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.

 

[phamENG]

Nuclear power plants are not designed to operate in war zones.

The nuclear plants I cut my teeth on were designed exclusively for this purpose, so I don't have anything to add about retrofitting civilian plants. I am very interested in the topic, though, so I'll watch for insights from those in the civilian nuclear industry.

 

[SwinnyGG]

Disclaimer, my nuclear 'expertise' consists only of the knowledge you have when you find Fukushima and Chernobyl and the NRTS accidents interesting and have read the wikipedia articles 100 times..

But I would assume that all reactors currently in operation are either 1) self sustaining for the period to get from normal operation to decay heat only or b) require on-site power from either the grid or local secondary/emergency generation to get there and stay there (ie, diesel)

So the primary need would almost always be having grid power or sufficient fuel available. If the on site generation is down or insufficient, you'd need to physically bring generators to the site, and they would have to be bloody big generators.

If the concern is 'what if the grid goes down and the secondary generation plant to provide backup power gets hit with a missile' well you can't just park backups next to the backups, because then they're probably down too.

 

[phamENG]

I think the concern is more of a "what if some 17 year old conscript gets the artillery elevation wrong and sends an armor piercing shell into the reactor?" All of the "normal" safety measures sort of go out the window at that point. Is there a contingency plan to rapidly deploy some sort of containment structure? Would the aggressor acknowledge the problem fast enough to let that play out?

 

[bones206]

It doesn't have to be something that dramatic. The grid can easily go down given the state of all out warfare. The local utility isn't just going to show up to repair anything either because they either fled the country or are sheltering in place, fighting as guerillas or soldiers defending their country, have already been killed.

It's an extremely precarious situation that the world did not prepare for. The IAEA Director General announced this morning (

https://www.iaea.org/press/press-conferences)

that he is personally traveling to Ukraine to try to broker a framework of mutual agreement to try to maintain the viability of these plants. The unspoken subtext IMO, is that the IAEA has determined their best and only chance at saving these plants is a diplomatic one, not an engineering one. This type of mutual agreement framework would have taken years to set up prior to war breaking out, so I don't expect them to be able to set one up in the middle of the fog of war. It's a desperation play.

 

[1503-44]

They shouldn't need any offsite grid power to shut down. All safety power requirements come from onsite sources, but some of those may be exposed.

The South Texas Project has 8ft thick concrete walls. A 747 direct crash would not affect the containment structure. However a 2.25 ton armor piercing round from the USS Missouri was said to be able to make Swiss cheese out of 30ft of concrete. Let's hope the Ruskies are not hauling any of those around. At this point I cannot be sure that they are not trying to find one. The MF is trying to maximize his evil deeds.

A black swan to a turkey is a white swan to the butcher ... and to Boeing.

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

Remember these are all VVER1000 cores. They were all completed about the same time as Chernobyl kicked off.

https://www.iaea.org/topics/nuclear...or-education-and-training/vver-1000-simulator

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VVER

They are one of the reason why this has kicked off. Previous Ukraine goverment was going to replace them with new russian or some process to extend the 35 service life by 20 years.

But I think last year they decided to go for Westinghouse replacements and not extend. Most of the reactor technicians and operators are pretty pro russia and are extremely upset by the storyline that's been put forward about what happened at Chernobyl.

 

[bones206]

Even if they can safely shut down, decay heat cannot be removed without power. Some kind of cooling loop is required, which is run with pumps, which require power. It is my understanding that these plants cannot simply remain passively safe after a shutdown without heat removal systems running on electricity for an extended period of time (possibly longer than this war lasts).

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

5 cores were shut down on invasion and 1 was scrammed when the plant came under attacked.

The wind is from the NW so if they do go it will completely kill Crimea and Putin's palace.

I susepct those at the plant are quite happy the russians are there and are looking forward to continuing employment if the Russians take over with the hope that the plants life gets extended.

 

[bones206]

I'm thinking along the lines of choppering in supplemental equipment like this:

https://turbinepowersolutions.com/1mw-compact-generator/

This is an excerpt from the NRC FLEX Implementation Guide (

https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1524/ML15244B006.pdf):

I say just get things there, staged and ready. Just in case. At least staged close by in Poland or something. Pretend it's Fukushima all over again, but this time you see it coming.

 

[SwinnyGG]

It is my understanding that these plants cannot simply remain passively safe after a shutdown without heat removal systems running on electricity for an extended period of time (possibly longer than this war lasts).

As far as I know this is correct, but with the caveat that once decay heat is the only cooling load, total cooling power required is a small percentage, on the order of maybe 2-3%, of the cooling power required under normal operating conditions.

 

[bones206]

Understood. But that power has to come from somewhere. If the grid goes down, they are running on backup diesels, which only last 2-3 days without intervention to refuel or reconnect the grid. These plants are designed to withstand singular extreme events. Not drawn out catastrophes that affect every aspect of life surrounding the plant.

 

[bones206]

Video purportedly from inside one of the control rooms during the attack:

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/0...zhia-nuclear-plant-as-russian-forces-attacked

“Stop firing at the nuclear facility,” a voice says. “Immediately stop firing. You are endangering the safety of the entire world. The operation of a crucial part of Zaporizhzhia’s plant could be damaged. We will not be able to restore it.”

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

At least staged close by in Poland or something

The country is huge. The roads are crap even without a war. Your talking one side of Texas to the other.

 

[RedSnake]

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

 

[bones206]

Alistair, these units are designed to be choppered in if necessary. After Fukushima, dedicated FLEX staging areas were built all around the US. I believe many were located strategically, equidistant to as many plants as possible. One of the projects I worked on was set up so all the equipment was containerized and designed to be “plug and play” when needed in an emergency situation. The downside is that the plants had to have those plug and play connections installed on their end for this to work. I doubt this is the case in Ukraine.

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

It's 6 vver1000 Soviet reactors which were fast built to cover the Chernobyl plant not getting complete.

The whole area is littered with partially completed reactors.

And flying in just isn't an option.

Giving them to Russia might increase the likelihood of them saving the day.

 

[bones206]

Even if Russia is in control of the plant, the war fighting is still ongoing and the danger to the plant is ongoing. The west could give the FLEX units to Russia for all I care, just get something in place for when the grid inevitably goes down.

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

There is I think 15 operating reactors in Ukraine. There is the same again partially built but cancelled by the current government.

But don't have a clue which are up and running. It was a number that was being banned around when the new reactor went critical in Belarus last year.

Which is also a reason for Putin invading the baltics and Nordic pool have refused to buy power from Belarus since.

There is also reactors in kilingrad which are nearly complete which they want to sell power from. But all the baltics is cutting grid sync in 2025 from russian grid.

 

[MartinLe]

What would a realistic worst case look like for the near and wider area?
Something similar to fukushima in terms of released material?