I do not understand, why are they fighting near the reactor? It only makes sense to keep troops of both sides away from something as dangerous.
If enemy troops are hiding there and shooting at you, what are your choices?
[deleted]
Fire extinguished at Ukraine nuclear power plant, Europe's largest
371–380 of 894 posts
Re: Fire extinguished at Ukraine nuclear power plant, Europe's largest
#372Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn’t one major problem with nuclear is that it’s hard to shut down when you don’t need it? Hopefully they understand that
Usually they have fail safes that will more or less immediately shut them down. On any reactor designed in the last 50 years, they pretty much default to a safe state, as they require power to keep the failsafes open. Starting back up after is the slow part.
The one snag is that even with the reactor shut down (just drop all the control rods in) you still have to deal with the decay heat.
Which, in the case of a controlled manual shut down shouldn't be a problem.
Re: Fire extinguished at Ukraine nuclear power plant, Europe's largest
#373This has been a real reckoning for me, as somebody who has historically been very pro-nuclear. Quite simply, humanity is too good at screwing things up to harness such a fundamentally powerful and dangerous source of power. It requires a commitment to long lasting peace and stability that we're just not capable of.
This touches on why I think humanity will not survive for much longer. Global warming continues to be a civilization-ending level threat, and yet it continues to be more or less ignored. Vast swathes of the population believe that their egos can determine reality, no matter the actual physical reality they so hubristically ignore. > we’re not capable of I don’t think so, either. This sentiment tends to be met by the…
If we can make energy storage simple and cheap enough I do not see why nuclear power would have any upside left except maybe for when traveling outside the solar system.
Regarding survivability of humanity I have similar fear but my current hope is that while weapons will continue to be more attainable their relevance might diminish. Why fight your neighbor if you have everything you need? But warlords create a problem of their own because they seem to exist to attain superiority for its own sake.
Re: Fire extinguished at Ukraine nuclear power plant, Europe's largest
#374[deleted]
Re: Fire extinguished at Ukraine nuclear power plant, Europe's largest
#375At what point do we consider the risks of letting this continue higher than the potential effects of intervention?
When we have the stomach to go through with a plan so overwhelming that it would cause Putin to submit in fear.
That is a very high threshold.
No doubt there are people working on black flag political assassination attempts, but really the only other options are convincing non NATO members to intervene or launching bombers towards Moscow and making an ultimatum that won’t be perceived as a bluff.
Ultimately though i think Ukraine has to mostly handle this on its own and if it doesn’t win the only thing to be done is let it happen and completely isolate Russia from the global economy until they are broken. It is not a pretty picture when your only options are backing a nuclear power into a corner.
Re: Fire extinguished at Ukraine nuclear power plant, Europe's largest
#376So, aside from the obvious nature of messing around with Nuclear generating station being an idiotic move. From a tactical move for Russia - clearly they want the generating station offline to cause further chaos in Ukraine and that it supplies 1/6 of the power I believe(?). Was the generating station fighting to say online / not surrender or did Russia just show up guns blazing? It's clearly a tactically important s…
Isn’t one major problem with nuclear is that it’s hard to shut down when you don’t need it? Hopefully they understand that
They're easy to shut down, but when the reactor is first turned off the core is full of unstable isotopes that are byproducts of the fission reaction. Those isotopes continue decaying even with the reactor "off" until the become stable, and they put out enough heat to cause a meltdown on their own. This means the reactor needs active cooling for a couple of weeks until it reaches a safe state. That's what happened at Fukashima; the reactors were shut down when the earthquake hit, but then the tsunami disabled the backup generators that were powering the cooling pumps, and they weren't able to restore cooling before the core melted.
Re: Fire extinguished at Ukraine nuclear power plant, Europe's largest
#377Earlier quoted context omitted.
Humanity is fine, just some parts are quite far ahead of others. We just have to get rid of autocrats and authoritarianism. There will be some slides backwards as people in difficult situations value their opinions and risk aversion more than others’ freedoms, and there are plenty of places where people are just fine with their autocrats continuing to rule. Progress, for the most part, can’t be given. It is hopeful t…
> We just have to get rid of autocrats and authoritarianism And why not criminals while we’re at it? Sounds like utopia. The desire for power might be baked into humanity at a deep level.
>The desire for power might be baked into humanity at a deep level.
I think we confuse the direction of causality a bit here. People in power tends to be those that want power. To get a powerful person you only really need one person who wants power. I think it's a false conclusion to think that people in general seek power.
Re: Fire extinguished at Ukraine nuclear power plant, Europe's largest
#378Quoted post unavailable.
I don't understand why? Are you saying that they needed to melt it down now because they can't do it later, even though you then say that it'll be a prime target for future bombing which will most likely lead to a meltdown? Or do you mean that "meltdown" is a safe state that would secure the reactor against future bombing?
Put yourself in the chief operator's perspective: An armed force has indiscriminately killed the plant's security that have guns far more powerful than anything allowed near the control room. If the reactor is in a state that would require the control rods to be reinserted to prevent melt down along with activating any authorization requirement to allow reinsertion, then when the orders come with guns pointed at your head and if you are allowed to talk you demand the occupiers leave and be permitted to re-insert the control rods to bring the reactor under control otherwise if they immediately kill you, then its their problem. Why demand they leave on first contact? A person pointing a gun or in this case shelling you with artillery is untrustable. If they initially obey, then it not only has bought you time, but an understanding that the attacker cares about the plant is established, which the operator has been entrusted with having as a value.
It becomes the highest priority as it is the largest nuclear power plant in Europe and has been the largest Ukrainian power plant. Strategically, it makes sense to seize an asset while keeping it in tact, but bombs are not known for precision.
Re: Fire extinguished at Ukraine nuclear power plant, Europe's largest
#379Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't do war crimes unless you expect to get away with it, which means either you're fighting a war that more powerful nations don't care about, or you expect to win it. I think it's the later - Putin is not going to lose this war since he's racking up hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars of damage and compensation for injury/death that Russia would have a hard time paying for if he admits defeat.
Or some powerful group with slightly more sense or at least ambition in Russia will stage a coup.
Right now, I think that's the best the world could hope for. But seems decreasingly likely the longer this goes on, they already have ample incentive to do so now.
Re: Fire extinguished at Ukraine nuclear power plant, Europe's largest
#380Earlier quoted context omitted.
In general, the side that cares about the conflict more is more likely to engage in direct conflict, and escalate to nuclear use if their goals are being thwarted by conventional war. To Russia, Ukraine is a core interest, and thus they're the most likely to escalate to tactical nuclear weapons if NATO intervenes and Russia starts losing. With a NATO country, that calculus changes, and if for some crazy reason Russia…
A nuclear would most likely mean the end of the world. Russia's core interest should be preventing the end of the world. If Putin is rational, he will never initiate a nuclear war. If he is irrational, he will not stop with Ukraine.
Putin is on record as saying "There is no world imaginable without Russia"