Belarus goes nuclear!

[Che Guava]

Sick of gas? try uranium!

Belarus to 'build nuclear plant'

Belarussian President Alexander Lukashenko says his country needs to build a nuclear power station.

The creation of a domestic nuclear energy source was essential to guarantee "national security", Interfax news quoted Mr Lukashenko as saying.

Work on the reactor would start in 2008, he said. It is expected to be ready in four to eight years.

Belarus relies heavily on Russian gas for its energy, and rows over payments have prompted threats of supply cuts.

"Unfortunately, energy has been turned from a purely economic issue into a political one, into a factor affecting relations with other countries and with organisations," Mr Lukashenko was quoted as saying.

Belarus' nuclear plant is expected to cost up to $2.8bn (£1.4bn) to build, with much of the money being raised through external borrowing.

Mr Lukashenko has enjoyed closer relations with Moscow than the leaders of other post-Soviet states such as Ukraine and Georgia - both of which also rely heavily on Russian gas.

All three countries have accused Russia of using its monopoly of energy supplies as a political tool.

Moscow denies the charge, arguing it has had to raise gas prices because subsidies granted during the Soviet era are being phased out.

link

Now.....given Mr Lukashenko's authoritarian leanings, his penchant for human rights violations, his heavy-handedness with journalists and activists, close ties with Russia and Syria and his newfound love for nuclear power...is anyone worried about a country like Belarus developing nuclear arms?

Spoiler :

Captain Obvious, Che's tiny sidekick, wishes to tell all loyal CFCer's that YES: this is more a thread about Iran than Belarus. We both just want to know if those that are worried about Iran's nuclear ambitions are just as worried about White Russia....

he also want to let you know that of course Belarus has never tried to hide anything from nuclear inspectors....yet....

 

[Lotus49]

Well, it's only natural that now they're also going to need an extensive missile defense system for the nuclear power plant(s), in the name of national security.

Knock-knock-knockin' on Heaven's Russia's door... mmmmyeah!

 

[Masquerouge]

Icing on the cake, Belarus was in possession of 80ish nuclear warheads right after the Soviet Union collapsed. They handed all of them back to Russia... OR SO THEY SAY!

 

[Bill3000]

Well, it's not like Belarus can be invaded...

 

[ParkCungHee]

Well, it's not like Belarus can be invaded...

You forgot Poland!

 

[Irish Caesar]

Where are they getting the uranium?

 

[Yuri2356]

Heavens, Che, are you honestly insinuating that this man:



Is in any way the sort who's devellop, or worse yet abuse the power of the atom?

He should crush you for the sheer audacity of this claim!

 

[Lotus49]

Where are they getting the uranium?

I thought getting uranium was about as tough as trading on world commodity exchanges. It's your field - you tell us about the restrictions, etc.

 

[Irish Caesar]

Well, the biggest concern about Iran's program isn't that they're getting a power plant, but that they're enriching their own uranium. So Iran could make weapons-grade uranium if it so chooses.

If Belarus purchases reactor-grade uranium and has no enrichment capabilities, that's rather different from Iran enriching its own. Granted, any power reactor will produce plutonium, but if Belarus has a power plant with no enriching or reprocessing capabilities, that would be a huge reason why there's public outcry over Iran and none over Belarus.

So before I can really comment on whether to , I think it would be necessary to know where the uranium is coming from, if it's enriched, and what sorts of capabilities Belarus will have to get the plutonium from the spent fuel.

Of course, I've already stated in other threads that Iran building a bomb isn't really the worst thing ever anyway.

 

[Tee Kay]

One would think Belarus learned some lessons from Chernobyl. A quarter of its land is now seriously contaminated because of it.

 

[Lotus49]

Um, in this era where the fundamental technology has been around for several generations, any half-way significant nation that wants to go nuclear is going to be able to - provided they invest enough natiional resources into the facilities & infrastructure. The materials -as I say- you can buy on the world market. Uranium trades right along with oil, gas, corn, etc. (not to mention if you just dig up & filter enough earth, you're gonna acquire it eventually). Then you need the technology (preferably latest, or something close), the personnel, and the funds to build the facilities. You know all this, I'm sure (as it happens to be your field, seemingly). So point being, almost any nation could do it, if they wanted to bend over backwards enough (i.e. is the return worth the investment). Nuclear weapons proliferation is strongly frowned upon by the powers that be... especially when you're talking about psychotic Iranian leadership giving lip service. In this case w/ Belarus, it's not the same situation. But of course, somone was gonna go there.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

One would think Belarus learned some lessons from Chernobyl. A quarter of its land is now seriously contaminated because of it.

Nuclear Power=healthier and safer than fossil fuels.

 

[Lotus49]

One would think Belarus learned some lessons from Chernobyl. A quarter of its land is now seriously contaminated because of it.

Why don't you ask Irish Caesar about the details of modern, current generation nuke powerplant specs, and he can explain why a MELTDOWN<!> is no longer in the cards, with these facilities. Or you can read Popular Science, etc.

Essentially the fissionable material is contained in small amounts, each 'pellet' being totally encased in this carbon shell stuff... and the heat still comes through, while the radiation is contained as they occupy the collant liquid chamber. Thus you still get the steam, yet no more nasty nuclear waste (hardly), since the water is not irradiated. And as for the MELTDOWN<!> scenario, with these modern designs, it just can't happen.

But, go try to tell all this to the ignorant masses.

 

[Irish Caesar]

Um, in this era where the fundamental technology has been around for several generations, any half-way significant nation that wants to go nuclear is going to be able to - provided they invest enough natiional resources into the facilities & infrastructure. The materials -as I say- you can buy on the world market. Uranium trades right along with oil, gas, corn, etc. (not to mention if you just dig up & filter enough earth, you're gonna acquire it eventually). Then you need the technology (preferably latest, or something close), the personnel, and the funds to build the facilities. You know all this, I'm sure (as it happens to be your field, seemingly). So point being, almost any nation could do it, if they wanted to bend over backwards enough (i.e. is the return worth the investment). Nuclear weapons proliferation is strongly frowned upon by the powers that be... especially when you're talking about psychotic Iranian leadership giving lip service. In this case w/ Belarus, it's not the same situation. But of course, somone was gonna go there.

Well, the article says that the plant will be up and running in five to nine years; I would think that Belarus must either have some enrichment capabilities in place or a source of enriched uranium. As they are doing this for greater energy independence, I would assume they probably want some enrichment capability for themselves, which they are, of course, entitled to.

I don't have a problem with Belarus going nuclear; as far as I know, they don't have a track record for flipping off the IAEA.

Merely saying that I think the biggest problem with Iran's programs is that they have refused any deals for enriched uranium; Iran wants to do it itself. And that scares people because Iran wanting a nuclear weapon is at the front of many people's minds. Belarus... ? Not at the front of people's minds.

Why don't you ask Irish Caesar about the details of modern, current generation nuke powerplant specs, and he can explain why a MELTDOWN<!> is no longer in the cards, with these facilities. Or you can read Popular Science, etc.

Lots of pressure on me now!

I'm not an expert on the subject by any means, but I'm kinda betting my career that this stuff works.

Essentially the fissionable material is contained in small amounts, each 'pellet' being totally encased in this carbon shell stuff... and the heat still comes through, while the radiation is contained as they occupy the collant liquid chamber. Thus you still get the steam, yet no more nasty nuclear waste (hardly), since the water is not irradiated. And as for the MELTDOWN<!> scenario, with these modern designs, it just can't happen.

But, go try to tell all this to the ignorant masses.

There are quite a few different designs in place or in development now, so I'm not sure if the one you're describing is, in fact, what Belarus will be using... but yes, any modern plant has minimal risk of meltdown. There will still be radioactive waste; there's no way around that--but we're not going to see anything like Chernobyl with a new plant.

Chernobyl had a series of catastrophic failures that all combined: safety systems were easy to override, so operators turned some of them off in order to perform an experiement with the power generation. The safety systems that were left on were not adequate, so that when a problem occured, it was not able to be stopped in time. Finally, the containment building was horrible and got destroyed when the reactor exploded (sorry, not really a technical term, but you get the idea). Criminal charges were pressed. All of Chernobyl's design flaws were attributes of a particular Soviet reactor which will not be the one Belarus builds, obviously. All of Chernobyl's human errors were quite preventable and probably wouldn't happen again--but safety systems on new plants are much better than Chernobyl's, and I can't imagine the operator simply being able to shut off the coolant or control rods for any reason.

 

[Mountain-God]

Chernobyl had a series of catastrophic failures that all combined: safety systems were easy to override, so operators turned some of them off in order to perform an experiement with the power generation. The safety systems that were left on were not adequate, so that when a problem occured, it was not able to be stopped in time. Finally, the containment building was horrible and got destroyed when the reactor exploded (sorry, not really a technical term, but you get the idea). Criminal charges were pressed. All of Chernobyl's design flaws were attributes of a particular Soviet reactor which will not be the one Belarus builds, obviously. All of Chernobyl's human errors were quite preventable and probably wouldn't happen again--but safety systems on new plants are much better than Chernobyl's, and I can't imagine the operator simply being able to shut off the coolant or control rods for any reason.

While it seems technical safety is all good - the real issue I hear is cost - I understand it's an ongoing issue in the USA(probably elsewhere too), with numerous plants seeking, and obtaining, permits to operate far beyond their rated life-time.

All the new designs and safety requirements seem to have pushed their construction and operating costs so high, and consequent return so marginal, that their cost-effectiveness has become, similarly, marginal...

In New Zealand it's fashionable within some circles - mostly engineering students to suggest nuclear power and then enjoy the hue and cry resulting.

Even with the relatively low economies of scale in producing various 'alternative' energy facilities, watt for watt, they are (at least here) far cheaper than nuclear...

What nuclear is ehm is centralised and easily fits into the current power generation models.

that's what I'm thinking anyway

 

[Irish Caesar]

While it seems technical safety is all good - the real issue I hear is cost - I understand it's an ongoing issue in the USA(probably elsewhere too), with numerous plants seeking, and obtaining, permits to operate far beyond their rated life-time.

True; when the plants were built a long time ago, the expected lifetime was, I believe, 40 years. Plants are now filing to extend their lifetimes because it's a lot cheaper than building a new plant or reactor. Of course, if the thing is unsafe, the NRC won't let them run it.

All the new designs and safety requirements seem to have pushed their construction and operating costs so high, and consequent return so marginal, that their cost-effectiveness has become, similarly, marginal...

Well, I'm not sure about that; at least in the USA, plants are all different; new plants are more modular in design, which should cut down on the cost. Building four identical plants would be cheaper than building four entirely different ones.

On the other hand, operating expenses are far, far cheaper than oil or gas, and cheaper than coal as well. The price of uranium has climbed lately, though; I think part of that is a new interest in nuclear which is just now starting to recover after Chernobyl.

In New Zealand it's fashionable within some circles - mostly engineering students to suggest nuclear power and then enjoy the hue and cry resulting.

Even with the relatively low economies of scale in producing various 'alternative' energy facilities, watt for watt, they are (at least here) far cheaper than nuclear...

What nuclear is ehm is centralised and easily fits into the current power generation models.

that's what I'm thinking anyway

I don't disagree; I think that ideally, the world will be entirely solar. But to put well over 1 GW on the grid with a single plant, well, that goes a long way in satiating demand, which fossil fuels don't do as cleanly and alternatives don't do as space-effectively yet.

But New Zealand is a "nuclear-free" zone, is it not?

 

[Lotus49]

Solar is indeed the ideal, IMO... but put the panels in space, naturally. Then beam the energy down to Earth. The standard 'microwave powerplant' in SimCity, for example. Of course, it would be a no-fly zone - and located in some remote place.

But yeah, the Sun puts out more energy in one second than all of humanity has produced/used in their entire history. It makes little sense to beat out heads against the wall using dead dinosaur goo, or harvesting uranium and concentrating it to make steam, when there's a plethora of energy right up there coming down at us from the Sun.

Geothermal is also a good source, IMO. And of course hydro, wind, etc. But nothing tops the Sun. It stays there, burning 24/7, giving off tremendous energy for free.

 

[Irish Caesar]

Geothermal is good, hydro can be practical simply for being a dam, but wind is ugly and should not be part of the ideal final energy picture.

 

[ParkCungHee]

But New Zealand is a "nuclear-free" zone, is it not?

Nuclear Free Zones still allow for nuclear power plants. The first, and most stable, nuclear free zone is the Latin American and Carribean zone, but Brazil and Argentina both run multiple nuclear facilities.

 

[Winner]

Time to invade Belarus. Let's see how Russians react.