She is correct in pointing out that it would be difficult to access this material.
It is well-characterized, meaning, we know what it is and how it could spread if disturbed.
Ukraine gets half its power from nuclear reactors.
It shut down Chernobyl fourteen years after the explosion in 1986, under pressure from the EU and only when promised money to complete another partially-built plant.
Here is a map of UKR's four operating nuclear plants:
WHAT IS THE THREAT TO THE OPERATING PLANTS?
Unlike at Chernobyl, Ukraine's currently operating reactors have lots of highly radioactive material inside them.
They need to remain safe.
If these reactors lose their connection to the grid, they will automatically shut down.
A silver lining of Fukushima Daiichi accident is that nuclear plants all over the world have prepared for what to do if cut off from off-site power from the grid.
You run generators to keep the core covered with water as it cools down over several days.
But the grid isn't down.
Ukraine's grid has just completed disconnecting from the Russian grid.
Ukrainian grid operators are apparently working through this, and Russia does not appear to have targeted the grid.
Here is a satellite image of Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, one of the largest in the world with six reactors.
It is about four hours drive from the Crimean peninsula.
Considering the attack towards Kiev, we should assume that Russia will be occupy the plant if it chooses.
I am going to stay away from speculations about what Russia "wants" or what its strategy may be with these plants.
I want instead to be clear about radiological hazards, if any, from this conflict.
For Ukrainians now, the electricity is most important.
The grid remains on.
This is a new era.
Operating nuclear power plants have never been captured in war.
This may change, but considering how vulnerable and exposed grid infrastructure is, how easy to destroy, both Ukraine and Russia must defaulted to keeping the grid "off limits".
If Ukraine's electricity grid remains "off limits" to both defending and attacking forces, it is hard to imagine at this point attacks on the power plants themselves.
If the grid or the plants are attacked, the plants will automatically shut down and initiate cooling procedures.
After the Crimean annexation in 2014, Ukraine started a crash program to diversify its source of nuclear fuel for its four operating nuclear plants.
From various sources I've talked to over the last few weeks, about half of Ukraine's nuclear fuel still comes from Russia.
Nuclear plants are some of the few facilities in the world that are specifically prepared and drilled for so many extreme events.
Sometimes it feels over the top.
But when hurricanes make direct strikes, earthquakes hit nearby, or attacking forces threaten, you want calm order.
Failures, like at Fukushima Daiichi, lead to a round of intensification at every other nuclear plant.
Now we have a test.
How will grid operators and nuclear plant directors work together to keep order?
That's today's problem.
Tomorrow: what is the fate of EU energy?
Most nuclear export projects in the world are Russian.
Russian export projects are underway in:
Bangladesh
Belarus
China
Egypt
India
Iran
Turkey
Russian projects nearing start of construction include:
Hungary
Finland
Bulgaria
Uzbekistan
The war may have big ramifications.
Nuclear fundamentally adds to energy security, because nuclear plants only need a truck of fuel per year per reactor to keep going.
Coal similar sized needs 120 train cars daily.
And you also need a working grid, and control over your territory with the plants and grid on it.
Via @kallemets who is developing nuclear for Estonia, we have a report of the first nuclear plant cancellation as a result of this war: Finland.
So we have the weird new world unfolding before our eyes:
Invasion rolls in, grid stays on, nuclear plants stay on, Chernobyl site guards switch uniforms, and Europe buys more natural gas through Ukraine's pipelines.
Annual pipeline flows in BCM, billion cubic meters.
1 BCM ~ 1 TWh (terawatt-hour) of heat energy.
Nord Stream 1 = 55 BCM, about 540 TWh.
Converted to electricity in new efficient gas power plant, about 320 TWh.
Equal to 40 GW of well-run nuclear.
HANDY ENERGY CONVERSTIONS, 2:
USA (and others) sell Europe liquified natural gas (LNG) by ship.
A normal LNG tanker can carry 175,000 cubic meters of LNG. This is the same as 0.10 BCM of pipeline gas.
1 tanker = 0.2% of Nord Stream 1 = 6% of 1 big nuclear reactor annual output
WHY ARE ALMOST ALL NUCLEAR EXPORTS IN THE WORLD RUSSIAN?
I'm going to take a risk here that parts of this podcast looks bad in hindsight, but here I explain how Soviet nuclear fell apart and how Russian nuclear came back together.
That tweet has been deleted. It said that an advisor to the Ukrainian president had said that Hostomel airfield had been recaptured by Ukrainian forces.
The coming days may see nuclear phaseout policies canceled.
From a source:
Belgian Energy Minister T. Van der Straeten was visibly destabilized and said, literally, "With this situation of today I can not exclude that I have to change my agenda"
Wow
Half of Belgian electricity comes from nuclear, generated in two nuclear plants.
Green Party has control of the energy ministry, the one they demanded while playing kingmaker in the current government.
They've insisted on switching to natural gas by 2025.
This change is big.
UKRAINIAN GRID: THE KEY FOR NUCLEAR
I'm watching in near real time the Ukrainian grid as demand falls and power is turned down in a controlled manner at the nation's 17 nuclear reactors.
This is wild: grid up, mainly nuclear power, data rolling in.
To report on risk of nuclear radiation to human health in a time of war, @politico puts its "Sustainability" desk to work contacting nuclear phaseout orgs!
Uncritical repetition of bizarre claim that Russia, a nuclear weapons state, would use plutonium to make a nuclear bomb.
*Plutonium from site
Another sign the reporter and editor were out of their depth chasing clicks is the reporting of doses without context for readers.
The article belatedly arrives at the real issue of the working reactors, then goes straight back to the nuclear phaseout guy!
This story was cooked in the classic tradition of anti-nuclear reporting:
- Give first & last word to professional nuclear phaseout guy.
- No-context doses.
- Include nuclear bombs when discussing plants.
- Avoid interviewing radiation health experts.
- False claim as headline.
TWO UKRAINIAN REACTORS INTENTIONALLY POWER DOWN
Energoatom, owner: #5 and #6 at Zaporizhzhia have powered down on the 25th, waiting in "reserve".
Ukraine appears to have stopped reporting grid data to ENTSO-E a few hours ago.
(Energoatom also reminds folks to pay their bills)
Rivne nuclear plant director Pavel Pavlyshyn: all is orderly and under control.
I'd call this extraordinary professionalism but it's ordinary nuclear professionalism that looks extraordinary.
Painting in the background? A watermill, the OG power plant.
I used a question mark because unfortunately after the first day of the war we cannot instantly take UA gov statements concerning nuclear at face value.
It's understandable perhaps given the existential risks of war to UA, but gov sources misled press about Chernobyl plutonium.
SOURCE: FRANCE HAS ONLY "A MONTH" TO STOP DESTRUCTION OF FESSENHEIM
France turned off a 1.8GW nuclear station in excellent condition only two years ago.
Soon it will destroy the internals with an acid wash.
The plant was closed arbitrarily to meet nuclear shrinkage goals.
At the time, most French nuclear experts I talked to agreed that it was a good to close "old" nuclear plants, to reduce "extra" domestic energy and to justify getting paid to build new reactors.
But they were upset about the choice of Fessenheim, as it had been life-extended.
Ukraine's nuclear safety authority reporting that Russian munitions have stuck a waste facility, and that its sensor network is offline.
Also said little risk expected.
This should end up in the "radically less dangerous than the war itself" category.
This extra coverage and attention on nuclear-flavored incidents is perhaps not surprising, but certainly seems to be a proxy for outside observers' anxieties about nuclear weapons rather than serious interest in the details of radiation risks.
So I'll keep covering too.
NEW RULE: be *very* skeptical about Ukrainian-aligned sources when reporting on "RADIATION" or nuclear facilities (and Russian-aligned sources about everything else).
Notice the follow-up. It was available at the same time the initial information was.
SOURCES: GERMAN FINANCE MINISTRY DISCUSSING ROLLING BACK NUCLEAR PHASEOUT
Trial-balloon report said to be emerging very soon.
Germany's LNG-only plan to augment renewables would be ferociously expensive, and it seems that the Ministry of Finance gets this.
Context: The Federal Minister of Finance is Christian Lindner of the Free Democratic Party.
As Energy Ministries across the EU become "ecology" Ministries led by people who don't even know the *units* used to quantify energy, Finance Ministries become the adults.
And thus.
German energy plans have been building for decades on having access to 110 billion cubic meters/yr of pipeline gas from Russia.
LNG will always be more expensive. You're competing against Japan, for example, which has built its society around pricey LNG.
By "augmenting" renewables, I mean that renewables, despite their declining growth rates in Germany and decreasing number of virgin locations, were still as of yesterday being described as the big "response" play to the invasion.
Gas, "bio" + LNG, supposed to fill colossal gaps.
Seems that although my sources are coming from Finance, this appears to be a multiple-ministry change of heart:
This remarkable turnaround in rhetoric at the highest levels of German government occurs just hours after Germany's ~€300b wind & solar fleet fell to 6.5% of electricity generation Saturday evening.
Weather: famously indifferent to German wartime needs.
FRENCH PROFESSOR: GAZPROM FUNDED THE GREENS TO KILL NUCLEAR
If confirmed, not a shock for anyone following the effort Green ministers are making in various European countries to subsidize fossil fuel investments to justify nuclear removal.
Now, this may be referring to investigative work by some of my colleagues in Belgium that found future Energy Minister Tinne Van der Straeten's law firm working for Gazprom while she was at the firm and also in parliament.
Will need to see what Prof. Reynié shows as evidence.
RUSSIAN FORCES SURROUNDING ZAPORIZHZHIA
As warned since Day 1, Zaporizhzhia, with 6 reactors, is close to Crimea. It appears that we're about to see an attempted transfer of control of the plant, if Russia chooses.
Zaporizhzhia, like all operating Ukrainian nuclear plants, has worked with leading experts to implement post-Fukushima Daiichi emergency preparedness programs.
Even if grid is cut, operators are trained to protect cores with generators.
Zaporizhzhia's reactors are "pressurized water reactors" type.
The worst PWR accident ever was Three Mile Island in 1979, in which confused operators accidentally melted one of their two reactors, with no significant releases of radiation (the other ran until 2019).
A Russian assault on the plant is extremely unlikely: horrible publicity, when they could just cut the local grid and force reactors offline. But it's still a key energy source for Ukraine and its loss, if forced to shut all reactors down, would be a blow to Ukraine.
The pattern (so far) in this war has been Russian forces tiptoeing around both the grid and nuclear.
Ukrainian sources, understandably, have been making a very big deal about anything nuclear related.
GO SLOW when reading ANY Ukrainian nuclear headlines. Wait a bit. Follow up.
REPORT: PERSONAL ADVISOR TO GERMAN FINANCE MINISTER SAYS NUCLEAR BACK ON TABLE
Lars Feld, personal advisor to Minister Lindner, says nuclear and coal must be back on the table.
Coal? Not a shock. "Phaseout" in "2030", was a charade.
If Lars Feld gets shredded and Germany backtracks, no problem. Sack Feld, reopen closed coal, keep Nord Stream.
If German public accepts this argument after the coming energy price shockwave (coal was staying anyway, as the winner in the nuclear vs coal choice) nuclear is BACK.
Note: Germany can help Europe merely by reversing its obstruction of nuclear's inclusion in EU's "Green Taxonomy," which...may need a few big revisions now anyway.
It'll be German capital building cheap clean power for neighbors, but, if you're Germany, can't be too picky now!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
BREAKING: PROTESTER ATTEMPTING TO BLOCK IMPENDING DEMOLITION AT GERMAN NUCLEAR PLANT
Only a half hour before scheduled implosion of cooling towers at Grafenrheinfeld nuclear plant, a protester has photographed himself near the base of the towers.
Incredible: German electricity demand has fallen to the lowest levels since before reunification in 1990, as its economy falters.
Germany intentionally turned off its extraordinarily cheap and reliable baseload nuclear power, rapidly, during a generational energy crisis.
Putin didn't make them do it.
America didn't make them do it.
Even German public opinion has turned dramatically back in favor of nuclear.
German leaders made this choice, to turn them off and keep them off.
Look at these graphs of annual electricity. It's like Germany is committing WW2-style bombing raids against its own infrastructure.
If Germany were electrifying, for either climate or growth reasons, then we would expect electricity demand to grow, not fall.
We should be seeing all time records in electricity production and demand, not the lowest numbers in over three decades.
Now electricity is too expensive for many industries to justify using for expanding or even maintaining production, so electricity demand is dropping.
But Germany's own generation of electricity is plunging even faster than its demand is, turning Germany from a net exporter to a net importer of power.
Many commenters have celebrated the falling energy costs in Germany for this year and next. But those falling costs are coming along with falling demand for power, not increasing demand.
And costly renewable subsidies are no longer paid directly on power bills, but instead from the national budget, lowering the apparent cost of power even further, which should be stimulating demand.
Yet electricity remains so persistently expensive relative to pre-crisis years that, in combination with expensive natural gas, it just isn't worth it for Germany's major energy consumers.
Germany's courts have, for now, rejected adding more and more subsidies for energy production infrastructure to be paid for by national debt.
Even though this is a crisis for Germany, the courts seem wise in rejecting subsidies for expensive new energy when cheap nuclear plants could just be turned back on.
Leading opposition parties have already stated their intention of restarting Germany's nuclear plants should they win power.
This would take about a year each, but each nuclear plant would prop up a meaningful fraction of Germany's bleeding industrial sector.
In my view, there is no longer any other budget-neutral or budget-positive energy move available to German leaders, without destroying Germany's climate agreements to turn on lignite coal full blast.
I have to keep writing this over and over and over again:
France badly mismanaged its nuclear fleet as it tried to foolishly ape German energy policy.
France has had some of worst nuclear fleet availability on Earth.
I've been yelling about France's energy self-sabotage for years.
I used the phrase "Vichy Energy" to describe France's policies in this podcast warning about France, Germany, and Nord Stream, from more than a year before the full-scale invasion of Ukraine decouplemedia.org/podcast/episod…
Zaporizhzhia NPP, Europe's largest, draws cooling water from a reservoir whose dam is now severely damaged.
All six reactors are off & cold. Almost no cooling water needed.
Unfolding event, but not a serious risk for nuclear accident.
Nuclear reactors produce an immense amount of heat when operating.
Massive amounts of water are passed through to keep them at the right temperature, and this water gets heated up and is used to make steam and then the steam to make electricity.
Zaporizhzhia's reactors are off.
The reactors at Fukushima Daiichi shut down after the quake, but three still melted.
That's because right after shutdown, reactors keep putting out a lot of heat, and the tsunami destroyed the backup cooling equipment.
Zaporizhzhia's reactors have been shut off for many months.
First night of Germany's grid without nuclear: it's bad.
It's night. No sun. Wind has dropped to almost nothing.
Most of German "renewables" right now is richly-subsidized bioenergy with half the net CO2 emissions of an efficient gas power plant.
Importing nuclear from France.
It's hard to express how insane this situation is.
Highlighting just wind production now, Germany's 66.5 GW of installed wind is only producing as much as the 3 reactors that turned off last night used to produce.
400% expansion of wind would only provide half present need!
It's astounding to me when people argue that it isn't fair to choose just a moment when Germany's wind and solar are near zero, that we have to look at yearly figures instead.
So here's every single hour for a year and the annual average.