Russia's nuclear ambitions were on full display at "AtomExpo"—a three-day festival of international nuclear technology and conversation hosted by Rosatom, Russia's state-owned nuclear company, this past June in Moscow. Whether it was Fukushima's plant manager describing those first critical moments during the tsunami and the new thinking on "extreme" natural events or the myriad branches of the Rosatom empire showing off their wares at their slick booths, the message was clear: When it comes to nuclear, Russia is open for business.

The disastrous legacy of Chernobyl in Ukraine, where a Soviet-built reactor spectacularly blew up in 1986, is something of a PR problem, however. When Russia expressed interest in supplying the U.K. with 12 new reactors earlier this year, "immediately there appeared some articles with the headline 'Do you want another Chernobyl?' Sergei Novikov, Rosatom's spokesman, told me. "The phantoms of the Soviet period appear immediately."

Rosatom, though, is trying to spin the Chernobyl nightmare into a selling point: Who better to understand nuclear safety than the people who lived through the worst?

One of the biggest safety lessons of Chernobyl for Russian technology is a structure called a "core-catcher"—a steel vessel, water-cooled, built directly under a reactor to catch the molten reactor core in case of meltdown. The technology had been explored for years globally but had yet to be considered standard until Russia began adopting it after Chernobyl. In fact, physicist Leonid Bolshov, the man responsible for that design in those early days, has now become a leading Russian expert on nuclear safety. He is director of the Russian Academy of Sciences Nuclear Safety Institute, which he set up after Chernobyl heralding the beginning of Russia's cooperation with other countries on nuclear safety. His role at the time was considered so important after Chernobyl that he was issued one the few external fax lines in the Soviet Union so that he could communicate with other experts abroad.

Before the meltdown in 1986 Bolshov would have been an unlikely hero. A theoretical physicist with no prior nuclear experience, Bolshov didn't get the call for help until the Chernobyl reactor had already been melting down for five days. The challenge was to stop the hot core from potentially seeping into the ground or—worse—30 meters lower to water table, where radiation could potentially reach the Ukrainian capital Kiev and the Black Sea. "It was sort of a nightmare," Bolshov says.

"There was that Hollywood blockbuster called the China Syndrome and this same problem was exactly what we were trying to answer those first days in May," he recounted in his Moscow office earlier this year. "The Politburo was demanding a 100 percent guarantee of 'mitigation efficiency,' assuming that the fuel was inside, not outside the reactor, and calling for no further leaks into the air or earth. But this is contradictory," Bolshov says. "If you cover the source of the heat you decrease the cooling."

Two weeks of desperate chalkboard trial and error followed, as workers at the site were taking desperate and sometimes unsuccessful measures such as injecting liquid nitrogen into the soil to freeze it. Meanwhile, back in Moscow Bolshov and his team tried to calculate how fast the uranium dioxide fuel would melt compared with how fast they could carry away heat with some kind of coolant carried in pipes. But they had to figure out how to lay the pipes under a smoldering reactor. It was impossible to drill the soil under the reactor and pack the pipes densely enough to cool the melting fuel. What they needed were miners to install the pipes properly, but they also needed something to lower the temperature at the first moment the melting fuel touched the pipes, something with a high thermo-conductivity. The best candidate was graphite. But they would require vast amounts of this material.

18 Comments

1. 1. SigmaEyes 08:15 PM 9/18/12

   Scary stuff to my mind.
   
   I thought the new reactors touted by other commenter's here were supposed to be melt-down proof by design. Apparently new designs anticipate core melt-downs, and hope to minimize the resulting catastrophes, not to prevent them, or design them out.
   
   My idea to prevent nuclear meltdowns is simplistic. Stop building new commercial reactors, and leave nuclear technology to the realm of engineers and scientists.
   
   The free market will always provoke cost saving measures which will inevitably create a dynamic and non-homogeneous balance of risk and reward. The public will be generally unaware and unprepared for the tragic consequences as that balance shifts under concealment.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. James Aach 12:38 AM 9/19/12

   I believe we'll make better decisions about our energy future if we first understand our energy present. So as a longtime engineer in the nuclear industry, I wrote a lay person's guide to the inner workings of atomic reactors, and to keep it from being boring it is a thriller novel. "Rad Decision" is free online - just google the title or go to my website. (No sponsors or ads.) It includes an extensive description of the Chernobyl event linked from the homepage, providing the reader with some insight not only about the design flaws, but also the multiple human mistakes that went into the catastrophe. (An event not unlike Fukushima is also portrayed.) I've had many readers at the website, and the comments there have been overwhelmingly positive.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. Joel454 12:39 AM 9/19/12

   The cost of one Chernobyl type disaster, and the immense amount of time nuclear waste must be stored make nukes far to costly.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. jgrosay 03:19 PM 9/19/12

   Building something called "core catcher" cooled by any means they want to use for the purpose may be not be fully in the condition of blocking something like the Tchernobyl "accident" to happen, in it the main cooling system of the reactor was disconnected, then another backup cooling system, and finally, an automatic safety lock that impeded the reactor output being raised above a certain safety limit under no guaranteed cooling conditions was also deliberately disconnected, just before putting the reactor in a top activity level, obviously, soon all alarms started loudly warning, signaling the overheating of reactor's core; when the control bars were send down, as in the first moments of the bars entering the uranium reactor core, an increase in chain reactions comes from a secondary increase in the amount of the neutrons that trigger the fission reactions, the reactor just blow away. You can build redundant safety systems to avoid the consequences of, one, two, several mechanical or electronic systems failures, but no man-made device, machine, structure or building would resist an intentional attack by a rational being intended to destroy or damage it. Beware of the dog!

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. sethdayal 03:45 PM 9/19/12

   Actually Chernobyl was a Soviet nuke weapons plutonium production facility destroyed in a weapons grade plutonium extraction experiment. Like the similar unit at Hanford neither had anything to do with civilian nuke power other then as a disguise.
   
   There has never been anybody killed in a nuclear power related accident in its entire history. Safest form of power there is. Far safer than solar and wind which have killed hundreds in accidents and ten's of thousands from air pollution from their low efficiency gas backup run inefficiently.
   
   Actually the accident in Japan in a 1950's designed reactor,impossible in a modern unit, and caused by corruption shows that even in a worst case event nuclear retains the safest title - there were no fatalities at all. With radioactivity levels in the area all lower than you'd get on a Brazilian beach vacation, all long term damage outside the plant was caused by the tens of thousands of tons of massive deadly forever toxic chemical and asbestos releases from Big Oil facilities in the area. A 70's designed nuke plant suffering a larger earthquake shake and tsunami just down the beach from FUKU was undamaged.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. dwbd in reply to SigmaEyes 08:37 PM 9/19/12

   "...prevent nuclear meltdowns is simplistic. Stop building new commercial reactors.."
   
   Yep, simplistic worthy of a Simple Simon. Your idea is to condemn billions of people to a horrid death of energy starvation, food shortages, water shortages, brutal Oil wars, water wars, migrating masses of billions of starving people with nothing to lose who will kill, steal, burn, eat every living thing, plant or animal to survive. Your idea is about the worst most destructive and cruel idea imaginable: worldwide mass genocide. You make Hitler and Stalin proud.
   
   Whereas, myself, I have a much simpler idea, build the Molten Salt reactor, the fuel is already molten, MELTDOWN PROOF. Here's a guy who wants to actually heal the environment and save billions of people from a horrible death, you might want to learn to have a little compassion for others rather than trying to kill them by forcing obedience to your Greenie Religion.
   
   www.thoriumenergycheaperthancoal.com/

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

7. 7. dwbd in reply to jgrosay 08:52 PM 9/19/12

   "..no man-made device, machine, structure or building would resist an intentional attack by a rational being.."
   
   Actually that is quite easy to do, thankfully, they do that for instance with Nuclear weapons. The problem was the mindless Soviet bureaucracy had a philosophy of NEGATIVE Safety culture. Yep, I said negative, they actually had a program of stifling good safety practices. So Chernobyl was trivially easy to avoid. As-a-matter-of-fact, if you replaced all 104 USA Nuclear reactors today with the Chernobyl RMBK's in the state one day before the Chernobyl explosion, abolished the NRC, removed all government safety inspections you would not have one serious nuclear incident for probably 50 yrs or more IF you added ONE IMPORTANT safety feature: that is standard, modern INDUSTRIAL SAFETY CULTURE. You don't get to do crazy experiments, any procedure must submitted to the safety dept for approval. It will be analyzed in detail. Safe Work Procedures will be developed and a Safety Task Analysis will be done for all jobs. Anyone for any reason feels the job is unsafe they are entitled to immediately refuse the job, a refusal that will immediately lead to a detailed procedure analysis, and the job will not be undertaken unless EVERYONE involved agrees that the job can be done safely. Any cowboys are not welcome and will not last long in modern industrial safety culture. If a foreman is brash and authorizes or endorses an unsafe act, not only will he be fired, he may be fined and jailed.
   
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

8. 8. SigmaEyes in reply to sethdayal 09:33 PM 9/19/12

   Face it; The world professes Chernobyl as a nuclear catastrophe that resulted in a disaster, by the normal definitions of the terms. By the definitions of "catastrophe" and "disaster" nuclear cannot and will not be proclaimed "safe" in my lifetime or yours, in any official capacity, outside of the zealots and radicals.
   
   The fact that you hide behind is that no matter how many thousands, or millions, for that matter, die of cancer, no person can establish "it was this isotope that killed that person," or "it was that particle that killed this person. By your definitions, only exposures equivalent to radiation exposure from nuclear bomb detonations can be accepted as causal. Most commercial reactors are located along rivers that have measurable amounts of radiation downstream that were not known to exist prior to operation and less than any measured results, if any, upstream. It leaks. Period. The operators that helped to control the damage in Japan were declared heroes and many, if not most, are expected to have terrible health consequences as a direct result. Will you count their deaths? Cancer from asbestos takes 40 years to manifest; do you accept that causal link? (it has been established in court). If Bechtel lost a worker from a fall during construction of a power plant, do you reject counting that death?
   
   And really!! "Japan got less radiation than you would get on a Brazilian beach."?? That would be laughable if not for the crisis that their disaster caused for thousands of people. Japan evacuated for a 10 mile radius, then expanded it. USA evacuated Americans there to a 50 mile radius. Do you think we are calling for the Brazilian beaches to be evacuated to 10/20/30/50 miles inland?? That land in Japan is now declared un-inhabitable. Yea, blame it on the tsunami washing unrelated toxins, not on the radiation contamination. Its a shame they couldn't dodge the blame like that when land around Chernobyl was declared un-inhabitable. The ground, plants, and animals are contaminated along with millions of gallons of seawater released back into the oceans.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

9. 9. SigmaEyes in reply to dwbd 09:53 PM 9/19/12

   Well, you seem to read more into my comment than what I said. Just because we stopped building nukes in the 90's, did not mean we stopped adding production or capacity. Or for that matter that we failed to upgrade existing nukes. I did not call for a cap on production. That was your misinformed or exaggerated take on my comment.
   
   Do you really suggest that I am calling for, " billions of people to a horrid death of energy starvation, food shortages, water shortages, brutal Oil wars, water wars, migrating masses of billions of starving people with nothing to lose who will kill, steal, burn, eat every living thing, plant or animal to survive."?? Ooooohhhh the horrors of not placing new nukes on geological faults in high population zones!! All the world's problems will be because I said, "no" to big money!
   
   Your response would be ridiculous if not for the end of your comment, in which you accuse me of attempted killing. I am offended. You need to recant your accusation.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

10. 10. dwbd in reply to SigmaEyes 10:22 PM 9/19/12

    Yeah, just explain to us a realistic plan to supply the World's energy = the World's food = the World's water & shelter & all the freed up resources that allow a human social safety net: a legal system, health care, pensions, education, national defense. Show us how you are gonna supply that energy without nuclear, in the face of Peak Oil, and GHG emissions - or are you a denier?

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

11. 11. SigmaEyes in reply to dwbd 12:18 PM 9/20/12

    Accusing me of attempted killing is defamatory. Attempted murder is a crime. Accusing me publicly, such as I feel you have done, can well be construed as slanderous. I take it you stand firm on your contention? I am demanding a sincere appology, or you must have some proof or evidence of what you have accused me of.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

12. 12. hartson 02:51 PM 9/20/12

    As a former quality Control Nuclear inspector, I think this flirtation with the most dangerous form of stream is insanity. All nuclear power plants are inherently dangerous. The Crop of power plants I worked in are WAY PAST the time they should have been shut down.But, they are still running. Fukushima is strike two. What will it take? Indian Point destroying the North East from New York City to Canada?

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

13. 13. SigmaEyes in reply to hartson 04:42 PM 9/20/12

    I agree, Hartson. Since your ties to the industry have been severed, you can speak more freely than someone who is currently invested. And as a former QA Inspector, you can speak with some authority and knowledge of the sites you served at.
    
    There is no good way to shut down old nuke power plants, with out large sums of money. Companies who operate them are required to pay into a fund to prepare for decommissioning, but the funds are always a fraction of what is required. Taxpayers and rate payers are on the hook. The electricity that is supposed to be so cheap, had all these costs not factored into the supposedly "cheap" price of generation. They quote "the cost of Generation," (cost to the producing company) as being cheap, but its the high cost to the consumers and taxpayers (retail price) that is neglected by those advocates.
    
    Rather than repeatedly reissuing renewed 20 year operating licenses to avoid decommissioning expenses, I have agreed that reconstruction with new designs may be a potential solution that is cost effective, while admittedly still kicking the can of the build-up of stored nuke waste down the road, still further. Not an ideal solution, but it seems a reasonable possibility to explore, to me.
    
    But outside of reconstruction of existing facilities, the industry has not provided the benefits claimed, or managed to secure the public trust they stomped on from the commencement of the industry. So why build more?
    
    The demand for electricity continues to increase, I believe around 5% per year in the USA. While Obama has scaled up the development of renewable production, it is no where close to covering the increased demand, much less replace current production facilities.
    
    A company such as BP was touting the billion dollar investment they made in solar PV a couple of years ago. Compared to the revenues and profits of this global organization, a billion is equivalent to pocket change to most of us. It would be as if you made $50k/yr and invested five hundred dollars. It was more like good advertising fodder rather than a significant investment in expansion to new technologies. And, at that time, they were the largest investment in PV solar of any private energy company.
    
    Of course solar is not the only renewable, but it demonstrates the example of the scale of the endeavor. Ending coal and nukes is not immediately possible today. We are going to have both in the USA for some time. But we can work on moving to a point where it is a possibility.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

14. 14. Dr. Strangelove 01:34 AM 9/21/12

    What did the Russians learn from Chernobyl? More died in car accidents yesterday. More got struck by lightning in US since 2006. More premature deaths in China yesterday due to coal plants pollution. This is the worst nuclear disaster in history.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

15. 15. jgrosay in reply to sethdayal 08:45 AM 9/21/12

    Sorry, it seems some of the firemen that first came to Tchernobyl actually died because of radiation sickness, don't know what happened in the long time hidden British nuclear plant incident depicted in the movie "O lucky man", I'm not sure if nobody that came to the Fukushima plant in the first days escaped without harm, and I'm also aware of an incident in a nuclear laboratory in France, where by a mistake two blocks of a fissionable material where put together, approaching the critical mass; when the air close to the blocks started to glow blue, indicating a heavy ionization and the chain reaction going on, a scientist from the facility entered the experiment room and put apart the two blocks with his hands, thus granting him a sure death by radiation sickness, but he blocked a catastrophic explosive event. I'm also aware of a worker that past some decades in the top radiation level zone of a commercial electrical nuclear plant that developed a myelodysplastic syndrome, his outcome remains unknown to me, and I know for sure that some employees in companies connected to nuclear business seem misinformed about some nuclear risks, apparently with a bias towards a reduced perceived risk.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

16. 16. bucketofsquid 04:54 PM 9/25/12

    I've been told that Thorium reactors can't melt down because Thorium isn't radioactive enough to hit critical mass. It thus can't be used to make bombs. Thorium reactors are supposed to be cheaper to build and run and produce just as much electricity as the more dangerous kind. Thorium waste is less radioactive and becomes safe much faster (not sure if that means years or millennia).
    
    All things being accurate, if they are, why are we not switching to Thorium power plants? Wind and solar are not even close to being reliable and the power storage needed to make them so is still years to decades away.
    
    

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

17. 17. bucketofsquid 04:58 PM 9/25/12

    Someone on this forum mentioned deaths involved in wind and solar power. I'm only aware of a handful and have not seen a comparison between power sources as a percentage of workers involved, except one where a single death in solar production skewed the percentage to being more dangerous than coal. One death hardly counts as a reliable trend. Anyone have any actual current facts to work with?

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

18. 18. gunt 05:18 PM 9/25/12

    Here we go again – back to the good old times with pressurized water reactors, with Uranium 235 as fuel, with the necessary Uranium 235 enrichment facilities, with a one-way fuel cycle, with melt-downs which have to be prevented, and with all the problems of what to do with the waste.
    I always wonder why we still work with a nuclear technology of the past century.
    Why not invest in advanced technologies (the integral fast reactor, the thorium MSR, the pebble bed reactor) as a response to the ROSATOM guys.
    Unfortunately here in Germany we have given up on this and concentrate instead on off-shore windmill design, where the direct costs per kwh are three times higher compared with the latest EPR3 nuke in Finland (Olkiluoto)
    (add to this all the indirect costs like big grid extensions etc etc).

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this