Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fire extinguished at Ukraine nuclear power plant, Europe's largest

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 894 posts

Re: Fire extinguished at Ukraine nuclear power plant, Europe's largest

#191

Post by kart23 »

throwanem wrote: post #30
estro0182 wrote: post #9

I would argue that this is a near equivalence of nuclear war with Ukraine. A well-/mis-placed Russian artillery shell could cause a loss of reactor integrity and meltdown, no? EDIT: according to child comments, a meltdown is unlikely/impossible, but spread of radioactive particles due to a direct strike is possible.

Potentially. I'd worry more about coolant and power (to run the coolant pumps if the plant has to shut down) than about direct hits on a containment structure, but it's not like that won't eventually also cause problems if they keep doing it. This is, so far as I know, the first time anyone has carried out a military attack on an operating nuclear plant. Nobody knows yet how that really plays out. But it looks like w…

I'd classify stuxnet as a military attack.

Re: Fire extinguished at Ukraine nuclear power plant, Europe's largest

#192

Post by dragonwriter »

wlll wrote: post #140
dgemm wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they were to spring a leak then it would be impossible to hide their activity from the population at home, so my guess is that's something they would try to avoid.

That almost seems irellevant, even if Putin cared what people think (I don't think he does for the most part), he controls almost all of the media in the country. He can just tell people "Ukraine did it" and they can believe him or not, it doesn't really matter.

The Russian government has already claimed that Ukraine is seeking nuclear weapons with US aid [0]. If it doesn't find a way to fit it's attack on, the fire at, and any resulting radiation release from the plant into that narrative with massaged details that make it both a heroic action by Russia and a dastardly one by Ukraine compounded by a Ukrainian propaganda effort to blame it on Russia...well, they aren't following the propaganda style they have been this whole invasion.

[0] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/ukrain...

Re: Fire extinguished at Ukraine nuclear power plant, Europe's largest

#193

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

tailspin2019 wrote: post #95
Some20s wrote: post #18

Interesting twitter space discussion goign on right now: https://twitter.com/i/spaces/1LyxBowlNzoKN?s=20 speakers seem informed

Good discussion. Brings some clarity to this and so far it doesn’t sound quite as serious as you might be led to believe given the headlines.

It's reassuring in that meltdown is very unlikely.

But who the actual fuck shells a nuclear plant? That's not reassuring at all.

It's also against international law.

Re: Fire extinguished at Ukraine nuclear power plant, Europe's largest

#195

Post by hinkley »

jessriedel wrote: post #43
estro0182 wrote: post #9

I would argue that this is a near equivalence of nuclear war with Ukraine. A well-/mis-placed Russian artillery shell could cause a loss of reactor integrity and meltdown, no? EDIT: according to child comments, a meltdown is unlikely/impossible, but spread of radioactive particles due to a direct strike is possible.

No. It is many orders of magnitude less dangerous. It would potentially cause thousands of deaths, not hundreds of millions . This is true even if a melt down was caused, like Chernobyl, which others have already explained is quite improbable. Chernobyl caused between ~100 and ~16,000 deaths, depending sensitively on how one models the effects of small (sub-natural-background) radiation increases over a large populat…

Still, maybe we should be amending the list of war crimes to include certain types of sabotage of nuclear power plants.

In a war situation, shutting off highways and disabling power plants or oil refineries are all strategic targets that affect both the military and civilians. But shutting down a refinery is different than dumping all of the chemical tanks into the water supply, setting oil fields on fire, or making the nuclear plant blow up.

Re: Fire extinguished at Ukraine nuclear power plant, Europe's largest

#196

Post by QuarterReptile »

Thaxll wrote: post #131

One can wonder what does it takes for the west to military intervene. Sanctions are a long term plan but it won't save Ukraine.

We're going to keep telling ourselves that it would risk nuclear retaliation right up until the point where there's nothing in Ukraine worth defending because Russia nuked every place in Ukraine still standing.

The only exit that isn't a destructive spiral out of control is the one where Putin is no longer in power.

Re: Fire extinguished at Ukraine nuclear power plant, Europe's largest

#197

Post by Apocryphon »

frabbit wrote: post #147
renewiltord wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, behold, my fist is an atomic weapon because ultimately the damage it inflicts is because of the Coulomb repulsion force of the fist atoms with other atoms.

No. Your fist is a biological weapon.

A kinetic weapon, really.

Re: Fire extinguished at Ukraine nuclear power plant, Europe's largest

#198

Post by csee »

markwkw wrote: post #149
csee wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This powers 1/4 of Ukraine. Holding the plant will give them a lot of leverage.

They can already easily cut (or threaten to cut) main power lines anywhere nearby. It’s not like ukrainian army controls all the area except for the the plant itself. So we’re back to the question: how can they be so stupid to attack the facility itself?

It could be for psychological reasons. Threatening nuclear war has been part of Putin's strategy and this reinforces that message. It is also a very visual way to drive the message home that they have leverage over Ukraine's power.

Re: Fire extinguished at Ukraine nuclear power plant, Europe's largest

#200

Post by mulmen »

maxerickson wrote: post #142
adastra22 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Soviet era plants don’t have containment shells. I don’t know about this one though.

I'm certainly no expert, but I read a little bit about it before I commented. The reactors here do have a building intended to serve as containment. I didn't really see much assessment of how robust it is. This is from last week and discusses the practical impacts of war around the plant being a major issue even if the plant isn't involved: https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/02/24/most-immediate-nucl... That article…

> Russia doesn't need to control the immediate areas around nuclear plants in the initial phases of their invasion, it's lunacy that they aren't carefully avoiding them.

We are over a week in, I think this is beyond the initial invasion timeframe. Russia has faced fierce resistance so I can understand a desire to weaken that defense.

It’s a lot harder to stage a defense when you have no electricity. Strategically it makes a lot of sense for Russia to overtake or shut down the power grid. If they do that with physical damage then there’s no need to control the immediate vicinity.

Post reply on HN