The amount of spent fuel in each of the pools at the six Zaporizhzhia reactors ranges from 132 to 157 tons as of 2017, and in total 855 tons of spent fuel are in the six pools. Greenpeace's report raises the ominous possibility that catastrophe may not be averted if the Zaporizhzhia facility is damaged in the course of Russia's assault on Ukraine, either from an accident or an intentional bombing: In the case of the 2011 Fukushima disaster-during which three nuclear reactors melted down and released radioactive plumes following an earthquake-induced tsunami-the Japanese facility's spent nuclear fuel did not catch fire, a near miss that scientists have said should serve as a "wake-up call" for other countries. Severe damage to the plant, the group warns, could "render vast areas of the European continent, including Russia, uninhabitable for decades." Greenpeace raises particular concern over the complex's susceptibility to electrical power outages, its storage of spent nuclear fuel, and risks posed by flooding given the facility's close proximity to the massive Dnipro river system. Greenpeace's new brief argues that the Zaporizhzhia plant is especially vulnerable to an accident or attack stemming from Russia's invasion, which entered its seventh day on Wednesday with no end in sight.Īuthored by a pair of Greenpeace nuclear specialists, the risk analysis notes that "there have been multiple safety issues with the Zaporizhzhia reactors over the decades, not least that these reactors are aging having been designed and built in the 1970s to the 1990s." That facility, known as the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, is currently surrounded by Russian troops looking to force their way through a makeshift blockade erected Wednesday by ordinary Ukrainians. In a 12-page analysis, Greenpeace details the unique hazards posed by Russia's war on Ukraine, which maintains 15 nuclear power reactors and is home to the largest nuclear energy complex in Europe. "For the first time in history, a major war is being waged in a country with multiple nuclear reactors and thousands of tons of highly radioactive spent fuel." The plant’s management has estimated it will take 30 to 40 years to clean up contaminated areas and decommission the plant.The international environmental group Greenpeace warned Wednesday that Russia's intensifying assault is placing Ukraine's nuclear power facilities under serious threat, risking devastation "far worse even than the Fukushima Daiichi catastrophe of 2011." Then, in 2011, an earthquake and tsunami rocked the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Japan, and triggered one of the worst nuclear accidents in history, and raised questions all over again. Many planned reactors were scrapped, while some existing ones were closed down.īut during the last decade, some environmentalists, worried about the continuing impact of fossil fuels on global warming, began looking to nuclear power as a solution.īy 2010, President Obama announced $8 billion in loan guarantees to break ground on the first new nuclear plant in 30 years. The accident fed the rise of the anti-nuclear movement in America and around the globe. Overnight, it seemed, the promise sold in the 1950s of a brave, new world operating on energy from clean, efficient nuclear power plants, had turned into a nightmare of questions and worries. And the subsequent cleanup took more than a decade and cost nearly $1 billion. It took three weeks to bring the plant under control. The accident then was the worst on record at a commercial nuclear power plant. In March of 1979, the news of an accident at the nuclear power plant at Three Mile Island near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania punctured the promise of the Nuclear Age.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |