daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Development News Forums > General Urban Developments

General Urban Developments Discussions of projects shorter than 100m/300ft. Also, please post all other threads not specified in other Development News subforums here.



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old March 7th, 2014, 10:01 AM   #241
Beber
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 617
Likes (Received): 1493

Update from ChNPP.

Progress on west first section: 80.27% (+5.8%)
Progress on east section: 94% (+0.9%)


(link to album)
__________________

Perennial Quest liked this post
Beber no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old March 14th, 2014, 08:56 PM   #242
Beber
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 617
Likes (Received): 1493

Update from ChNPP.

Progress on west first section: 87.43% (+7.16%)
Progress on east section: 94% (-)


(link to album)

From Vladislav Kurochkin, you can see the base of the MD3200 being set up (click to enlarge).

__________________

Equario, Perennial Quest, Suburbanist liked this post
Beber no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 15th, 2014, 10:38 PM   #243
Beber
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 617
Likes (Received): 1493

Small accident today on site, one of the external cladding panel flew off due to high wind. I hope nobody was hurt.

Beber no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 18th, 2014, 02:42 AM   #244
ThatOneGuy
Psst! Check my signature!
 
ThatOneGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Toronto - Bucharest - Freeport
Posts: 21,481

Hopefully that won't happen when it is finished!
ThatOneGuy está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old March 18th, 2014, 04:06 PM   #245
Alper Cetintas
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 12
Likes (Received): 8

Deadline of this project is supposed to be 2015, but what is the guessed "Deadline" of the old sarcophagus? Is this a race against time or an early precaution?
Alper Cetintas no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 18th, 2014, 10:14 PM   #246
Beber
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 617
Likes (Received): 1493

It's more of a race against time. The sarcophagus was built in 1986 (less than a year from design to completion), and wasn't suppose to last more than 20 years. Since then, the Designed Stabilisation Steel Structure was added to support the whole structure, which makes it safer for now.

The sarcophagus was initially designed to be more of a temporary solution, but it ended up being much more than that. To put things in perspective, the project that is now the NSC was started in 1992.
__________________
Beber no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 18th, 2014, 11:35 PM   #247
NaRc0t1c
Registered User
 
NaRc0t1c's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: iasi
Posts: 348
Likes (Received): 103

Nice....Respect ukraine!
NaRc0t1c no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 19th, 2014, 09:50 PM   #248
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,414
Likes (Received): 21025

I'm thinking about something... would it be feasible to build such a structure around reactors of future nuclear power plants? That way, they could be made even safer...

Would such a structure withstand an explosion?
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old March 20th, 2014, 11:51 AM   #249
Beber
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 617
Likes (Received): 1493

The NSC is absolutely not designed to withstand an explosion. It is a very unique structure with a very unique role, that would not have many (if any) use for a nuclear reactor.

Nuclear reactors are in themselves built with many protections to "make them safer". But perfect safety doesn't exist. No matter how unlikely a nuclear explosion is, no shield could ever withstand it. And the danger of nuclear reactor is not only explosion, but also core meltdown.

If you look at the Chernobyl and Fukushima-Daiichi accidents, a NSC-like structure could have actually made things worst.
__________________

desmo, Suburbanist liked this post
Beber no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 20th, 2014, 11:48 PM   #250
Scrapernab2
Registered User
 
Scrapernab2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 896
Likes (Received): 96

I disagree. I think a 'dome' like this around all the critical equipment would have prevented the sea water from destroying the backup generators. That was the major reason Fukushima happened. Correct me if this is wrong...
Scrapernab2 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2014, 01:11 AM   #251
Beber
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 617
Likes (Received): 1493

Suburbanist and I were not talking about "a 'dome' like this around all the critical equipment", but about a NSC-like structure around (only) the reactors. Those are two very different things.

Your solution would have indeed avoided the accident, but cheaper and more efficient ones would have done the same. However, a NSC-like structure around the reactor would not have prevented the accident. Moreover, it would have made accessing the reactor more difficult, thus complicating the emergency "manual" cooling process. If the structure had collapsed after the explosion, it would have been even worst.

A dome would not be the best solution, mainly because the equipment is spread over a very large and always expanding site. But the idea behind it is the right one. Critical equipement should be protected from external damage. I think that's an important lesson the industry learnt (or "was reminded of") from the Fukushima-Daiichi accident.
Beber no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2014, 02:42 AM   #252
simval
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 39
Likes (Received): 33

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beber View Post
The NSC is absolutely not designed to withstand an explosion. It is a very unique structure with a very unique role, that would not have many (if any) use for a nuclear reactor.

Nuclear reactors are in themselves built with many protections to "make them safer". But perfect safety doesn't exist. No matter how unlikely a nuclear explosion is, no shield could ever withstand it. And the danger of nuclear reactor is not only explosion, but also core meltdown.

If you look at the Chernobyl and Fukushima-Daiichi accidents, a NSC-like structure could have actually made things worst.
Nuclear reactors cannot cause a nuclear explosion. It doesn't work that way. If it was so easy to get a nuclear explosion, every country would have nuclear weapons.

What can occur is gas build up, mostly hydrogen, which, if not vented, can cause an explosion. The problem is not the explosion itself though, but what the explosion carries with it: radioactive particles.

That being said, IIRC, hydrogen build up is caused by a cooling system failure, with the core oxidizing at very high temperature and reacting with the water that is still present, this creates hydrogen gas. But if the cooling system still works and water is circulated OR if the core has long gone cold (like Chernobyl's has), there is no risk of a hydrogen build up, and thus no risk of explosion.

The containment unit exists only to prevent the toxic, radioactive remains of the core from escaping into nature. There is no risk of explosion and so no reason to build it to resist to one.
simval no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2014, 03:26 AM   #253
Innsertnamehere
insertoronto
 
Innsertnamehere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,948
Likes (Received): 677

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapernab2 View Post
I disagree. I think a 'dome' like this around all the critical equipment would have prevented the sea water from destroying the backup generators. That was the major reason Fukushima happened. Correct me if this is wrong...
there are much cheaper ways of ensuring generators aren't flooded with water.
Innsertnamehere no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2014, 11:01 AM   #254
Beber
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 617
Likes (Received): 1493

Quote:
Originally Posted by simval View Post
There is no risk of explosion and so no reason to build it to resist to one.
I agree with everything you said, but Suburbanist and I were talking about the idea of having a NSC-like structure around a working reactor, thus subject to a (low but existing) risk of explosion. But as you said, today the Chernobyl reactor is under no threat of explosion, so there is no need for the NSC to be designed to withstand one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by simval View Post
Nuclear reactors cannot cause a nuclear explosion.
True, I mispoke. But they can cause a critical excursion, which can lead to a very powerful explosion (e.g. second Chernobyl explosion).
__________________

Suburbanist liked this post
Beber no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2014, 08:24 PM   #255
Beber
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 617
Likes (Received): 1493

Update from ChNPP.

Progress on west first section: 87.48% (+0.05%)
Progress on east section: 92.77% (-1.23%)


(link to album)
__________________

Perennial Quest liked this post
Beber no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2014, 10:05 PM   #256
Beber
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 617
Likes (Received): 1493

From Gary Smith (available in HD on Flickr).

image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr
__________________

Suburbanist liked this post
Beber no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2014, 11:13 PM   #257
ThatOneGuy
Psst! Check my signature!
 
ThatOneGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Toronto - Bucharest - Freeport
Posts: 21,481

The scene with crumbling apartment blocks overgrown with trees is surprisingly beautiful.
__________________

Andre_idol liked this post
ThatOneGuy está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old March 24th, 2014, 02:19 AM   #258
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,414
Likes (Received): 21025

Why don't they destroy the rest of the buildings in Pyripat.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old March 24th, 2014, 03:07 AM   #259
ThatOneGuy
Psst! Check my signature!
 
ThatOneGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Toronto - Bucharest - Freeport
Posts: 21,481

Because the city is legendary. And it would be pointless and expensive.
ThatOneGuy está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old March 28th, 2014, 04:48 PM   #260
Beber
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 617
Likes (Received): 1493

Update from ChNPP.

Progress on west first section: 77.46%
Progress on east section: 92.77%


(link to album)
__________________

Perennial Quest, InK.fan liked this post
Beber no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
chernobyl, ukraine

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 11:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu