems to be Murphy's Law: What can go wrong, will go wrong. And when things go wrong in nuclear power, the resulting fallout (pun quite intended) can be drastic.
If a coal plant catches fire, you have a lot of smoke, some toxic chemicals, possibly explosions, the usual sort of industrial accident. But within a few days, a week or two at the outside, the fire will be out and you can start picking up the pieces.
At Chernobyl, they won't be able to pick up the pieces for hundreds of years.
Spent fuel (nuclear waste) is the second problem I mentioned. When the oil is finished burning, all your waste has gone up the stack, for better or worse. With nuclear power, the spent fuel rods must be kept until they decay to the point where they are no longer hazzardous.
Again, this process takes hundreds of years. During all that time, you keep accumulating more and more waste. You cannot handle it without special suits or robots. You need to keep it away from water, to prevent contamination of the water table. You need to do this for a long, long time.
And that is the real problem with nuclear power (or nuclear anything): Longevity. Nuclear waste remains hazardous far longer then anything else we have to deal with. Unlike a conventional industrial accident, the result of a nuclear accident may well last until your grandchildren are dead. Just creating a storage container that lasts long enough stretches our technology.
The people who design nuclear waste storage facilities spend a good deal of time trying to make the place look as dangerous as possible, using universal symbols that any human will understand. The reason why is simple: This stuff will remain deadly longer then modern civilization has been around. They have to account for anything up to and including the collapse of our society in their designs. That is the time scale we're dealing with here.
Once you realize that, you realize the problem. With almost everything else, we can afford to make mistakes. It may be bad, but we can fix the problem and move on. Not with nuclear power. Nuclear power demands perfection -- and that is one thing we cannot provide.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
Having been in Munich, Germany soon after the explosion at Chernobyl, I admit that when I first saw this article it had me a bit worried. I still remember watching the news on AFN (Armed Forces Network) saying there was no danger, then turning to a local station to see a large red area right over Munich with a warning to stay out of the rain if at all possible. Despite this, I think that nuclear power is the safest, cleanest, most efficient method for generating electricity that we currently have. If the Ukraine needs to bring the rest of the plant online to kick-start their industrial capacity, more power to them! (no pun intended) Solar power is not anywhere near the efficiency level it needs to be at to provide electricity on a commercial scale. Wind, geothermal, and hydroelectric power all require very specific geography, and are still not as efficient as nuclear power. Fossil fuels are an idea whose time should have ended somewhere in the '50s. Fusion is still highly experimental and has not yet breached that elusive 1:>1 input/output power ratio. Fission-based reactors are proven technology. The reason, IMHO, that it is not more widely used is that incidents like Chernobyl and TMI tend to bring into people's minds the images of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We see pictures of people horribly scarred by radiation, and are irrationally afraid that a commercial reactor can do the same. Yes, the waste produced is rather more toxic than anything else, but there is far less of it, and it is produced with far less frequency. (Anybody have figures on how often a commercial reactor needs refueling?) For those people calling for money to be sent to the Ukraine instead of letting them bring this back online, I say let's send over a few competent nuclear technicians to help them bring it back up safely. And, for those who think that while I might advocate nuclear power, I wouldn't want it near my house, I say I'd like to have one _in_ my house. (Let's see anyone beat a nuclear reactor in a Geek Toy DSW) Seriously, I have no problem with the Ukraine bringing Chernobyl back online, as long as it is done safely.
--NOC Monkey (OOK!)
-NOC Monkey (OOK!) Experience is what allows you to recognize a mistake the second time you make it.
Just how much time in the day do you have to read /.?
1,000 comments for calendar 27th... a slow day! We need moderation, so that you can find the most interesting things first, and then nod off when the discussion gets too trivial.
I agree that too many comments are too low on the moderation scale, but my attention span for most articles is about 50 posts; after that, it better be interesting!
of course, if you have a better idea...
Chernobyl released over one million times the background radiation into the environment- in forms that would be devastating to the whole world. The trees in the area soaked up a lot of the more vile isotopes released- but will not be able to do so again (they've already soaked up all they can...) The radiation levels at the reactor's location and the surrounding area were so high that you'd recieve your lifetime safe radiation dose in 90 seconds . Dozens being killed? Try in the tens of thousands in the area (unless it's in a truly isolated region...). Try in the millions of people adversely affected worldwide. They were truly lucky at Chernobyl the last time- what about the next "oops"?
Yes, through normal operation, a nuclear fission plant is cleaner and "safer" than a coal or gas fired plant. However, despite saftey regs, they are far more complex (in design and operation) and therefore at least slightly more likely to go prang and in a bad way at that. The catestrophic failure modes on many of the designs (esp. the ones over in the former Eastern Bloc countries) can be quite a bad thing for anyone around the things- so it's quite undesireable to have them about; no matter what you say to the contrary.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Hrm.. well, here's my take on it
1. The ground near the plant is already screwed for the next few hundred years.. why not just open the place back up
2. Russia needs money
3. Russia needs power
4. Nuclear power is cheap.. and it works (most of the time)
5. As long as the nuclear fallout from the next meltdown doesn't hit me, I don't care.
6. If the radiation from having monitors all around my head, evern while I sleep, doesn't kill me.. I don't think that I'm gonna notice the meltdown too much
7. Safety has increased over there.. especially since we'll most likely send at least one team over to help them with the whole project.
8. By taking the risk of killing the environment, they're saving many tons of harmful waste.
9. Ok, so I don't have a 9, but I really like making long lists.
I'd like to hear what some of the rest of you think.
-NIVRAM
Chernobyl has four reactors. Reactor #2 exploded in April of 1986, and Reactor #4 caught fire in 1992 and was disabled (without a radiation-leak mishap like six years previously, however.) There are two left that still work, and one of these (#3) is what is being restarted. (I make no claims as to the accuracy of the reactor numbers; I probably mixed them up. Oh well.)
What's interesting is 1) Where the workers will live, seeing as how Pripyat is still uninhabitable, and 2) how the workers will be protected from the vast quantities of Cesium-137 still found in the region.
Er...did you say *lose* some weight to look more American? When was the last time you were there? :)
"We reject kings, presidents and voting. We believe in rough consensus and running code." Dave Clark, IETF
Oh, I think I can answer those: 1. the workers will live in Pripyat because it's perfectly safe; and 2. obviously there's no such thing as Caesium-137. Don't forget, only two people died from radiation poisoning because there wasn't really an incident at all.
"We reject kings, presidents and voting. We believe in rough consensus and running code." Dave Clark, IETF
Er...what's 'homeweork', and perhaps we should all do a bit more (previewing and calming down before posting, that is)? Oh-oh: isn't that a flame I see coming towards m aaaaarrrggghhhh
"We reject kings, presidents and voting. We believe in rough consensus and running code." Dave Clark, IETF
Bullshit, the "Monster" bomb that was detonated over Northern Russia was a 60Mton bomb, it was a scaled down version of their 100Mton bomb. The reason why it was scaled down was because if they had detonated it, the shockwave might have reached nearby cities.
I dont know if aou guys are aware of this (after reading all your posts), but Chernobyl never was shut down. Reactor 4 blew, they put concrete over the ruin, and restarted the other 3... now if these 3 blew good night eastern & middle europe (including Germany where I reside)
-- [This line has intentionally left been blank]
You're assumptions about embedded devices are way off bud. I'm in charge of the Y2K remediation effort at my company and you'd be surprised just how many systems are effected by the date rollover. What we've learned about embedded systems is that you can't assume anything about them. Even devices from the same company may have different reactions to Y2K. I've seen some devices that simply had display errors and others that worked fine. This accounts for most of them, however there were some that would simply turn off or stop functioning. When you put this together with mechanical systems and then possibly later add computer automation, you get a system that isn't quite as easy to override as you might think. An example would be our local shipyards. They have this huge lathe that's used for making the main driveshaft for large ships. (the "screw" as it's called..) This lathe was originally a completely manual system. Over the years it was refitted for electronic control and after that for fully automated computer control. The original manual systems were modified in a manner such that it is now impossible to use the lathle manually. So if the computer fails, this multi-million dollar facility is rendered useless. Granted, most nuclear power plants probably have manual systems, but considering the Chernobyl Plant's history, I wouldn't count on it. Read the MSNBC article and walk through the slide show. I think you'd be wise to reconsider your opinion.
I was in the Ukraine a couple of years ago for a 2 week trip to see a friend and do some touring around. With the sole exception of Kiev (the capital) at 5pm each night, for about 2 hours, the power would be cut. That's a country wide blackout! And the only reason for it was that they couldn't afford to provide electricity 24 hours a day. Bearing in mind that most of the population get round on electically powered Trolly Buses (Trams to you and I) everything just about grinds to a halt. I don't think things have improved much since then, if at all.
Macka
Against living things, if you increase the D/Tr to plutonium ratio :o
Back to the reactor issue, it's easier to make a heavy-water plant than buying a power reactor to "hide" nefarious intentions.
I believe the major cost would be in the creation of tritium and enriched "weapons grade" uranium/plutonium. As CANDU reactors run from un-enriched fuel (sticking you with the cost of an enrichment facillity), it again would be costly ruse.
Didn't Chernobyl happen in 1984? I could be wrong but that's the one thing I clearly remember from Chem class.
After doing some more research on the internet, I need to rectify some facts:
Since 1986, no more that two reactors of the Chornobyl plant, have been operative..
In 1991, one of the two reactors caught fire and was taken offline and was taken back online in 1995. Currently there's only one reactor operational, the second one was taken offline in 1997 because it exceeded it's lifespan. The remaining reactor, is in such a bad shape, that it needs a half year of service for every half year of operation. Ukrainia has scheduled the last reactor to shut down before 01-01-2000, but is now probably forced to use it until end Q2 Y2K, because they still haven't received any money to finish building their new power plants and winters are very harsh over there..
Currently, Ukrainia had only power 22/24 hours, before powering up #3 and the Ukrainain public transport is largly electrical powered.
In the first year after the accident, the number of cleanup workers in the zone was estimated to be 211,000, and these workers received an estimated average dose between 165-250 millisievert (16.5 rem). In total, around 600-800,000 workers have been involved since 1986 and around 8000-10000 of them died.
Right after the accident, the main health concern involved radioiodine, with a half-life of eight days. During which those 135.000 people were not evacuated.. Today, there is concern about contamination of the soil with cesium-137, which has a half-life of about 30 years.
It is true that the reactors themself are based on old analogue technologies, but the powergrid, auxialiary control units and power backup units aren't.
The POWERGRID and NOT the reactor itself perse, is THE main Y2K concern, according to the CIA.
If the powergrid fails or miscommunication etc, the 5 powerplants Ukrainia has, have to be taken off-line. The ironony is, that reactors need power from the grid to be able be be shutdown, as the Chernobyl test disaster prooved. It is feared, that the current power backup system takes to long to get online, altough it has been improved (providing it is not hit by a y2k problem).
America has offered to send batteries and power generators and also offered to improve current reactors.. But is hindered by politics.. I'm in general anti-America, but it seems like America is the only one who cares.. The G7 still hasn't payed.
How precare is the situation of #4 at the moment?
* In 1991, the Chornobyl plant suffered from an earthquake.
* There is leaking rain water into the "sarcophagus" of unit 4, causing massive corrosion and major damage of the structural integerity as robot surveying showed. There's imminent need of $700,000 todo some very short term repairs to #4, but money lacks...
* #4 contains still 70% of it's original fuel in dust form.. The roof of the 'sargophagus' is imminent to collapse. Does the term 'fall out' ring a bell to anyone? If it would collapse, the disaster would be much much bigger than in 1986.. Providing it won't ignite the nuclear fuel in #3, causing a real global disaster, which is a real fear.
And don't forget the 1991 fire..
Russia and Lithuania still also are using 14 RBMK light water graphite reactors such as at Chornobyl. The RMBK 1000 model VVER 440-230 in Novovoronezh NPP (Russia), the same as used in Chornobyl, has already failed 17 times, during it's life...
Some article on Sovjet reactors.
Some other articles: Russia today , more info this and this
"The odds of a meltdown are one in 10,000 years. The plants have safe and reliable controls that are protected from any breakdown with three safety systems." Vitaly Sklyarov, Minister of Power for the Ukrainian SSR., February 1986
Two things: First of all, the USSR was not a communist country. The ruling party called themselves communists, but the government type has officially been 'State Capitalist' since early in its existance. Assertions that this was not the case by either side in the 'Cold War' are generally either marketing or plain old confusion. Secondly it seems ridiculous to me that you can deny that the US and other 'western' (west of what, anyway?) powers had a hand in the collapse of the USSR. I say this because I seem to remember hearing a lot of crowing about having "won the Cold War" and having "crushed the Evil Empire" when the USSR did collapse. What's with all the self-congratulation if you didn't actually have any part it? Some people just want to have it both ways.
BTW if I remember correctly Chernobyl translates to wormwood, the star that falls to Earth in Revelations that poisons the water, kind of scarry ain't it
Read my plan to save the Bengals
Well, OK, let it be two atoms for a cancer. But Plutonium just stays the most toxic material known, you only need a fraction of a milligram to kill someone...
You can say the same for air.
Inject a tiny bubble of air directly into someone's bloodstream in the right place, and it will travel into the heart, block the (mumble) artery, and stop their heart dead.
The fact is that nearly anything can be used to kill someone if you do it just right. Plutonium is hardly the only substance which qualifies. This particular bit of FUD, while true, was sensationalized in the 1970s for propaganda purposes.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
rr, 17 should be 7, typo... actually it's 8, including the last one, that is 8 for the whole plant..
EKOR is a radiation-resistant foam product that suppresses nuclear dust and isolates fuel-containing masses under various conditions in the reactor. The first application is planned to take place by the end of the year. EKOR is marked by Eurotech Ltd. (EURO) and Kurchatov Research Holdings Ltd. (KRHL). EKOR was developed by scientists at the Kurchatov Research Institute in Moscow specifically for use at Chernobyl.
those ukrainians have no stinkin clue what the heck they are doing(for lack of a better word)
Why dont we just load this stuff up in its stable glassified from and launch the suckers into the sun? While we're at it, we could use nuclear missles (*carefully* inspected nuclear missles) to launch them, and kill two birds with one stone.
this solution seems much more cost efficient than any of the other proposals (underground storage,etc etc etc) and gets around what you term "the longebity problem" quite nicely, I think. Strangely, I cant find any discussion of this idea. Has it really not ever been seriously discussed?
The truth is out there - we'll let it back in after it sobers up a bit. -The Cube