Talk:New Safe Confinement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belarus, a project to improve all Belarus-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Belarus-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Belarus To-do:
Ukraine Portal
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

This article really needs more recent sources, I have contacted the EBRD and NRC for more information, and neither group has been particularly helpful, a person local to the area or involved in the design/construction/management of the new shelter would be able to provide the best current information. Even just a recent picture of the site around Unit 4 would shed a lot of light on what the SIP is actually doing there. --Matthew 20:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I have substantially expanded the technical aspects of this article, it still needs some pictures, editing, and current information. Perhaps I will have more time later this evening --Matthew 22:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Some pictures are added, as is more information about deconstruction. --Matthew 00:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I have mostly finished the article text, it needs to be edited and all of the links need to be fixed. --Matthew 01:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Fixed links, removing tag. Kendrick7 00:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I recently ran across this article regarding the progress in constructing the NSC- Perhaps it is of some use for the article?[1]LondonIce 14:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Utopia?

Do you think this shelter will ever be built? I am afraid the money will never be there for this ambitious project and the original sarcophagus will remain in place until it collapses some 20 years from now. Many dates mentioned in this article have already passed and not a bucket of mud has been moved yet. 195.70.32.136 10:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] end walls

accroding to the article both end walls will be in place before the structure is moved into its finial position. given this how exactly do they plan to put it over the reactor? Plugwash 19:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Google Earth?

Perhaps a more recent image from Google Earth would help show this place in perspective

--Psquare 06:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Nope, it is an interesting sight however: Link

[edit] Is it needed at all?

The article takes for granted the need to contain Unit 4 within some Confinement, old or new.

But there is opinions, that Shelter does not have any crytical amount of radioactive wastes. Original nuclear blast in bottom part of reactor had vapored and through out most of the reactor, hence only about 10%-20% remains inside.

http://www.lebed.com/2006/art4566.htm In this article a person, participated in managing the Disaster's consequences, tells that the best confinement would be just huge pile of sound, original Shelter wa build only to continue operating of remainging 3 reactors (and was more expensive than building a brand new power plant), same is about new Confinement, which has more sense as financial help to the Ukrainian science, than optimal way to safety. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.249.152.137 (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

Yes, it is needed. This confinement isn't just a confinement, it is also a set of cranes that will be used to deconstruct and decontaminate the old shelter. And just in case something goes wrong (as in, unplanned amounts of radiation are discovered), the confinement is there to stop it. — Alex(T|C|E) 07:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Providing one needs to deconstruct all the Unit 4 and take out all the fuel lava from it. But how reliable is opinion that 90% of fuel stayed within the reactor unit and that nuclear blast thrashed the reactor into the basement, not into the air ? Also i was surprised to see comment from Zappa there - http://www.spaceman.ca/gallery/chernobyl/fruin10m - it is not directly about SNC itself, but rather raises question if SNC is more techical or more financial project
There never was a nuclear blast, and a reactor unit isn't exactly something that would just vanish even if an explosion was powerful enough to actually send it flying any significant distance(though an explosion powerful enough to send something so large and heavy flying would more than likely pretty much disintegrate most anything nearby. RealSunner 12:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)RealSunner
Yes, it is needed very badly. The initial Sarcophagus is very unstable and with the ageing of the structure, there is an extreme risk of the entire structure collapsing and hurling hundreds of tons of very radioactive dust into the atmosphere. The new shelter will supply a containment for decontamination purposes, and much more importantly, it will supply three extremely versatile cranes to support the unstable structure as it is deconstructed.--Dio1982 13:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of the term "Design Basis Accident"

The term Design Basis Accident is used by the US NRC, however I do not believe that the Soviet Regulatory authority used this term or the concept of a DBA. Is the term "Design Basis Accident" appropriate in this context?Jkrellenstein 01:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. We should at least explain specifically what it means, if we do retain it. —BurnDownBabylon 23:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Repairing has started says russian newspaper

http://en.rian.ru/world/20080304/100599299.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tronza (talk • contribs) 12:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)