Ukraine Nuclear Power Plants 9

[bones206]

Nuclear power plants are not designed to operate in war zones. What can be done to proactively shore up the safety systems of these plants in Ukraine?

Assuming Russia permitted the international community to bring equipment on-site uncontested, is there anything that could be used in a pinch to augment emergency power systems etc? When I got out of the nuclear industry in 2016, there were a lot of projects in the works for this type of “beyond design basis” scenario in response to Fukushima.

Hopefully IAEA is already being proactive about this and working in a contingency plan, but I’m interested in hearing thoughts from our community here.

 

[RedSnake]

I better say at ones that, now I am playing the devils advocate.

The Russian troops have given back the security for Chernobyl to the personal of NPP and they are leaving.
All good and well.

https://liveuamap.com/en/2022/31-march-russian-troops-signed-a-document-handing-guard-of

]

Russian troops signed a document "handing guard of Chornobyl NPP to personnel of NPP"

And then they have signed it over with this text..

https://twitter.com/UKRINFORM/status/1509555337346572288

It is indicated that the act states that “There are no claims from the administration of the protected facility in relation to the troops of the National Guard of the Russian Federation.”

Might be good unless something goes boom after they have left, then of course it is just good for the Russians since they have a signed paper saying everything was good when they left.

“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

Seems they have regiments loads of Russians with acute radiation poisoning.

They were digging trenches into burial sites of graphite collected from the stuff that was ejected in 1986.

Seems they have over 1200 vomiting. And some that they have started hemorrhaging.

They are shipping them to Gomel.

 

[bones206]

Yes that’s the difference between blowing up a dam and blowing up a NPP. We have to deal with this radioactive shit for generations. It doesn’t go away and it costs so much time, money and energy to manage.

I’m not a radical anti-nuke person. But I do believe we need to rapidly move on to at least a safer evolution of nuclear power to where the risks are not as severe. And where the waste is not such a huge issue either for that matter. Depending on the absence of war is not a realistic expectation.

 

[Nukeman948]

We are surrounded by radiation for all of our lives.
All life forms have evolved to survive with it.
We can try to minimize it but we can never eliminate it.
I comes from the sun and other sources in space and it comes from the rocks and minerals in our soil.
It comes from our own bodies and the foods we eat.
Should we choose to live in fear of it or should we learn to understand and adapt to what we can not avoid.

Modern warfare is not natural and it can be avoided.
Bombing dams, schools, hospitals and nuclear facilities is not natural and we cannot survive it.
We can make nuclear power safer but we will save far more lives by resolving human conflict in a more peaceful manner.
We should be able to do both.

You say that dealing with "radioactive shit" costs so much time, money and energy to manage.
How much time, money and energy is wasted waging war and blowing up dams from both sides?
How much time, money and energy is wasted rebuilding after all the destruction caused by wars?
How many fewer people will be around to help rebuild and pay the costs of rebuilding?
Wouldn't it be much easier to deal with all the nuclear issues if we didn't spend so much time, money and energy on wars?
It is "not a realistic expectation" to allow wars to continue to be a dominant part of our existence on this planet.

[sub]
[/sub]​

 

[bones206]

I’m not advocating for war here. It would be be nice if war wasn’t a thing, but it doesn’t look like it’s going to go away any time soon. If anything, the world is becoming more fractured and competitive as resources become more scarce and climate change makes some places less habitable. I think there has always been an assumption of stability where NPPs are to be built, since there are no design provisions for dealing with instability as we are seeing in Ukraine. If war is going to happen regardless, wouldn’t it be prudent to take the care of the nuclear plant vulnerability issue?

By all means we should avoid wars. I protested the Iraq wars in front of the White House as a college freshman in DC. War is senseless and yes it costs us dearly in blood and treasure. But the Chernobyl disaster basically crippled the USSR 40 years ago and is still costing billions of dollars a year to manage. Same with Hanford and Fukushima. Even in peacetime those are enormous burdens on economies. I don’t agree with the premise that *all* radiation is natural and we shouldn’t be afraid of it. How many Red Forests have you come across in your life?

 

[Nukeman948]

Who said *all* radiation is natural or that we we shouldn't be afraid of it?

You will never be able to understand by twisting peoples words.

[sub]
[/sub]​

 

[bones206]

We are surrounded by radiation for all of our lives.
All life forms have evolved to survive with it.
We can try to minimize it but we can never eliminate it.
I comes from the sun and other sources in space and it comes from the rocks and minerals in our soil.
It comes from our own bodies and the foods we eat.
Should we choose to live in fear of it or should we learn to understand and adapt to what we can not avoid.

Look, I'm not trying to twist your words. I read the words above and that was my interpretation of your meaning. If I misunderstood, then I apologize.

 

[phamENG]

Nukeman948 - bones brought up a concern about radiation from what amounts to a man-made source (sure, man didn't make the Uranium, but he did refine it and concentrate it more than it occurs naturally). You lead off that statement with a bunch of stuff about natural radiation, and made what came across as a dismissive statement. It seemed like you were making a false equivalency and saying that he shouldn't be concerned about fallout from a failed nuclear plant because we experience solar radiation and radiation in other natural forms (and unnatural - atomic tests are still with some of us!).

I don't think anyone in their right mind wants war. And an elimination of all war is a noble goal and I do hope we achieve it someday. But the sad truth of it is that we're not there yet. So what's the practical solution? Ignore vulnerabilities as we hope powerful and belligerent people give up their ambitions? That doesn't strike me as a sound strategy. We have to realize that the 'peace' so many of us have lived with for so long was a glorious reprieve from the status quo, and that reprieve is likely coming to an end. We should fight hard (not violently, if possible) to maintain it, but history is not on our side. We should prepare for the worst while planning and pursuing the best outcome.

The fact that wars are costly and horrible does not change the fact that hundreds or thousands of years of radioactive contamination is also costly and horrible. Figuring which one is worse probably isn't productive - acknowledging that both are worse than anything we need or want and finding ways to prevent or significantly mitigate both, either simultaneously or independently, is an eminently worthwhile goal.

 

[bones206]

Exactly. Thanks Pham for doing a better job than me at articulating.

 

[Nukeman948]

I was just trying to bring a more balanced perspective to the conversation.

Ignore vulnerabilities as we hope powerful and belligerent people give up their ambitions?

Did you miss this line? "We should be able to do both." That is the opposite of ignore it and hope it goes away.
It doesn't work out well if we only look at this problem from one side and you will never understand my meaning by cherry picking parts of my post while ignoring the rest.

This genie will never go back in the bottle. Humans can devise a way to make nuclear power plants less vulnerable, but humans can also devise a way to get around that to use them for destruction. That means we need to tackle the problem from both sides to get the greater benefit.

My point about the dams that seems to be being dismissed here is that even if we could somehow completely eliminate nuclear power plants as a target, someone like Putin would simply find another high casualty target. This demonstrates the fallacy of concentrating on nuclear safety while ignoring the root cause of the issue which is modern warfare.

[sub]
[/sub]​

 

[bones206]

Your point about high causality targets is well taken. But a destroyed dam would not still be killing people 40 years later.

 

[phamENG]

Nukeman948 - it seems as though you want us, or at least expect us, to be cherry picking and twisting your words. I realize that's more common than not on the internet in general, but I know that's not what I'm trying to do and I'm fairly certain bones isn't, either.

I did not miss that line, nor did I ignore it. My statements weren't meant as an attack. If you'll notice, there are some parallels in our statements - that's not me ignoring you and committing some comic failure in a misguided attack against you, it's me agreeing with some of your points.

The point on dams isn't being dismissed. It's quite valid, but within the context feels a little fatalistic. (If we solve one problem, there's just going to be another, etc.) The context being that this entire thread was started based on a concern for safety of nuclear power plants. So the dam question is a something of a red herring, though I'm sure not an intentional one. But I'll tackle it here briefly:

Scenario A: large dam is attacked and floods the land beyond. Thousands are killed and/or displaced. It is, truly, a human tragedy. Once the initial flood subsides, cleanup and recovery can take place. This is a long and expensive process. When it's done, there are two choices: rebuild the dam and the destroyed communities, or leave the river to return to its natural state, rebuild around it, and find an alternative energy source.

Scenario B: nuclear power plant is hit by artillery, missile, bomb, or any other weapon that does the job. Significant amounts of highly radioactive material is released, causing acute radiation poisoning in anyone nearby, dangerous doses for hundreds or thousands in the vicinity, and lower but potentially life degrading and shortening doses for thousands more due to long term effects like cancer, etc. Cleanup is an expensive and incredibly hazardous proposition, and when done contains much of the radiation. But, depending on location, you may be left with vast areas that are inaccessible and/or uninhabitable for tens of thousands of years. There are no options. No alternatives. Just clean it up as best you can, and then wall it off for, effectively, forever.

So they are both horrible tragedies, but they differ in various scales. Neither is being dismissed, and it would be naive of us to think that when one problem is solved another won't pop up. When one soft target is hardened, focus shifts to the next. When all soft targets have been hardened, the softest of the hardened targets is singled out. So and so forth. Which is why constant vigilance is required.

It reminds me of something I saw recently. It was the story of an American doctor traveling to Poland to assist with medical treatment of refugees. The first comment? Somebody attacking her for not staying put and treating the sick and underprivileged in her own city. They had a point. There is a big problem with undeserved communities and medical care. But to attack somebody for attempting to solve or contribute to the solution of one problem but not another or all of the problems simultaneously is illogical.

 

[Nukeman948]

But a destroyed dam would not still be killing people 40 years later.

A dam has the potential to be bombed by a war criminal for as many years as it exists.
Chernobyl is only killing people now because it is being exploited by a war criminal.

[sub]
[/sub]​

 

[RedSnake]

I was just trying to bring a more balanced perspective to the conversation.

I think you are trying to down play it a bit, and it feels like you are making it into a environmental defense speech for nuclear.

Since I live less then 3 km from the largest water powerplant in SE and also in a area that got quite a bit of the radiation from the Chernobyl accident, I do know the difference in the consequences between the two.

We have actually prepared our water powerplants, if the Russians comes, since they are our greatest "enemy".
So even if they would manage to blow some dam up the consequences would be quit local and not as large as they would have whished for.

That is almost impossible with a NNP.


“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

 

[phamENG]

Back to the original topic:

Assuming the worst and that nuclear power plants will, at some point in the future, be targeted or at least highly susceptible to 'accidental' attack, what can we as engineers do about it?

I can think of two primary issues: 1) physical security and maintenance of radioactive containment. This is largely a structural topic. Designing a containment structure that can withstand a certain blast force. 2) removal of residual heat after the reaction has been quenched either chemically or by the insertion of control rods. This one is a bit harder.

For #1, is anyone aware of current standards for required strength? Design basis for blast resistance, etc.? The design concepts are well understood and, while not easy, are commonly done for other facilities and I would be shocked if we haven't considered this for anti-terrorism efforts here in the states.

For #2, I would think some backup system that doesn't rely on electricity would be important. Perhaps some sort of geothermal system using natural circulation? Sadly the hot and cold parts a bit opposite of what you might prefer, but I'm sure there's a sufficiently clever ME out there who could work something out. Anyone familiar with this?

Anyone think of other issues related to direct fire and/or local calamity that could adversely impact the security and safety of a nuclear plant?

(In case anyone is interested in my bona fides - PE (Civil/Structural) with experience with retrofit hardening designs for anti-terrorism/force protection and progressive collapse prevention of DoD facilities and, in a past life, spent 6 years in the Navy, about 1.5 of them in school and about 4.5 of them as an operator on a naval nuclear power plant.)

 

[zeusfaber]

(sure, man didn't make the Uranium, but he did refine it and concentrate it more than it occurs naturally).

Don't want to derail the main discussion for long, but this hints at a misconception it took me a long time to recognise.

The main thing about nuclear waste is not that man has concentrated the uranium but that we've transformed some of it into an interesting collection of fission products.

The uranium decays over the course of billions of years, meaning that natural radiation levels are low. Because the parent nuclide is long-lived, the active daughter products are all in secular equilibrium so, even though there are a lot of them, some quite short lived, they still only contribute low levels of radiation. Most of them don't really bioaccumulate.

Fission products start off neutron-rich and the typical decay chain is a succession of beta decays with progressively increasing half lives. This means that activity doesn't get throttled by a long lived parent. Among the many products involved are a good number that offer the unwelcome combination of mid-range half life (with both longevity and appreciable activity) and an ability to be absorbed and accumulated within the body.

</digression>

A.

 

[Nukeman948]

...but this hints at a misconception it took me a long time to recognise.

Thank you.
The concept that increased activity comes with shorter half lives is something that I have never seen taught in any class I've been to. We started with basic understanding of nuclear power in 6th grade science class and this concept is so basic to understanding radioactivity that it should be included from the very beginning, yet is seldom brought up.

[sub]
[/sub]​

 

[phamENG]

zeusfaber - all correct and I agree. It's been a while since I've thought about all of that in any real detail, but it all sounds familiar and accurate. Forest for the trees, though.

The point is that the uranium and associated materials and fission products did not occur there naturally. They were mined, processed, and accumulated at the site for the purpose of generating electricity. And so an apparent discounting of their impacts in the event of an accident or malefactor's action with a comparison to naturally occurring radiation is a false equivalency. If you want to compare the dosage of the soldiers that just drove through the Red Forest last month and are now, supposedly, in a hospital with radiation poisoning to the average dose that someone receives from the sun over an equivalent time period, sure. But to say, effectively, we get irradiated all the time why are you worried about a power plant meltdown/explosion? seems...wrong? Perhaps that's not what was intended, but that is how it was received.

 

[zeusfaber]

@phamENG, Roger that. A.

 

[JohnMcNutt]

I just came to this discussion to see if any of you with experience could comment on the red forest trench-diggers' irradiation. Is there good intel that this is a true story? What would be the likely source of the radiation that they may have received?