30 years after Chernobyl, new shelter marks start of 100+ years cleanup
April 26th marked the 30th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor
meltdown catastrophe.
The New York Times reports that a stainless steel arched shelter for the
ruins of the power plant is nearing completion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry Fountain, New York Times
The arch, called the New Safe Confinement, is being built — at a cost of at least $1.7 billion — to last 100 years. Inside, the radioactivity levels will be so high that normal maintenance, like painting, will not be possible. So inside and out, the arch is covered in stainless steel, and dehumidified air will be circulated around the structure’s steel trusses to prevent rust.
It was built several hundred yards from the destroyed No. 4 reactor, and later this year will be slid in place over the reactor building. That will eliminate one of the greatest risks that still exists at Chernobyl: a structural collapse that could raise a cloud of radioactive dust and spread more contamination across Ukraine and into Western Europe.
But it will also mark the start of a new phase in coping with what is generally considered the world’s worst nuclear power disaster. Inside the arch will be a heavy duty crane and other remote-operated equipment to be used to start removing the crumbling radioactive fuel that remains in Unit 4.
It will not be an easy task. There is a lot of fuel — 195 tons, by one estimate — along with tons of lead, sand and other materials that were dropped on the reactor by helicopter in a desperate effort to extinguish the fire. It all melted together into a lethal lava-like substance that poured through pipes and holes in the structure and solidified.
The government of Ukraine will be responsible for the work, and it is unclear where the money will come from to pay for it, or for a repository that will be needed for the fuel and other highly radioactive waste. It may take much more than another century before the mess started in a few seconds 30 years ago is fully cleaned up.
This article brings back some memories..
That day (it was Saturday morning) we were just about to be on our way to our weekend house 60km away from place we lived…
My daughter was just a bit over 1 year old, she was still on formula and I i immediately went to nearby pharmacy and bought 10 cans… and all boxes of powdered milk they had in the stock.
Then we took off on the road… just for me to recall I didn't take any water (at weekend house we had a well... which could possibly become contaminated in next day or two when the radioactive cloud was expected to pass over) so I turned around... only to be seen by a police patrol at the end of the street.
I went back to the flat where we lived, took the 10 litres can of water, and when I was back to the car the police was already there, asking my wife why we turned around when we have seen them
I hope we never get NP in Australia. Coal may have problems but it is hard to imagine it delivering a nightmare that takes so long to go away.
How are things in Japan?
Alex
Alex,
We will. This is the only "clean" option we have..
When a due care is taken (unlike in Chernobil and in Japan and elswhere), it is very, very safe, safer than coal.
Disasters were always the consequence of human error - either in design or safety procedure.
I remember I was in grade 8 (Polish border town with Germany) at the time and they gave us iodine at school to minimise impact, unfortunately it was administered a few weeks after the incident so way too late, and as a result I still glow in the dark, 30 years the meltdown...
Years later I was told by one of my lecturers at a uni that not long after the meltdown all Geiger counters were confiscated by the officials, as people were using them to check whether their backyards and veggie patches were safe after it rained.
Alex,
We will. This is the only "clean" option we have..
When a due care is taken (unlike in Chernobil and in Japan), it is very, very safe, safer than coal.
Probably not the only option Bojan.
However I recognise the NP lobby will tell us it is the only safe clean option.
I predict we will see a few more disasters from NP but still it will be offered as the only option.
I am not a greenie but I would like to see solar wind and vegetable fuels being offered in the options.
...I am not a greenie but I would like to see solar wind and vegetable fuels being offered in the options.
Alex
And I am not in NP lobby.. but I can't see the power reliably supplied around the clock without source like NP... or water (if you have enough of rivers.. and don't care about environmental impact caused by accumulations)
Please note, France has >60% their elecrticity supplied from nuclear plants.
And I never heard of any incident happened there...
And I am not in NP lobby.. but I can't see the power reliably supplied around the clock without source like NP... or water (if you have enough of rivers.. and don't care about environmental impact caused by accumulations)
Please note, France has >60% their elecrticity supplied from nuclear plants.
And I never heard of any incident happened there...
I was not trying to suggest that you are a lobbist Bojan.
We will never hear about incidents unless there is no hiding them.And that approach is universal.
.NP Coal whatever mistakes are hidden from bosses shareholders and the public.
I can't offer examples because they are cover ups.
Anyways before I bag NP I better check the share portfolio.
I may have to rethink things if NP is making me money.
Excuse me if I am talking out of the wrong orifice; it's a bad habit I've picked up. Of course, this place being what it is I expect to be corrected if i am wrong.
Anyway, my understanding is that there is more than one possible nuclear fuel cycle and not all are equally dangerous. Thorium reactors are supposed to far more safe than 'conventional' reactors in that they leave no (or very little?) radioactive waste. They may even be less prone to explosions. However they don't produce weapons-grade plutonium which is why the world was saddled with the type of reactors that we have. I think India is looking at using thorium reactors. Anyone know more?
Regarding solar and wind power and the need for a steady baseline supply: I've heard Bojan talk about this before and, as he has expertise in this area, I respect his views. However I've also heard others with expertise in the area who don't seem to see such a big problem. I believe some countries (Holland and Germany come to mind) are already getting a "substantial" fraction of their electricity from wind and solar and they are coping.
Personally, I'd like to see as much power as possible generated locally and centrally produced power only used to make up any shortfall. Battery technology is going ahead in leaps and bounds and rooftop solar panels are aesthetically unoffensive. Power lines, power stations and wind turbines on the other hand are all pretty ugly. As for dams, well the Snowy scheme probably would get past the EIS these days.
Hi David the wonderful thing about this place is that you can offer your view and people stay relatively calm.
I think thorium is seen as workable but does not produce weapons grade stuff.
It may be that one needs to get a return on "waste" to make it viable from a economic point of view.
I don't know why thorium would not be first choice unless there is more money the current way.
Hopefully someone will advise us on why thorium is not in use yet.
And point us to the new safe power ideas.
But there is a lot of money invested in NP so the industry is always going to present its benefits and minimize what folk see as concerns.
I was once told solar was no good because the production created a big carbon foot print.
That may suggest something it may suggest nothing but seems like someone eliminating opposition to their solution..could have been s coal guy even.
But given the money I would think about everything offered in evidence
Lets hope public expectations demand the best for the future of all humans no just a group who may benefit from this or that.
I know I am dreaming we Ted to get what we are given.
About a decade ago for my year 12 oral presentation (high school) I chose the topic "Why Australia should go nuclear."
Coal power plants do kill a lot of people, that just don't have the nuclear fall out We don't have many coal issues in Australia but when you head to other parts of the globe where, let's say, safety regulations and OH&S are not as tight, power plant explosions do happen.
As it stands, wind power is too unpredictable and is not a reliable source, I personally much prefer solar power. The problem with solar power is that current technology is INCREDIBLY dirty; clean once it is up and running but manufacturing the solar cells is horrendous.
Modern nuclear power plants with NO CORNER CUTTING are perfectly safe. The worlds worst nuclear power issue was caused by human error and corner cutting as it was falling behind schedule. Starting a nuclear power plant before its finished, bypassing safety protocols to do maintenance... Not a good idea.
To my knowledge it is one of the most expensive power systems to get up and running but if done correctly is also one of the safest. It's byproduct may be nasty but as technology moves for was we should be able to extract energy from it as well. Japan I believe has been working on a cost effective breeder reactor for the past decade or two.
Is this like the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship?
The dictatorship apparently being the best form of government if in order but which becomes the worst form of government if it goes wrong.
The democracy apparently is worse but even when it goes bad it remains not so bad.
I will leave it to the readers to equate which government system with what energy supply.
Who will bet their house we have seen the last NP disaster?
I hope we dont have any more problems with NP I really do but I have little faith in humans and suspect not everyone will do the right thing.
The main issue for NP for me is the cost... Is it really cheap in practice.
I know our country stands to become wealthy given our huge deposits... or will we?
The Chernobyl exclusion zone is flourishing with wildlife, including supporting populations of large vertebrate predators and herbivores that are absent from most of the Ukraine. Where people aren't, megafauna are...
The Chernobyl exclusion zone is flourishing with wildlife, including supporting populations of large vertebrate predators and herbivores that are absent from most of the Ukraine. Where people aren't, megafauna are...
Hi Barry,
However, as Timothy Mousseau, Professor of Biological Sciences at
the University of South Carolina, told listeners on ABC Radio National on
Tuesday morning, there are two perspectives to this.
He pointed out there is a fence around the exclusion zone and within
it there are large areas that are relatively uncontaminated. However,
there are also very large areas of high contamination. When you go to the
relatively clean areas everything looks normal and there are normal numbers
of animals. If you were sitting around in that area you would think
it is a wonderful place for animals. There is no hunting, there are no people.
But if you go to the radioactive areas and perform rigorous scientific
experiments and then compare the results to the clean areas, then it
is clear that there are very strong effects on the organisms that live there.
The right place at the wrong time - a personal anecdote
In 1985 I had begun a journey starting in China, had made my way through
Asia and the sub-continent and in April of 1986 found myself in Rome.
I had begun making inquiries about a tourist visa to the Soviet Union when
I dropped into the poste restante at the American Express office to see
whether I might have any mail waiting for me.
There was a letter from an old university buddy which in short said
"stop wandering around the world and come back to Sydney where we
have a new job opportunity for you".
So I cancelled plans to go to the Soviet Union and flew to Sydney.
It was a fortuitous decision as a couple of weeks later the Chernobyl
meltdown occurred at the very time I planned to be in that part of the
world.
We all watched the news reports as the radiation cloud blew over the
eastern Soviet Union and Europe.
Nine years later I was in Hiroshima in Japan and I had arranged to meet the same
colleague in Kawasaki one evening where we needed to attend some
engineering meetings.
I caught the shinkansen up and passed through the city of Kobe in
the late afternoon.
The hotel in Kawasaki in which we stayed was quite tall and during the night
everyone awoke to it swaying and shaking.
Turning on the TV in the morning, the news showed the city of Kobe in
flaming ruins and the elevated shinkansen line I had travelled on only a few
hours earlier had collapsed due to a 6.9 magnitude earthquake.
So it was the second disaster I had narrowly missed because I was
scheduled to meet this same friend somewhere.
Gary, I don't consider Mousseau's evidence to be rigorous. Radiation dose-effects studies have been completed at contaminated sites across the globe (e.g., Chernobyl, Ukraine and Savannah River, USA), and in areas of high natural background radioactivity (e.g. Kerala), but the level of exposure to ionizing radiation at which noticeable ecological or evolutionary impacts occur remains unclear. What these studies have made clear is that there are many practical challenges associated with the measurement of ionizing radiation exposure, particularly in wildlife, and that there is a deficiency of knowledge on best practices in exposure and dose assessments. This is the crux of the challenge to assessing any organism’s exposure to radiation. A point measurement made with a hand-held radiation detector such as a Geiger-counter will provide a measurement of external radiation exposure at a single point in time and space, but says nothing of the body burden or long-term exposure conditions of any individual in the area. And controlling for 'background' effects unrelated to radiation in such situations is challenging, to say the least. When the results of field measurements like those of Moller & Mousseau contradict so sharply with laboratory experiments, one must be dubious, at the very least.
30 years after Chernobyl, new shelter marks start of 100+ years cleanup
