Russia attacks Ukranian nuclear power plant. Still not our war?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

it could reach criticality, if the structure is compromised.

Criticality just means the nuclear reaction is self-sustaining.

And also means a large release of thermal energy and radiation.

Those nearby would be toast. Literally.

 

[elektra]

Well, it isn't plutonium to begin. Plutonium is a product of fission but has to be processed from other heavy elements. I don't know the type of reactor in Ukraine is, but its likely a typical, run of the mill, U238 reactor. The U238 is processed into a pure form in the shape of rods that are then inserted into an assembly at specific locations around a circle or if square, in strategic locations to maximize the neutron interaction with the water. The other reason is that the other rods are made of a neutron-absorbing metal, usually Molybdenum or graphite. The reactions is controlled by how much of these neutron-absorbing metals separate and stop the interaction. This way, they can control the amount of heat generated. It is the super-heated water that is pumped through pipes into ordinary water baths, that transfer the heat to the ordinary water without radioactive contamination. That water, of course, is flashed into steam which then goes to generators (massive generators) to create the electricity.

A bomb, would not be much different than what happened to Chernobyl. Chernobyl was doing a 'spin down' test for war readiness and the reactor got out of their control. They could not control the reaction in the core chamber and when it was hot enough, it actually blew the top off the containment building. Of course, when that happened, all the liquid flash steamed and vented into the atmosphere and started rising very rapidly. The exposed core then began to meltdown and that process started vaporizing all the material around it. Cement, dirt, sand. That is what caused the majority of the contamination in the area, which exists to this day.

If the Russians bombed it, it would be an absolute catastrophe and an environmental (locally) disaster. But there would not be the big "mushroom cloud" explosion.

well thank you for the awkward history in reactors. Yes, Plutonium is a product of fission, you could of told us Plutonium does not exist in nature, why you did not is beyond me, maybe it did not state that with your google search?

U238? You mean U235? U238 is not fissionable?

Type of reactor, you mean heavy water or candu? Boiling Water or BWR? Pressurized Water Reactor, PWR? Breeder reactor? I have never ever heard of U238 reactors.

I have not heard of U238 being processed into rods. For that matter, the preferred fuel of, Uranium 235 is not processed into rods. It is processed into what they call pellets the size of a filter on a cigarette. These pellets are than inserted into zirconium tubes, which are assembled into a square fuel assembly, or bundle. I would guess there are 200 zirconium tubes per fuel rod assembly.

You state it is not plutonium? Yet, that is exactly the material in spent fuel rods that makes them so dangerous? The uranium 235 is converted into ??? 235 to 238 to 239 to plutonium? After a short half live? I could google it and sound very technical but I just know the process, I do not study or pretend to be the expert.

Neutron reaction with water? I have zero idea what you are talking about there? Except that maybe you got the candu heavy water reactor mixed up with the water of a pressurized water reactor, or even a BWR, that is laden with the element boron which is a neutron absorber that slows the and helps controls the reaction? Maybe you could explain? Most likely you are very confused, and am applying candu heavy water reactor with the russian reactors in the ukraine which are obviously PWRs and not Candu's

"The other reason is that the other rods are made of a neutron-absorbing metal, usually Molybdenum or graphite."
huh? NO, it is Zirconium that that the fuel rods are made of?

What about control rods? Boron comes to my mind, what about yours, certainly not Molybdenum or Graphite?

All that aside, you explanation of how a reactor works is borderline, stupid.

Radioactive water, or superheated water is pumped through pipes? A quick lesson from me, I will educate you without the help of google.

Uranium 235 wont fission on its own, I think we need Californium 252 (this i had to look up). So there is a startup fuel rod that gets the process going. The control rods which are inserted between the fuel rods are lifted out, the startup fuel rod is inserted, than fission begins. Control rods will be made mostly of Boron, like borax, the soap, for it is a neutron absorber. We can agree that is the control rod in all nuclear reactors? PWR, BWR, CANDU, etc..

There is reactor pump, pumping cold water that gets heated by being pumped throught the fuel rods in the reactor.

That water either boils off and turns the turbine, in a boiling water reactor.

or

That water is pumped into a giant radiator, or steam generator, where the tubes become heated and boils the water that is on the secondary side, which is then turns the turbine, that turns the generator.

There is no baths as you state. Steam is not very radioactive, if at all, in a BWR, and of course in a PWR, the radioactive water is seperated from the secondary side by the steam generator tubing. No baths?

Water, which is has hydrogen, which is a natural neutron absorber, helps control the reaction, for the water is full of that great element, boron. Boronated water and boron control rods is what controls the reaction.

chernobyl? There was no containment building? Hence no lid was blown off, unless you are speaking of the reactor head? And that was a graphite moderated reactor.

anyhow, what was your point amongst all you convoluted misunderstandings?

 

[elektra]

Pick up a gun and head on over. They'll take you. Others have done it.

I would if you were technically capable of doing my job building nuclear submarines for our defense, it is a critical job to national security, so I am kind of stuck here cause you cant man up to do my job.

 

[elektra]

Much more with plutonium? Where?

so dont mind me if I am a bit more than sure, that you are completely wrong.

Completely wrong about what it takes for plutonium to reach supercriticality?

Yes, completely wrong.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And also means a large release of thermal energy and radiation.

Those nearby would be toast. Literally.

Bombing the containment structure would not cause the reactor to literally toast people nearby.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, completely wrong.

Supercriticality can't be achieved by bombing a reactor with plutonium in it.
Never ever ever. And those reactors use lightly enriched uranium, not plutonium.

 

[elektra]

Supercriticality can't be achieved by bombing a reactor with plutonium in it.
Never ever ever. And those reactors use lightly enriched uranium, not plutonium.

Never, yet they treat them like they do.

And the lightly enriched uranium, does become plutonium.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Never, yet they treat them like they do.

And the lightly enriched uranium, does become plutonium.

Never, yet they treat them like they do.

Who treats what like they do what?

And the lightly enriched uranium, does become plutonium.

Lightly enriched uranium with a little bit of plutonium, a lot of U-238 plus control rods etc will
never go supercritical if you blow it up.

 

[Ringo]

MOSCOW, March 5. /tass/. The militants of the US battalion "Azov" activated the explosive devices laid earlier, which caused the collapse of a house in Mariupol.

Under the rubble in the basement there are up to 200 people, most of whom are women and children, the head of the Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) Denis Pushilin said on Saturday on Channel One.

"Just a few minutes ago, the Azov militants activated the explosive devices laid earlier, as a result of which a house collapsed at 15/20 Meotida Boulevard. Up to 200 people remain under the rubble in the basement at the moment, most of them women and children," he said.

 

[Ringo]

Why are Ukrainian Nazis worse than Russian commies?
Give me your top 3 reasons.

$ 25

 

[elektra]

Never, yet they treat them like they do.

Who treats what like they do what?

And the lightly enriched uranium, does become plutonium.

Lightly enriched uranium with a little bit of plutonium, a lot of U-238 plus control rods etc will
never go supercritical if you blow it up.

Who treats nukes or the fuel in them as if they will blow up, the media.

I agree it most likely will not reach supercritical, but with a bit of bad luck, I don't doubt it could be the worst nuclear disaster since Nagasaki.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

$ 25

Capitalist running dog lackey.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Who treats nukes or the fuel in them as if they will blow up, the media.

Idiots are idiotic.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Bombing the containment structure would not cause the reactor to literally toast people nearby.

By nearby, I mean close. Like, 100 feet close. Yes, a criticality event could irradiate them and burn them. And unlike past criticality accidents, there would be no quick end to the event. That's the scary part. No way to move the control rods, no way to remove the neutron reflectors from around the core material.

We would basically have to watch helplessly and hope a steam or hydrogen explosion ended the criticality event, like with Chernobyl.

If such an event occurs, the only solution may be to bomb it again. Which, for obvious reasons, is not a good thing overall.

 

[Silver Cat]

Depends on your perspective of "our war".
We are part of NATO for a reason. The Chernobyl disaster in the 1980's created substantial radiation across Europe.
It's time for NATO to take SOME non-nuclear military action in Ukraine to fend off Russian aggressors to defend democracy in EUROPE!
Russian military leaders would not allow madman Putin to use nuclear weapons over the Ukraine conflict. THEY are not nuts.

They aren't nuts, and that's why they eager to use nukes.
You know:

 

[ViewFromAbove]

If Putin believes for one short moment that he is about to lose a sizeable portion of his armed forces, he will resort to tactical nuclear weapons in order to preserve Russian sovereignty. Putin is not Saddam Hussein and Russia is not Iraq. One does not fight a strictly conventional war against a nuclear power. All those who are calling for NATO/the US to engage Russia militarily in the Ukraine or elsewhere are off their bloody rockers.

A game of "nuclear chicken"? Rational leaders, with loving relatives & friends, would NEVER consider that, but Putin may not be rational when his big ego is pressed into the corner. He's a psychopathic killer.
Same for the North Korean ahole.

However, in the case of Russia, I believe there are rational officers responsible for launching nukes that would not do so unless attacked.
Putin is bluffing, I believe. He loves his daughters.

 

[ViewFromAbove]

Well, that is interesting considering that the prevailing winds in the Northern Hemisphere blow from west to east. How did it manage to make it onto Western Europe?

I was part of the Military that was tasked with analyzing the Chernobyl event. The majority of the debris cloud rose up to about 30k feet and then spread out over the entire northern hemisphere significantly diluted and harmlessly decayed away. It was the heavy particulate that was contained to the local region that posed the real problem.

So, you know. There is that.

You were in the Soviet military? Good insight, if so.
You realize the Chernobyl disaster was contained, and could have been a world-wide catastrophe, right?
The biggest nuclear plant in Europe, in Ukraine, COULD become a catastrophe!

 

[ViewFromAbove]

We WERE in NATO for a reason. There is little need to be involved in it now. All it does is risk dragging us into European wars. No one intends to invade the US. Not even Russia.

You sound like a psychopathic nationalist.
If Russia succeeds in Ukraine, then takes Latvia, Poland, etc, THEN collaborates with emboldened China and North Korea, maybe you will see another Pearl Harbor, version 2. Outcome could be different next time.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The biggest nuclear plant in Europe, in Ukraine, COULD become a catastrophe!

They aren't built in a pile of charcoal like Chernobyl was.

 

[Silver Cat]

You sound like a psychopathic nationalist.
If Russia succeeds in Ukraine, then takes Latvia, Poland, etc, THEN collaborates with emboldened China and North Korea, maybe you will see another Pearl Harbor, version 2. Outcome could be different next time.

Actually, some Russian military experts believe that Russia already has a Credible First Strike Capability (in the case of cancelling or violation of the New START treaty). In the case of their first counter-force strike (which will destroy 90% of the US nuclear arsenal, but only 1-5% of the American population), they believe that:
1) 75% chances that their post-attack blackmail will be successful, and the USA will agree to sign a peace treaty on quite generous terms without retaliation.
2) 20% chances that their post-attack blackmail will be unsuccessful, the American double-weakend retaliation counter-value strike will kill 1-3% of their population, but then the Russian counter-value strike will kill more than 90% of the American population.
3) 5% that something will go catastrophically wrong, and Russia will lost up to 30% of their population, but the USA will lost 70-90% of their population.