Chernobyl and the NSC
Discussion
llewop said:
Pints said:
Interesting. Thanks.
Does the safety aspect (from radiation) not bother you at all?
In a word no. It's what I've done for a living for over 25 years so I'm used to it & part of my job is to help others understand it and work with it safely and legally. Advantage of radiation over many other hazards and risks out there is we can measure and monitor it pretty well (most of the time Does the safety aspect (from radiation) not bother you at all?
- there are a few black arts that are tricky!) so doesn't bother me at all.
dudleybloke said:
Llewop.
Just wondering if you know any updates on the containment structure build.
Construction continues - I've still friends out there working so get some updates, also the Chernobyl website is regularly updated with photos + videos of the 'lifts' when the confinement structure is jacked up.Just wondering if you know any updates on the containment structure build.
Current construction is on the second half of the NSC, when at full height and fully clad etc, the first half will be pushed back towards it so they can be joined. I understand current completion estimate is somewhere in 2017 or so.
Assuming of course the issues at the other end of the country don't interfere significantly.
A question occurred to me today, if the NSC is designed to enable deconstruction of the remains of reactor 4, once the deconstruction has gone as far as it can will they enclose the remains of reactor 4 in something smaller and remove the NSC?
If so what is the expected time frame to remove it?
If so what is the expected time frame to remove it?
Megaflow said:
A question occurred to me today, if the NSC is designed to enable deconstruction of the remains of reactor 4, once the deconstruction has gone as far as it can will they enclose the remains of reactor 4 in something smaller and remove the NSC?
If so what is the expected time frame to remove it?
I would think leaving a kernel of the remains would not be the desired end point, although pragmatically it may come to that. The tricky aspect that I think that will be encountered is that the NSC will join with the existing structures, which are themselves contaminated/contain debris. So at some point after deconstructing the shelter over unit 4 and the remains below there will come a point where expanding the work area could destabilise the remains of the reactor building and unit 4 so that it could collapse from under the NSC. Or even if that doesn't happen, once all possible work under the NSC has been carried out, it would need to be removed to allow the turbine hall, block B etc to be dismantled.If so what is the expected time frame to remove it?
Theoretically, or at least it was mentioned once or twice, the NSC could be slid back away from the shelter for maintenance or perhaps at end of life to dismantle it. Having said that, design life is 100 years so that could be way off in the future and I would wonder how movable it would be after sitting in it's final position for many decades!
Time frame? I would expect the work of commissioning the NSC, using it to deconstruct the shelter and remove the remains of unit 4 will take decades.
Thanks for response. I ask because I have been doing some reading, and as far as I can tell, there isn't a nuclear reactor that has been completely demolished and nothing remains on site.
About the closest to a fully demolished reactor I can find is Yankee Rowe, but even there, 16 casks containing spent fuel remains.
About the closest to a fully demolished reactor I can find is Yankee Rowe, but even there, 16 casks containing spent fuel remains.
Megaflow said:
Thanks for response. I ask because I have been doing some reading, and as far as I can tell, there isn't a nuclear reactor that has been completely demolished and nothing remains on site.
About the closest to a fully demolished reactor I can find is Yankee Rowe, but even there, 16 casks containing spent fuel remains.
You are probably right with respect to power generating reactors. However, there are quite a number of research reactors (so generally smaller) that have been 'green field' remediated - admittedly somewhat easier due to size, inventory etc.About the closest to a fully demolished reactor I can find is Yankee Rowe, but even there, 16 casks containing spent fuel remains.
One aspect of that is the time line has got stretched somewhat from the original vision of things, so deferring at least some of the decommissioning/remediation has advantages with respect to reduced dose and also the uncertainty of disposal repositories probably adds to the temptation to not generate so much of the waste until you've got some idea where it is going to end up!
Megaflow said:
Thanks for response. I ask because I have been doing some reading, and as far as I can tell, there isn't a nuclear reactor that has been completely demolished and nothing remains on site.
About the closest to a fully demolished reactor I can find is Yankee Rowe, but even there, 16 casks containing spent fuel remains.
The remaining spent fuel could either be relocated to a central long term store or reprocessed. Keeping them on the old site is a financial decision.About the closest to a fully demolished reactor I can find is Yankee Rowe, but even there, 16 casks containing spent fuel remains.
The long term plan for UK waster is to separate it into low, intermediate and high level categories and store/reprocess each appropriately. High level will go here, assuming HMG go ahead.
https://www.gov.uk/managing-radioactive-waste-safe...
eldar said:
Megaflow said:
Thanks for response. I ask because I have been doing some reading, and as far as I can tell, there isn't a nuclear reactor that has been completely demolished and nothing remains on site.
About the closest to a fully demolished reactor I can find is Yankee Rowe, but even there, 16 casks containing spent fuel remains.
The remaining spent fuel could either be relocated to a central long term store or reprocessed. Keeping them on the old site is a financial decision.About the closest to a fully demolished reactor I can find is Yankee Rowe, but even there, 16 casks containing spent fuel remains.
The long term plan for UK waster is to separate it into low, intermediate and high level categories and store/reprocess each appropriately. High level will go here, assuming HMG go ahead.
https://www.gov.uk/managing-radioactive-waste-safe...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3193...
article and video of the NSC on the BBC.
glossing over 'dome' vs 'arch' and a few other details - it shows current/recent state of things and scale of the work.
article and video of the NSC on the BBC.
glossing over 'dome' vs 'arch' and a few other details - it shows current/recent state of things and scale of the work.
Apologies for thread resurrection but I have had to try awfully hard to resist posting anything in the 'gazebo ' thread. This seemed a better place to mention this;
Anyway.....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08650s6
BBC 4 tonight at 9 has programme about the building of the NSC. No idea if will be any good!
Anyway.....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08650s6
BBC 4 tonight at 9 has programme about the building of the NSC. No idea if will be any good!
I actually thought it was a decent programme - took time to try to explain some of the physics as well as the history. The crane drivers working from the ground was inevitable as we'd measured the levels above the construction zone and there was enough of an increase even there to influence the work programme - the reason for jacking the structure up in stages was to do most of the work within 30m of the ground, as well as about 500m to the west.
Of the workers and others they included in the programme - I know about half a dozen of them, including the two Brits who were featured a few times.
Of the workers and others they included in the programme - I know about half a dozen of them, including the two Brits who were featured a few times.
I caught it and have to say I was massively impressed, both by the engineering and the impressive way the project appeared to be managed and integrated across different disciplines and nationalities, on top of dealing with the challenging conditions and radiation hazard. It seemed hugely professional all round.
Also worth pointing out how f
king stupid it makes the OP look in that other thread
Also worth pointing out how f
king stupid it makes the OP look in that other threadInteresting program, it was a bit of a slow start if you knew the history though but I suppose not everyone does.
The sheer scale of the thing was crazy!
It will be very interesting once they start taking the sarcophagus apart and finally get a proper look at the core and what is left with decent lighting etc
The sheer scale of the thing was crazy!
It will be very interesting once they start taking the sarcophagus apart and finally get a proper look at the core and what is left with decent lighting etc
Very interesting program. I knew they were planning on deconstructing reactor 4 from within the arch, but I hadn't heard anything about how they were planning on doing it.
I'd be very interested to watch the progress of that, but I get a feeling that won't be well covered.
I'd be very interested to watch the progress of that, but I get a feeling that won't be well covered.
The Wookie said:
I caught it and have to say I was massively impressed, both by the engineering and the impressive way the project appeared to be managed and integrated across different disciplines and nationalities, on top of dealing with the challenging conditions and radiation hazard. It seemed hugely professional all round.
Also worth pointing out how fking stupid it makes the OP look in that other thread
What thread is that?Also worth pointing out how f
king stupid it makes the OP look in that other threadGassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff