Soldato
Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar
- Thread starter areksnumbr1sxylady
- Start date
- Status
Commissario
Also given that Ukraine is at war, a good portion of it's population is currently in other countries, and a lot of it's heavy industry is out of action, I suspect the loss of power from one nuclear plant is probably not as bad as it could otherwise be.
If nothing else, if the Ukrainians wanted to be ruthless and put some additional pressure on the Russians they could cut all power going into the Russian occupied areas as that would mean the Russians had to provide the power their troops and equipment need*, however I'm not sure if the Ukrainians would do that deliberately as they've still got a lot of their civilians stuck in those areas.
*Theoretically all military forces should be able to provide the power etc their units need, but with the Russians I suspect the logistical side of doing that may be rather hard given they appear to have issues with getting food to their troops and fuel just to move around.
Arguing over who gets to have a go on the goat first?
How long till it blows?Not long until...
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,639
Soldato
Four hours. With a blast radius of 30km, equal to about 40 megatons.
(in reality apparently its connected up again now according to BBC, and there was a local connection to another power plant the whole time. If it did lose all outside connections I think they could keep running the reactors independently (not 100% on that though, depends on the design...). If they had to shut them both down (eg because a turbine hall caught fire due to dodgy wiring in one of the Russian trucks parked inside) then they'd have to power the cooling system with the diesel generators. Guess they might have enough diesel for a few days as long as the Russians haven't been filling their tanks up with it? Once they ran out of fuel it would be about 90 minutes before things started getting a bit melty according to the recent news stories)
Permabanned
Ahh, thank God for that, a totally safe and self regulating power source then, one we need to have more of across the UK, and globally. I thought for a foolish moment they weren't built with every eventuality covered and could even be as dangerous as a collapsed coal mine tunnel, or a burst hydro electric dam.
Soldato
We do need more of them especially in the UK... Of course if you try really really hard then you can engineer a situation where they cause a problem, which is what Russia seems to be trying to do now. Even the worst case meltdown for Zaphorizhzhia is nowhere near as bad as Chernobyl though, for example. It is still an old soviet design, but a better design than Chernobyl, and a different scenario. Modern reactor designs are even safer, so you'd have to try even harder to cause any release of radioactivity.
This should be a lesson about allowing terrorist states to grow and fester on Europe's borders, not about nuclear power per se.
Of course you and your Greenpeace friends will use any excuse to attack nuclear, ignoring its many benefits and advantages over alternatives.
If you try hard enough / are careless enough then all sorts of things can be dangerous - ships full of fertiliser (eg Lebanon), oil storage (eg Buncefield), cars (eg every country in the world where they are a leading cause of death), railways (eg Hatfield), ships, coal mines and dams as you mention, and so on. At the end of the day nuclear energy is incredibly safe. If we rely on a terrorist state invading the country and intentionally sabotaging the plant to claim it's a massive danger then I think we might just have our priorities wrong...
Permabanned
What a load of tosh, what scenario amongst those you have listed leaves long term environmental and human reproduction damage on the scale of a major nuclear fall out? Name one scenario that you cite that has led to the region around an accident being uninhabitable or even unapproachable for decades. And I can assure you Greenpeace are not my friends or people I admire.
People who keep saying modern nuclear power plants are getting safer, are by default are saying the existing ones are not safe. They're the nuclear supporters equivalent of the "Lessons have been learned" lot
People who keep saying modern nuclear power plants are getting safer, are by default are saying the existing ones are not safe. They're the nuclear supporters equivalent of the "Lessons have been learned" lot
Soldato
I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that I doubt Mr Wilson has any huge love for green peace let alone friends in the organisation
Permabanned
Soldato
I'm surprised he hasn't declared it a war and brought in conscription tbh.
Permabanned
Well Russia lost about 8.6 million soldiers in WW2, so the citizens of Europe's tolerance of high energy prices and the cold, (and their government's coffers), need to be pretty robust over the next year or two
Soldato
Long term the environment benefits massively from nuclear disasters because you effectively end up with a massive nature reserve covering the affected area. Human reproductive damage is accounted for in what we would consider the effects of the disaster.
There are many industries which have created huge poisoned areas, for example mines and factories in Africa, or even poorly managed fracking in places like the USA. Poorly managed oil extraction can poison massive areas too, and once damage the environment can take a long long time to recover. Poorly thought out agricultural schemes too, for example what the Soviets did to the Aral Sea. Nuclear weapons and associated testing too. Thinking a bit wider, all fossil fuel use effectively damages the entire world and its population. Poor air quality, microplastics, and other pollution have affected large areas of the world too, and many of those pollutants will take a long long time to disappear.
So overall nuclear power has no unique claim to the ability to damage a wide area and make it less amenable to humanity in the long term, and even if it did that still wouldn't be a good argument against it given how unlikely it is, meaning the overall risk is very low.
What a load of tosh, what scenario amongst those you have listed leaves long term environmental and human reproduction damage on the scale of a major nuclear fall out? Name one scenario that you cite that has led to the region around an accident being uninhabitable or even unapproachable for decades. And I can assure you Greenpeace are not my friends or people I admire.
People who keep saying modern nuclear power plants are getting safer, are by default are saying the existing ones are not safe. They're the nuclear supporters equivalent of the "Lessons have been learned" lot
War is kind of an exceptional thing, and if nuclear power plants in this country were at threat due to war to be honest as grotesque as it might sound we'd have bigger problems to be concerned about...
The problem with nuclear tends to be being properly funded and managed long term - the problem with Fukushima for instance is that they ran it well beyond its design lifetime (largely I suspect due to the money involved), initially using more modern computing/technology to better understand/handle operations beyond its original design, which is fine IMO, but then they started trying to be cute and using advanced computer simulations to "game" manage decline, etc. rather than decommission it which IMO is a big no no and even then it took an exceptional disaster to cause a problem which even an old design ran beyond what it should largely held up against.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,639
It's all well and good hailing how safe designs are, but none of the designs have safety features designed around somebody intentionally trying to blow up the reactor, they're all designed around accidents happening, accidents that generally don't involve explosives, the reactors are built to endure some abuse, but if somebody wants to blow one up, there's very little stopping them
People mention Fukushima as well and how it wasn't as bad as Chernobyl, that's because the reactors didn't explode and only went into meltdown, if the reactors are intentionally blown up at Zaporizhzhia it'll be Chernobyl 2.0 depending if all 6 or a number of reactors get blown up or not
Probably not going to happen, much better to use it as a tool to threaten with than be crazy to go through with it but it's incorrect to assume blowing up the reactors won't be like Chernobyl
That isn't true - unless someone intentionally engineered the situation, removing large amounts of concrete manually and placing large amounts of material there not normally present. The design differences removes the potential for the kind of runaway fire/meltdown and explosion at Chernobyl.
Biggest risk really with Zaporizhzhia is groundwater contamination rendering everything downstream for many dozens of miles extremely hazardous to health.
Which would have course make the dam shifting water to Crimea - one of the principle goals of this whole conflict - completely useless.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,639
Yes I know this but as I said, they're not designed to prevent somebody using explosives to destroy the core, which will yield the same result as Chernobyl in radioactive particles from the core being dispersed everywhere
- Status