You’d hope… but they must already be pretty efficient at making such payments untraceable.
That reactor will also produce power for cooling and controls at the site
That's a dilemma for the operators. From what I've read their standby diesels are not in good shape. If they loose the last connection, that reactor is on a knife edge - so they would probably prefer to get it to cold shutdown asap. But if they do that before the other reactors are in cold shutdown, the connection becomes essential to avoid a possible meltdown.
You’d hope… but they must already be pretty efficient at making such payments untraceable.
Thing is, a lot of it was fairly well known, for instance they used to pay talking heads extremely well for appearances on RT, that's now basically stopped.
It was just tolerated because nobody wanted to poke the bear... that's not really such a concern since Feb.
If they loose the last connection, that reactor is on a knife edge
It isn't just the reactors that are dangerous, the plant will still need power to circulate cooling water in the spent fuel pools for years until it cools enough to be stored "dry". The spent fuel could overheat and its casing will produce hydrogen which then risks explosion and the spread of radioactive waste.
Fortunately UKR uses a reasonable reactor design, unlike the RBMK reactors used at Chernobyl, and now has a good safety record, unlike in Soviet Union days.
Guess where the only RBMK reactors are to be found now? Yep, Russia, where nothing seems to have progressed since the break-up of the Soviet Union
Like Russia has any care or resources to keep a nuclear plant and waste safe.
Russia’s Emergency Services Ministry says that some 18,000 pieces of radioactive litter, most of it dumped by the Soviet Navy, have been left in the depths of the Barents and Kara seas off the coast of Murmansk.
Among the finds, according to a catalogue the Russian government released in 2012 are: Some 17,000 containers of radioactive waste; 19 ships containing radioactive waste; 14 nuclear reactors, including five still loaded with spent nuclear fuel; and 735 other piece of radioactively contaminated heavy machinery.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200901-the-radioactive-risk-of-sunken-nuclear-soviet-submarines
Now, im not a nuclear power expert but i think they have got the safety features all wrong.
If the power cuts the reactor overheats and produces steam.
Use that steam to drove a steam powered water pump.
If you can propel a steam engine at 120mph then pumping a few gallons of water down a pipe is very easy.
Its a self powered cycle.
Nuclear power makes steam, steam pump kicks in and cools rods , rods cool and steam generator stops pumping.
Relying on electricity is exactly why the Fukashima reactor overheated and popped, wherea Fred Dibna 1880 design tech could have saved it.
pumping a few gallons of water down a pipe is very easy.
It's not a "few gallons", they need a lot of cooling water and the cooling systems need a lot of power to run.
wherea Fred Dibna 1880 design tech could have saved it.
Do you really think they would have gone for a more complex design if they could have avoided it?
Now, im not a nuclear power expert but i think
Thank you, thats cheered me right up 😁
There are two things to be cooled; the shutdown reactor and the spent fuel pool.
By an hour after shutdown, the reactor decay heat is only about 1% of the operating power, so that amount of steam isn't going to produce significant pressure in a circuit that's designed for full power, and steam isn't going to power pumps unless it's pressurised. Any kind of system to reduce the volume of the circuit would be an extra complication in normal operation.
The fuel pool is open, and you don't want it to boil as you're trying to limit the temperature of the zirconium alloy cladding on the fuel. So generating steam isn't really feasible.
Steam exploding the vessels it's in is very bad news.
Nice idea @Singletrackmind (I do remember you suggesting this a few years back and wondering about it for a while) the only issue is that in a near meltdown situation the steam would be very radioactive, at very high pressure (potentially enough to blow up a turbine/steam pump) and would still need to be vented out of the system somehow once its driven a steam engine/turbine resulting in a release of radioactive superheated steam into the atmosphere... Simpler solution (well, one part of the solution) would have been to not site the diesel generators for the emergency pumps in basements that were at risk of flooding during a tsunami. Also, its better to build the whole site at the height originally intended, not 20m lower...
Some bedtime reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_disaster
Interesting vid.
Reality setting in for Russians?
Could also be a precursor to a wider call up 🙁
Reality setting in for Russians?
He better start being careful when admiring the view from a top floor window.
Could also be a precursor to a wider call up
What use would half trained conscripts be?
@muddy@rseguy - I agree with you conclusions but not your logic
the steam would be very radioactive, at very high pressure
No, because the stream generators are in the secondary circuit. The radioactive primary coolant goes through a heat exchanger.
The steam won't be at high pressure because there's not much heat to drive it compared to normal operation. The fuel temperature in a meltdown is only achieved because there's no effective cooling where the fuel is.
I agree regarding the diesel generators, we just have to hope that those at Zaporizhzhia are not damaged by shelling.
its better to build the whole site at the height originally intended, not 20m lower…
Wikipedia is a bit ambiguous there. 'Original' refers to the land before it was lowered, not the original plans for the station. There was a good reason for lowering it. If you build a power station 30m above sea level, to use sea water for cooling you have to put the pumps underwater, as you can't pump more than the 10m atmospheric head from above. Getting off topic so I'll leave it there.
gobuchul
Free Member
Could also be a precursor to a wider call upWhat use would half trained conscripts be?
Be no use til next year anyhow. Apparently the russian do have 30-40k worth of these volunteer battalions ready to deploy, how useful they are and what state of readiness they are in who knows.
Putin's reticence to fully mobilize is well founded, Russia support for the war is incredibly hard to gauge accurately due to the Kremlin's near total media control, but the grumbling has very much already started.
What use would half trained conscripts be?
Used quickly In sufficient numbers, they could shift the balance, but Russia is already struggling to just feed the troops it already has in theatre and even if they did so the casualty rates would be truly horrendous.
So far the majority of Russian casualties have been amongst troops from the more remote, rural areas of the federation such as Dagestan, this has allowed the Kremlin to hide the impact of the war from many Russians, an actual mobilization will smash that facade to bits.
He's trapped, can't win the war without mobilisation, but mobilisation will cripple domestic support both for him and the war effort.
If you build a power station 30m above sea level, to use sea water for cooling you have to put the pumps underwater, as you can’t pump more than the 10m atmospheric head from above
As I understand it, the Fukushima disaster was because the backup electrical systems weren't dispersed. Although there were multiple generators, some were in the basement and some were higher up, but the switching systems were in the basement. There was a seawall that was assumed to be high enough for any foreseeable tsunami, but that earthquake was utterly massive and the tsunami was much higher than anything expected. The reactors weren't damaged in the earthquake or tsunami, but the basements were flooded and the electrical systems disabled. Even though some generators survived, the switching systems were all destroyed. The reactors shut down as they were supposed to, but there was no power to run the emergency cooling.
Anyway, point is that the emergency power needs to have redundancy designed in so that a single disaster cannot disable all the backup power. Problem in Ukraine is that when you have an army deliberately shelling the facility, you will never be able to have enough redundancy.
What use would half trained conscripts be?
You dont need to get well trained to be used in a human wave attack as practiced by the Russians since WWII. The flaw though is you need more than the infantry to be sent in enmass and they seem to be running short on the tanks etc. Even if they did have them the overwhelming numbers is offset by all the highly effective antitank weapons.
if the current situation is as bleak for the Russians as it seems to be reported in our press why is no one talking about the risks of a major escalation by Russia. Talk of nukes seems to have gone very quiet.
I mean if he did drop a few tactical nukes what would NATOs response be without risking everything going up in a mushroom cloud?
You dont need to get well trained to be used in a human wave attack as practiced by the Russians since WWII.
Even Putin wouldn't do that.
Besides during the Second World War, they lost millions and they didn't win because of human waves, artillery was their chosen method. Still is but they seem to be losing that fight now with the long range HIMARS and smart munitions coming into play.
DT78
Free Member
if the current situation is as bleak for the Russians as it seems to be reported in our press why is no one talking about the risks of a major escalation by Russia. Talk of nukes seems to have gone very quiet.I mean if he did drop a few tactical nukes what would NATOs response be without risking everything going up in a mushroom cloud?
If he does I don't think there is a NATO response tbh.
Id have to remember where i saw it, but theres allegedly a source from within the Kremlin that claims it is not on the cards.
But i do agree that at the point of a genuine Russian collapse would be the most dangerous time.
Theres so much stuff out there Ill have a hard time finding the source for that.
Generally it isn't part of russian doctrine to use them as a offensive tool, they are fairly similar to us, in that it's when the territorial integrity is under threat. A dynamic that might change if they actually go ahead and declare parts of Ukraine as parts of Russia. And as alluded to, who knows what they do if they get to a desperate stage.
Putin is a bit boy cried wolf with the threat of nukes at the minute though, so the concern isn't really there due to that. But who knows.
I mean if he did drop a few tactical nukes what would NATOs response be without risking everything going up in a mushroom cloud?
1. It would put Russia offside with countries like China and India that are trying to stay on good terms with Russia. Good chance that Russia would be booted out of the U.N., losing its veto on the security council.
2. With Russia out of the U.N., an obvious thing for NATO to do would be to have the U.N. impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine, enforced by NATO, and set up Patriot missile batteries around Ukrainian cities. That would put Putin in the position of accepting a limited conventional U.N./NATO role or risking a nuclear escalation that would lead to the destruction of Russia.
That would put Putin in the position of accepting a limited conventional U.N./NATO role or risking a nuclear escalation that would lead to the destruction of everything.
fixed that.
Putin would happily destroy the world but he does care about Russia - his legacy depends on him restoring Russia as a great empire.
I think the reluctance to mobilise, would also transfer to a reluctance to use nukes tbh. So tend to agree.
But he needs a way out here, god knows what that is mind. Things could take on a life of their own. So it's still a concern. Guess we'll find out if the deadlock breaks in Ukraines favour I guess.
As Russia is a permeant member of the UN security council they can not be expelled from the UN, so if they should end up using nukes I guess the UN would be unable to act.
As Russia is a permeant member of the UN security council they can not be expelled from the UN
Pragmatically, if all the other SC members plus the majority of the regular members refused to accept Russia as a member, Russia's position would be untenable. A simple thing to do would be to just walk out of the current UN and start a new group (called the Union of Nations, for example) with the exact same structure as the UN, but without Russia. If all the Western democracies threatened that, it would put China and India in a position of deciding whether having a functioning UN was worth more than keeping on good terms with a Russia that contaminated Europe with nuclear fallout. My guess is that China and other countries friendly to Russia have sent backchannel messages to not escalate to nuclear weapons.
thols2
Free MemberThere was a seawall that was assumed to be high enough for any foreseeable tsunami,
Sorry for the OTness, but, the seawall was known to be too small. Tepco management decided against raising the wall higher, because they were worried about the PR impact of admitting that the wall was too small.
Sorry for the OTness, but, the seawall was known to be too small. Tepco management decided against raising the wall higher, because they were worried about the PR impact of admitting that the wall was too small.
Yeah, Japan has huge problems with regulators getting "consultancy" jobs with private sector companies after they retire from government jobs. It's a shallow veneer covering corruption, companies like Tepco can just buy off the bureaucrats who have to sign off on safety compliance by promising "consulting" jobs. Anyone in the bureaucracy who objects gets a posting to inspect traffic lights in Hokkaido.
Problem is, Japan is reasonably corruption free, it needs to be carefully hidden and safety regulations are extremely strict. Ukraine is a much more corrupt country than Japan. Russia is far worse, as the joke goes, "Corruption isn't a problem with the system, it is the system." How resilient the Ukrainian nuclear plant is will be partly based on how much corruption was involved in its construction.
How resilient the Ukrainian nuclear plant is will be partly based on how much corruption was involved in its construction
Indeed - and note that the majority of the construction was as part of the Soviet Union.
Now Putin has played his big card and turned off the gas, what else does he have left? Winning on the actual battlefield does not look like the walk in the park he imagined and if his big economic play fails as well he’ll be in a hole. Which might be a good thing or it might be a bad thing.
what else does he have left?
Increasingly few options, and seemingly ones with much bigger consequences for Pootin within Russia, and nuclear size options outwith Russia. 😞
Russia isn't an homogenous entity. Oligarchs are often given plum jobs having been former KGB or whatever. The Russian Federation is beset with regional economic and social inequalities, with various ethnic groups getting the raw end of the deal, not to mention that swathes of the country outside of Moscow & St Petersburg are inaccessible by rail or seasonably by road.
I would not be surprised if one or more of those republics makes a bid for independence if Moscow's attention is distracted elsewhere.
Increasingly few options, and seemingly ones with much bigger consequences for Pootin within Russia, and nuclear size options outwith Russia.
Am currently reading through this. It explains why Ukraine is being careful about firing off ballistic missiles.
So, Russia buying drones from Iran and ammo from North Korea. That's quite the coalition that Putin has assembled there.
https://twitter.com/ZekeJMiller/status/1566979902196387842
This is allegedly from an internal report, one that doesn't ignore geography.
Looks like STW may get some new subscribers
Technological and financial curbs add to the pressure. The report estimates as many as 200,000 IT specialists may leave the country by 2025
TLDR, if true, unsurprisingly the reports of Russia being economically OK may not be true and may be in fact based on carefully selected or manufactured information.
Although the article does have this
But the steps include many of the same measures to stimulate investment that the government has touted over the last decade, when growth largely stagnated even without sanctions
Which is such a glaring error the whole article is probably garbage.
If anyone sees another take on this alleged report id be keen to see it
Sounds like a Ukrainian offensive in the north. My guess is they are trying to put so much pressure on Russian forces that Russia has to cede territory.
https://twitter.com/WarMonitor3/status/1567116011370840064
So, Russia buying drones from Iran and ammo from North Korea
It's amazing that North Korea has anything to sell
Now Putin has played his big card and turned off the gas, what else does he have left
Leaving the gas turned off until we give in
Seeing a lot more reports of a major offensive around Kharkiv, to the point that it's beginning to look like the Kherson offensive may have been the feint and this is the Ukrainians big move.
Russian telegram channels are buzzing with reports of huge casualties and sustained bombardments.
Time will tell but at face value it looks like the Ukrainians have wrong-footed the Russians again and their unfortunate foot sloggers are paying the price.
