Specialty Chemistry Forums > Nuclear Chemistry and Radiochemistry Forum

NPP in Ukrane is on fire after attack.

(1/3) > >>

pcm81:
Here is the google mapm link to the power plant. Looks like it has 6 reactors.
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.5150482,34.6012032,911a,35y,250.65h,44.67t/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e4
Here is an MSNBC video to get you caught up on the news: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZO2x2o-rHg

Can't find exact match of the building from the video that is on fire. Closest thing i can find is this angle: https://www.google.com/maps/@47.5138694,34.5943625,3a,60y,221.54h,91.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5T_IedBxGUuT0mbm0luFJw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e4

chworld:
It's good that everything worked out, at the moment there is no reason to worry. The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Station is the largest nuclear power plant in Europe and among the 10 largest in the world.

Enthalpy:
Again fights at Zaporizhzhia yesterday, including shelling and some damage. One reactor shut off automatically, the others run still.

Some days ago, the Russian army installed weapons at the nuclear power plant, supposedly to fire from them without being shelled.

Enthalpy:
"Experts" downplayed in several newspapers last week the pollution risk by shelling the nuclear power plant. Example:
  20minutes.fr
claiming that the confinement resists shelling.

The dry storage of spent fuel is outside the reactor building and resists no shell
  uatom.org
If it's hit, the radioactivity is released. After the initial storage in the spent fuel pools, radioiodine has decayed, but radiocaesium, radiostrontium and others persist.

The VVER-1000 reactors have 1.1m concrete at the dome, as resistant as 25cm steel. Just the flechettes and the shaped charged fired by the old T-72 battletank pierce 25-45cm steel, and that's no big weapon. Already WWII howitzers could pierce 3.5m concrete.

Enthalpy:
Despite the war in Ukraine demonstrates the hideous danger of nuclear power plants, the Japanese and British prime ministers, and now the French president, tell "we need new nuclear power plants". Does the need for tritium, an ingredient of nuclear bombs, explain rationally this apparent foolish?

I say no. Cyclotrons can provide enough tritium to maintain France's or Britain's nuclear bombs. They are cheaper than nuclear power plants and not vulnerable. Both countries have more than enough plutonium, which doesn't disappear in a lifetime.

Tritium and deuterium make the booster of plutonium bombs (or of primaries in a multistage bomb). Each bomb is said to contain 2.5g tritium, according to
  nuke.fas.org - nuclearweaponarchive.org
which decays by 5.5%/year due to radioactivity and must be replenished.

France has 300 bombs if believing then-president François Hollande, Britain is said to be in the same ballpark. Maintenance needs 42g/year = 14mol/year.

I estimated that a 200MeV cyclotron of moderate size produces 1mol/year neutrons, which lithium converts to tritium
  chemicalforums
so just 14 cyclotrons suffice, or even five 500MeV cyclotrons.

They produce far less radioactivity, so a direct hit leaves the country habitable. They need little cooling and can be buried. Their loss has no swift consequence so they are no targets. Several sites can host them.

Or could just deuterium make the booster, without tritium? I don't know. After I suggested it, Pres. Trump considered conducting new tests of nuclear bombs.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page