After About 600 Hours, 64 Workers at Ukraine's Chernobyl Nuclear Plant Finally Relieved (nytimes.com) 60
The New York Times reports that "After more than three weeks without being able to leave the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in northern Ukraine, 64 workers were able to be rotated out, the plant said on Sunday."
Staff at the plant, which includes more than 200 technical personnel and guards, had not been able to rotate shifts since February 23, a day before Russian forces took control of the site, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, which serves as a nuclear watchdog for the United Nations. In a Facebook post, the plant said that to rotate the 64 workers, 46 volunteers were sent to the site to make sure operations at the plant could continue.
It was unclear whether the remaining workers would also have an opportunity to be rotated.
For weeks, the International Atomic Energy Agency, known as the I.A.E.A., has expressed concern for the workers at the Chernobyl site, calling for the staff to be rotated for their safety and security. Rafael Mariano Grossi, director general of the I.A.E.A., said last week that he remained "gravely concerned about the extremely difficult circumstances for the Ukrainian staff there." The I.A.E.A. said on March 13 that workers were no longer doing repairs and maintenance, partly because of "physical and psychological fatigue...."
Workers at the site have faced a number of issues recently, including a power outage and limited communication. Ukrainian government officials said on March 9 that damage by Russian forces had "disconnected" the plant from outside electricity, leaving the site dependent on power from diesel generators and backup supplies. Power was restored a few days later, and the plant resumed normal operating conditions.
Earlier this month a former commissioner of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (from 1998 to 2007) argued in the Wall Street Journal that "An unappreciated motive for Russia's invasion of Ukraine is that Kyiv was positioning itself to break from its longtime Russian nuclear suppliers, as the U.S. was encroaching on Russia's largest nuclear export market...."
"The project was intended to allow Ukraine to store this fuel safely without shipping it back to Russia for reprocessing. The processing and storage facility was completed in 2020, and Holtec and SSE Chernobyl were loading the canisters to be stored when the war began on February 24..." By taking over Chernobyl, Russia gives itself control of the disposal of its spent fuel, which it can store in canisters at the site or ship to a reprocessing facility in Russia. Either way, this represents hundreds of millions of dollars for Rosatom, the Russian state-owned nuclear enterprise....
The timing is telling. In November 2021, Ukraine's leaders signed a deal with Westinghouse to start construction on what they hoped would be at least five nuclear units — the first tranche of a program that could more than double the number of plants in the country, with a potential total value approaching $100 billion. Ukraine clearly intended that Russia receive none of that business.
It was unclear whether the remaining workers would also have an opportunity to be rotated.
For weeks, the International Atomic Energy Agency, known as the I.A.E.A., has expressed concern for the workers at the Chernobyl site, calling for the staff to be rotated for their safety and security. Rafael Mariano Grossi, director general of the I.A.E.A., said last week that he remained "gravely concerned about the extremely difficult circumstances for the Ukrainian staff there." The I.A.E.A. said on March 13 that workers were no longer doing repairs and maintenance, partly because of "physical and psychological fatigue...."
Workers at the site have faced a number of issues recently, including a power outage and limited communication. Ukrainian government officials said on March 9 that damage by Russian forces had "disconnected" the plant from outside electricity, leaving the site dependent on power from diesel generators and backup supplies. Power was restored a few days later, and the plant resumed normal operating conditions.
Earlier this month a former commissioner of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (from 1998 to 2007) argued in the Wall Street Journal that "An unappreciated motive for Russia's invasion of Ukraine is that Kyiv was positioning itself to break from its longtime Russian nuclear suppliers, as the U.S. was encroaching on Russia's largest nuclear export market...."
"The project was intended to allow Ukraine to store this fuel safely without shipping it back to Russia for reprocessing. The processing and storage facility was completed in 2020, and Holtec and SSE Chernobyl were loading the canisters to be stored when the war began on February 24..." By taking over Chernobyl, Russia gives itself control of the disposal of its spent fuel, which it can store in canisters at the site or ship to a reprocessing facility in Russia. Either way, this represents hundreds of millions of dollars for Rosatom, the Russian state-owned nuclear enterprise....
The timing is telling. In November 2021, Ukraine's leaders signed a deal with Westinghouse to start construction on what they hoped would be at least five nuclear units — the first tranche of a program that could more than double the number of plants in the country, with a potential total value approaching $100 billion. Ukraine clearly intended that Russia receive none of that business.
Re: (Score:3)
With three quarters of the number of staff, I'd be concerned. It would seem reasonable to assume that if 64 staff is normally required for safe operation, having only 48 when we don't know what the guards' orders are or whether the guards are able to handle the mental pressures of obeying orders, not blowing up a reactor and taking on 48 new faces where they've no real guarantees those staff are all genuine. (For all the Russians know, half of them could be Ukrainian commandos. It's not like they can run a
Re: (Score:2)
Technically, they are shut down. The problem is that there's a lot of highly dangerous, unstable material that is left in cooling pools. The only way to make it safe would be to disperse it and the Ukrainians either lacked the technical ability or the political will to do so, or the military capacity to keep the material safe. It's really not possible to say which, and really it's a moot point.
Re: (Score:2)
How long until Musk can quote them a price-per-kilo to launch that crap toward the sun? Or at least out of orbit...
Re: (Score:2)
Getting the Cassini probe launched with a few milligrams of Plutonium caused absolute outrage in the US. I can just imagine the response if Musk was to propose loading up entire nuclear fuel rods.
Of course, it's possible we could store it in silos on the moon. But if we do that, I get shares in the company building Eagle transports for Moonbase Alpha.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not "safe" in that no nuclear waste is "safe", but it's at no risk of spontaneously catching on fire or exploding.
If the fuel assemblies were left out in the open air, they'd reach a maximum temperature around 400C away from combustion temperature for the fuel cladding.
The spent fuel was already being moved to dry storage. That's just a an expensive and labor intensive job when you've got thousands of m^3 of the shit.
If something else happen
Re: (Score:2)
Nor is there any risk of the spent fuel melting or burning. It's been decaying for too long.
The main risk is if something happens within the plant, and the spent fuel is compromised (shelling, fire, etc)
There is no passive risk that requires active maintenance to prevent from happening though.
Explains it. (Score:4, Interesting)
This should get quite a bit more play in the media than it is going to get. A big part of taking over Ukraine has to do with securing it as a customer for Rosatom.
I was wondering a few weeks back why the Russian invaders were taking such an interest in Chernobyl. I thought that they were possibly planning to stage an nuclear accident, thereby manufacturing a reason for their people to be there. That could still happen.
But this reminds me of the Cheney/Bush invasion of Iraq. The incoming troops completely neglected to protect sites such as the artifacts museum or the Al-Qaa-Qaa weapons dump. First thing they did was to secure and protect the Oil Ministry. They were fully aware there were no WMD in Iraq exactly the same way Putin knows there are Nazi purges of Russians in Ukraine. The justifications for both invasions were always bogus.
But this won't be the media narrative.
Re: (Score:2)
Well that's a clusterfuck then. Russia has already lost far more on this war in money, lives, and respect (no one respects the Russian army anymore) than they would have gained in money from nuclear exports.
Putin is no longer calculating Putin. He is now gamblin' Putin, and he just lost.
Re: (Score:3)
In the end, the illegal invasion didn't hamper Bush that much, even when it was disclosed he knew there had been no WMDs.
Re: (Score:2)
Well yeah, no one in the world ever confused Bush with a smart guy.
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason Bush got for invading Iraq was because it was so close to 9/11 and no one really wanted to say no. Except France, and France got excoriated for that by the war hawks, even though in the long run it is very clear that France was right.
This time with Putin, there was zero interest for invading Ukraine, and zero demand. Mistakes of someone who needs to be elected, versus mistakes of an absolute dictator.
Re: (Score:3)
and no one really wanted to say no
There were lots of Americans at the time who knew - or strongly suspected - it was rank BS, and we were challenged with, "Why do you hate America?" The useful idiots will always be loved by autocrats.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I sort of meant no one in Congress said no. Except one member only; however I think that was for the original resolution related to 9/11 which meant striking back at Al Qaeda. The Iraq invasion piggy-backed on top of that resolution which caused a few more legislators to question whether the original resolution should apply as a blanket approval for any miltary action vaguely related by handwaving to terrorism. I really do think congress has abdicated its role to declare war; and just like in the K
Re: (Score:2)
In the end, the illegal invasion didn't hamper Bush that much, even when it was disclosed he knew there had been no WMDs.
Huh? Iraq didn't just use it's position as largest economy, and leader of the free world to organize crippling sanctions against America?
I wonder why...
It also helps if you actually, you know, win the war...
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, and by destroying Ukraine economy they're not going to pay good prices to Russia. Though maybe that was the original naive plan, as of now it's the "destroy everything and salt the earth" grumpy toddler plan.
Re: (Score:2)
as of now it's the "destroy everything and salt the earth" grumpy toddler plan.
That plan isn't going to succeed, either.
Re: (Score:3)
The media narrative of the BBC, at least, is talking of Putin watching, on endless loop, reports of the US attack on Libya and the murder of Gadaffi. Which could mean that he's furious the world was fine with one illegal attack on a sovereign nation but objects to a virtually identical one on a virtually identical pretext, or that he is attempting to re-enact the US/UK attack and is looking at the footage for inspiration. I'm not sure it's possible to tell. All we can say for certain is that the attack on U
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Libya is in a state of total anarchy, breeding terrorists and anarchists that are fanatical beyond imagination. Iraq is disintegrating, with Iran taking control over half and Syria will end up with the other half, with terrorist cells developing in every village.
An army of fanatics spread over multiple countries, armed with stolen US guns and explosives, with a fanatical desire to wipe out the West. That's not really much of a victory.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Successes? Even Obama said Libya was his greatest mistake.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Which attack on Libya? There were at least two, under Reagan and later Obama.
Meanwhile, the United States had been in a declared shooting war with Iraq since the early 1990s (that war never ended on paper, and there was a no-fly zone for years, wherein several Iraqi planes were engaged and shot down by American hardware). Also the United States went to the UN before re-invading Iraq despite needing no such permission. The security team set an inspection deadline (see: Hans Blix fiasco), and the Americans
Re: (Score:2)
Except the inspection team had concluded Hussein wasn't stonewalling, the UN didn't authorise the attack and the US used evidence it knew had been doctored.
The only fiasco involving the Hans Blix team was that that CIA had included a couple of agents in it whose role was to contact local terrorist groups and Hussein found out. (Report by The Guardian.)
So, no, your claims are just as pathetic and just as much excuses. You want to wear the white hats but you don't want to have to do the work for them.
Re:Explains [seizing Chernobyl]. (Score:3)
Congratulations on the First Real Post [in spite of your vacuous subject]? FRP moderation as a possible solution for the FP abuse thing?
But I have a comment on your economic angle and a general solution approach to share.
Regarding Chernobyl, my theory is that Putin is considering going nuclear, but he wants a pretext. Chernobyl could be "mined" for a dirty bomb, and his goons may be busy right now creating "the evidence" that the Ukrainians were doing just that. The existing staff were a nuisance and they a
Re: (Score:2)
His basic premise is that war used to be profit-driven and wars accidentally drove technological and even social progress, but it's no longer profitable in any of the old ways.
While it is true that war not as profitable as it used to be (you can't just steal all the gold out of your victim's treasury), profit isn't the only motivation for war.
Fear, greed, and ideology are the main causes of war. Putin is motivated by fear and ideology.
Re: (Score:2)
Your tone suggests you disagree, but your content seems completely compatible with my views?
However, I am suggesting that the economic imbalance be used in this case (and future cases) to make sure the perpetrators (and wannabe perpetrators) understand they cannot "socialize" the losses. I know Putin has a lot of money, but I'm sure the damages to Ukraine are already more than he can pay for. Or probably more important, more than he and all of his key supporters can afford.
Re: (Score:2)
your content seems completely compatible with my views?
I don't know. When you said, "[war is] no longer profitable in any of the old ways," certainly it is still motivated by two of the old things that motivated it. I do agree this war is not profitable for Russia, but Putin is not motivated by money. Now I read your post again, I think we are in agreement.
Re: (Score:2)
Just the ACK.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you think about the Moscow Apartment Bombings? Do you think that Putin knew about them? Or that they were done by the KGB?
Re: (Score:2)
KGB was gone by that time, but yes, I am inclined to believe the FSB did them. I've read several books that mentioned the topic. Perhaps Putin's Kleptocracy had the most information on it. One form of corruption led to another, but if Putin didn't win that election then all of Yeltsin's cronies would have gone to jail. They felt cornered and desperate--which has to make you scared about what is going to happen next in Ukraine.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps Putin's Kleptocracy had the most information on it.
I say KGB because half the people I know don't understand FSB, so sometimes I slip. Thanks for the tip on the book, I'll check it out.
Re: (Score:2)
This was going to be just another ACK, but when I included the Wikipedia links they got me to look a bit deeper. Wikipedia clarifies the timeline quite a bit. Putin didn't become acting president until after the bombings, but he had been acting prime minister for almost a month before the first blast. And of course Putin's personal and deep relationships with the key people on the FSB side go back much earlier.
Might be more relevant (than I thought at first) to this story in particular and to the Ukraine si
Re: (Score:2)
The argument is that Yeltsin wanted him to be president, but he needed to gain popularity first. To achieve that, they made him prime minister, and put him in charge of investigating the bombings, which he did.
Re: (Score:2)
Now you've confused me. Putin was made acting prime minister before the bombings, so that investigation couldn't have been a factor in his original promotion. And no, I don't know anything about the planning time for the bombings. Nor about the "stage management" for the imminent election.
My understanding of the general context is that Yeltsin and all of his prominent cronies had become unpopular and unelectable. If their party lost the election, then all of them were going to jail. Therefore they were desp
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it was like this.
1) Kleptocrats say, "Oh no, we need a successor who will not throw us in jail."
2) Someone recommends Putin, since he defended his corrupt boss in St Petersberg
3) Putin becomes prime minister easily (because it is a position appointed by president)
4) Kleptocrats say, "Oh no, Yeltsin is super unpopular. How can we get people to vote for his chosen successor?"
5) Apartment bombings happen.
7) Putin investigates them, thus becoming popular.
I have the book you recommended on my chair. It's #
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad the author has passed away... I wonder what she would think of the latest developments.
Re: (Score:2)
She would have cried, I assume.
Re: (Score:2)
Sad ACK. SACK? (So HACK must be a happy ACK?)
Re: (Score:2)
I've been reading it. If Putin is just a thief, then that's not too much. Lots of stuff like that goes on when a government changes so dramatically. If Putin is murderer of his own people, then he is evil.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the author would probably feel similar to how Yevgenia Albats feels [youtube.com]. Sad, angry, helpless, sorry. Like a lot of us feel, I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think there is any doubt that Putin is a dangerous sociopath. He doesn't care about people in general. Or rather his only concern is with their utility to him without any regard for "his" or not. If some people best serve his purposes by becoming dead, then he's fine with that.
Right now that means mostly killing people in Ukraine.
Most sociopaths commit fewer murders than Putin not because they are unwilling to kill other people, but simply because they are aware of the negative consequences. I don't
Re: (Score:2)
Or steal superbowl rings [twitter.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Congratulations on the First Real Post [in spite of your vacuous subject]? FRP moderation as a possible solution for the FP abuse thing?
But I have a comment on your economic angle and a general solution approach to share.
Regarding Chernobyl, my theory is that Putin is considering going nuclear, but he wants a pretext. Chernobyl could be "mined" for a dirty bomb, and his goons may be busy right now creating "the evidence" that the Ukrainians were doing just that. The existing staff were a nuisance and they are lucky they didn't get shot. The basic plan is that Putin will claim he's only going tit for tat when he drops the first nuke.
(Of course the real point would be to make sure everyone understands just how insane he is. But Putin's place in history as "major war criminal" is already secure. The only optimistic part could be "last major war criminal". But that will probably depend on how badly Putin finishes. Especially if he does get convicted and locked up as a war criminal, which seems sadly unlikely.)
What about the other nuclear plants? Just to make the Ukrainians freeze in the dark. Minor war crimes. Barely even detectable on the current scales.
But that does link to your focus on economic aspects (and the rest of your comment was mostly evasive both-side BS that I dismiss parenthetically). So don't be surprised that I have to disagree, which is where it ties into my solution approach. The war on Ukraine is political insanity, not 3D chess for future profits.
Basic solution: If Putin and the kleptocrats supporting him were billed for the damages, then the war would be over already. They would be bankrupt. End of the economic arguments. But more importantly, end of the war.
Recommended reading? War: What is it Good For? by Ian Morris. His basic premise is that war used to be profit-driven and wars accidentally drove technological and even social progress, but it's no longer profitable in any of the old ways.
In possibly related news, I've been trying to identity and annoy trolls on Twitter. Yeah, too easy. But it seems I may have succeeded too well anyway. (Maybe due to the meme of the parenthetic paragraph?) I was just forced to jump through a bunch of hoops to reclaim my Twitter account. Anyone else encountered anything similar? I would actually count it as a metric of success if it keeps happening (on the theory that it might possibly help Twitter find the trolls).
Yeah, nice theory. Now please put down your tinfoil hat, pull up a map of Ukraine, and explain how exactly would you stage an attack on Kiev, attempting to surround it, with Dnieper river being in the way, without going through Chernobyl. And a plausible reason to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
NAK
Re: (Score:2)
Um
You do remember the whole thing with oil wells being set on fire in Iraq? Or have you forgotten?
Re: (Score:2)
This should get quite a bit more play in the media than it is going to get. A big part of taking over Ukraine has to do with securing it as a customer for Rosatom.
I was wondering a few weeks back why the Russian invaders were taking such an interest in Chernobyl. I thought that they were possibly planning to stage an nuclear accident, thereby manufacturing a reason for their people to be there. That could still happen.
But this reminds me of the Cheney/Bush invasion of Iraq. The incoming troops completely neglected to protect sites such as the artifacts museum or the Al-Qaa-Qaa weapons dump. First thing they did was to secure and protect the Oil Ministry. They were fully aware there were no WMD in Iraq exactly the same way Putin knows there are Nazi purges of Russians in Ukraine. The justifications for both invasions were always bogus.
But this won't be the media narrative.
Maybe you should put down your tinfoil hat and just look at the damn map. Chernobyl is just the straightest route from Belarus to Kiev, and if your aim is to surround Kiev from the west you have pretty much no choice other than to go through there, as otherwise the Dnieper river is going to be in the way.
The biggest question (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
& DT!
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but it was paid in Roubles, so it's effectively zero.
A difficult situation (Score:2)
Replacing overtired workers is a great idea. Good for the workers and extraordinarily good for the planet. Replacing them with fewer people - well, technically one could argue that three quarters the number of awake, alert and slightly less terrified people would perform better, but on the other hand, they're going to be doing the job of far more people under less than ideal conditions with a rather paranoid, and potentially unpredictable guard.
True, fewer people to be executed or blown up, but one could ar
The reason (Score:2)
TLDR: Money
Radiation map. (Score:2)
Compare this to 480 (been around that for several days) just to the north near Brahin, Belarus.
The 2nd highest I can see is 283 at Tréauville, France (near the Cherbourg Naval Base).