SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
chernobyl
Nuclear Disaster Threat Posed by War in Sharp Relief 40 Years After Chernobyl
"Nuclear power stations have inherent risks," said an official at Greenpeace Ukraine. "In a world at war, with massive geopolitical tension and climate extremes, those risks are increasing."
Apr 27, 2026
The continuing conflict between Russia and Ukraine is once again raising concerns about a nucelar disaster in the region on the 40th anniversary of the catastrophic accident at the Chernobyl power plant.
Reuters reported on Monday that a Ukrainian drone the struck a transport department at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, which has been under Russian control since March 2022, shortly after its armed forces invaded Ukraine.
The Russian government said that an employee at the Zaporizhzhia plant was killed in the attack, and International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi reiterated in a social media post that "strikes on or near [nuclear power plants] can endanger nuclear safety and must not take place."
Russia has also engaged in dangerous attacks around nuclear power infrastructure over the last four years, and a report released this month by Greenpeace Ukraine found that the New Safe Confinement (NSC) at Chernobyl, which contains the ruins of the plant's reactor unit 4, was significantly compromised after being struck by a high-explosive warhead from a Russian drone last year.
"The Russian drone strike... destroyed the main functions of the [NSC]," the report states. "The impact of the drone on the northwest side of the NSC caused an opening... which penetrated both the outside and inside arch shells. Critical structural elements of the NSC have been deformed and damaged including the Main Crane System, making their load-bearing capability impossible to assess."
The drone strike also burned the membrane layer inside the NSC, which has taken out the ability to control humidity at the site and could lead to accelerated corrosion of the NSC's steel components.
"The NSC was designed to last 100 years on the basis that its low humidity control was maintained," notes the report. "Accelerated corrosion may reduce the 100-year design life of the structure if humidity control is not restored by 2030."
Greenpeace Ukraine nuclear expert Shaun Burnie described the damage done to the NSC as "a Russian-made war crime," and lamented it will mean "years of repairs and further delays before the sarcophagus can be safely dismantled."
Polina Kolodiazhna, senior campaigner from Greenpeace Ukraine, said on Sunday that Russia's invasion of Ukraine had added new urgency for her country to end its dependence on nuclear power given the massive environmental and human risks.
"Nuclear power stations have inherent risks, and those risks are escalating," Kolodiazhna said. "Russia, for the first time in the history of warfare, has systematically attacked and occupied nuclear plants, showing how they can be used as military and political tools. In a world at war, with massive geopolitical tension and climate extremes, those risks are increasing."
Keep ReadingShow Less
New Worries at Chernobyl After IAEA Finds Radiation Shield Has 'Lost Primary Safety Functions'
"Timely and comprehensive restoration remains essential to prevent further degradation and ensure long-term nuclear safety," said IAEA director general Rafael Mariano Grossi.
Dec 08, 2025
A protective shield built over the remains of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine is no longer capable of blocking radiation, the International Atomic Energy Agency warned late last week.
In a statement published on Friday, the IAEA said that its researchers have confirmed that the New Safe Confinement (NSC) shield has "lost its primary safety functions," including the ability to confine radiation, after it was damaged by a Russian drone strike in February.
On the positive side, the researchers found "no permanent damage" to the system's load-bearing structures and monitoring systems. Nonetheless, IAEA director general Rafael Mariano Grossi said that urgent work needed to be done to rebuild the shield.
"Limited temporary repairs have been carried out on the roof, but timely and comprehensive restoration remains essential to prevent further degradation and ensure long-term nuclear safety," he emphasized.
Grossi noted that IAEA had a permanent team working at the site and vowed that the agency "will continue to do everything it can to support efforts to fully restore nuclear safety and security at the Chernobyl site."
Shaun Burnie, a senior nuclear specialist at Greenpeace, told the New York Times that the damage caused to the NSC isn't cause for immediate concern, although that would change if the damage to the shield went without repairs for a long period of time.
"If there was to be some event inside the shelter that would release radioactive materials into the space inside the New Safe Confinement, because this facility is no longer sealed to the outside environment, there’s the potential for radiation to come out," said Burnie. "I have to say I don’t think that’s a particularly serious issue at the moment, because they’re not actively decommissioning the actual sarcophagus."
The NSC was first put into place in 2016 to enclose the emergency sarcophagus over Chernobyl's number 4 nuclear reactor that was constructed by Soviet officials in the wake of the 1986 disaster at the nuclear plant.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Tensions in Ukraine Show Why 'Nuclear Power Is the Most Dangerous Way to Boil Water'
"Calling for a no-fire zone around Zaporizhzhia is not enough," said Beyond Nuclear. "We must call for no nuclear power at all."
Jul 06, 2023
With Ukrainian and Russian officials trading accusations about a possible looming attack on Europe's largest nuclear power plant this week, global experts and campaigners are sharing fresh concerns about the facility and the energy source more broadly.
Russian forces invaded Ukraine in February 2022 and took control of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) the following month. Since then, fighting near the facility—with six reactors that are currently shut down—has generated fears around the world and controversial references to the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, the site of which is located in present-day Ukraine.
In recent days, an adviser to Russia's nuclear agency has claimed Ukraine will imminently cause a nuclear disaster at the ZNPP while Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has warned of a potential false flag operation, claiming that "the Russian military has placed objects resembling explosives on the roof of several power units."
While International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) experts at the facility have so far not observed any visible indications of mines or explosives, the new accusations led the United Nations watchdog on Wednesday to request additional access—specifically to the rooftops of two reactors along with parts of the turbine halls and cooling system.
"With military tension and activities increasing in the region where this major nuclear power plant is located, our experts must be able to verify the facts on the ground," said IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi. "Their independent and objective reporting would help clarify the current situation at the site, which is crucial at a time like this with unconfirmed allegations and counterallegations."
"In a time of national crises in multiple countries, increasing natural disasters, and a worsening climate emergency, nuclear power is demonstrating that it is a liability rather than an asset."
The U.S.-based group Beyond Nuclear noted in a lengthy statement Thursday that "Zaporizhzhia is in the news now almost every day. The propaganda may be deliberately alarmist, but the basis for the alarm is very real or it would not be the subject matter for headline-getting in the first place."
"The reason is simple. Nuclear power is the most dangerous way to boil water. It is unnecessary, expensive, and an obstacle to renewable energy development," the group argued. "It is time to see sense. Calling for a no-fire zone around Zaporizhzhia is not enough. We must call for no nuclear power at all."
Highlighting that Russia's invasion of Ukraine is far from the only threat to the world's nuclear facilities, the group added that "in a time of national crises in multiple countries, increasing natural disasters, and a worsening climate emergency, nuclear power is demonstrating that it is a liability rather than an asset."
Beyond Nuclear also weighed in on the intense debate among activists, Ukrainian and Russian officials, reporters, scientists, and others regarding the dangers of a nuclear disaster at the ZNPP, offering a list of unanswered questions:
- Has the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant in fact been wired for detonation and whose interests would be served by blowing up the plant?
- Why is there an exodus of both Russian and Ukrainian plant personnel?
- Will the sabotage of the downstream Kakhovka dam that resulted in catastrophic flooding also lead to an equally catastrophic loss of available cooling water supplies for the reactors and fuel pools?
- Will the backup diesel generators, frequently turned to for powering the essential cooling each time the plant has lost connection to the electricity grid, last through each crisis, given their fuel must also be replenished, potentially not possible under war conditions?
"None of these threats would make headlines if Zaporizhzhia was instead home to a wind farm or utility-scale solar array," asserted Beyond Nuclear. "This perhaps explains the rush now to downplay the gravity of the situation, with claims in the press that a major attack on the plant would 'not be as bad as Chernobyl' and that radioactive releases would be minimal and barely travel beyond the fence line. This is an irresponsible dismissal of the real dangers."
As the group detailed:
After the massive explosion at Chernobyl, the graphite moderator used in the reactor fueled the fire, with the smoke further lofting radioactive fallout far and wide. This has led to an assumption that major fires and explosions at Zaporizhzhia would result in less serious consequences since the reactor designs are not the same as Chernobyl's.
However, if the uranium fuel in the Zaporizhzhia reactors or irradiated fuel storage pools overheats and ignites, it could then heat up the zirconium cladding around it, which would ignite and burn fiercely as a flare at temperatures too hot to extinguish with water. The resulting chemical reaction would also generate an explosive environment. The heat of the release and detonation(s) could breach concrete structures, then loft radioactive gas and fallout into the environment to travel on the weather.
Fallout could contaminate crucial agricultural land, potentially indefinitely, and would include Russia, should prevailing winds travel eastward at the time of the disaster.
Some have suggested that an attack on the plant would not seriously threaten surrounding communities. The American Nuclear Society, for example, said Wednesday that "our experts have carefully considered 'worst-case scenarios,' including bombardment and deliberate sabotage of the reactors and spent fuel storage canisters. They cannot foresee a situation that would result in radiation-related health consequences to the public."
"ZNPP's six reactors have been shut down for over 10 months and are no longer making enough heat to cause a prompt radiological release," the society said. "ZNPP is designed to withstand natural and manmade hazards. Thick, steel-reinforced concrete containment buildings protect the reactor cores and are designed to keep any radioactive materials isolated from the environment."
"In the unlikely event that containment structures were breached, any potential release of radiological material would be restricted to the immediate area surrounding the reactors. In this regard, any comparison between ZNPP and 'Chernobyl' or 'Fukushima' is both inaccurate and misleading," the group added, referencing the 2011 disaster in Japan.
Matthew Bunn, the James R. Schlesinger professor of the practice of energy, national security, and foreign policy at Harvard Kennedy School, made the case at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists on Thursday that the biggest danger regarding the ZNPP is intentional sabotage.
"How serious is the risk of a major radioactive disaster?" Bunn wrote. "That depends on whether we're talking about an intentional or inadvertent radioactive release. If the Russian forces that control the site want to cause a major radiation release—and are willing to use explosives to do it—they could contaminate a huge area. Although the reactors have been largely shut down and cooling for months, they still contain a huge amount of intensely radioactive material that explosives could disperse."
He continued:
A couple of mines on the roof of a reactor would not be enough. Causing a big release would require some serious demolition with explosives. But that's what was needed to destroy Ukraine's Kakhovka dam—which it appears was done with explosives from within, while Russian forces controlled the site—so a similar operation at Zaporizhzhia can't be ruled out.
No one can accurately evaluate how big an area might be affected; the extent of contamination would depend on how the disaster was caused, how hard the wind was blowing, whether rain brought the radioactive material back to the ground, and more. But one could easily imagine that Russia might hope that such a release would interfere with Ukraine's counteroffensive, forcing some units to focus on evacuating people and cleaning up radioactive fallout rather than battling Russian forces.
By contrast, looking only at inadvertent damage, there are reasons to be optimistic. The Zaporizhzhia reactors are built with thick concrete containment structures, have been cooling for months, and have extra safety features installed after the Fukushima accident in Japan. It is very unlikely that a few stray shells from fighting in the area would cause any serious radioactive release.
Bunn concluded that "over the longer term, there's a need to rethink nuclear safety and security in the context of the possibility that nuclear facilities can be exposed to war, mass civil unrest, or governmental collapse. And there's a need for new agreements to reduce the chance that major civilian nuclear facilities under international inspection will again be targets of military assault."
Meanwhile, Beyond Nuclear charged that "if Zaporizhzhia comes to harm, each side in the conflict will likely hold the other responsible. But ultimately, the responsibility we all share is to reject the continued use of a technology that has the potential to wreak such disastrous consequences on humanity."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'A Meltdown Could Still Happen,' Experts Warn as Fighting Around Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Plant Intensifies
"The consequences not only for the people of Ukraine and neighboring Russia, but for all of Europe, should any or all of these reactors melt down or suffer a fuel pool fire are unimaginably dire."
May 11, 2023
Experts are warning ahead of an anticipated Ukrainian counteroffensive against invading Russian forces that continued fighting heightens the risk of a continent-wide calamity emanating from the occupied Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant—and necessitates immediate efforts to negotiate a ceasefire followed by a peace treaty to end the war.
Ukraine's state-owned atomic energy company, Energoatom, said Wednesday that Russia intends to relocate roughly 3,100 people from the city of Enerhodar—2,700 of whom work at the Zaporizhzhia plant in Russia-controlled southern Ukraine—and warned that such a move would lead to a "catastrophic lack of qualified personnel."
Since March 2022, Europe's largest nuclear facility has been held by Russian troops and operated by a mostly Ukrainian workforce, with periodic escalations in fighting around the plant resulting in repeated losses of offsite power that threaten to cause a disastrous meltdown.
The evacuation plan, which applies to roughly half of the plant's 6,000 employees, was prompted by fears of an imminent Ukrainian campaign to reclaim lost territory, including in Zaporizhzhia, one of four regions illegally annexed by Russia. It comes just days after a Moscow-installed official said that more than 1,600 civilians had been evacuated from areas near the plant.
As local civilian evacuations began last weekend amid intensified shelling, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) director-general Rafael Grossi expressed concerns about the "increasingly tense, stressful, and challenging conditions" faced by Zaporizhzhia plant staff and warned of an "increasingly unpredictable and potentially dangerous" situation unfolding.
"A major assault on Zaporizhzhia, or even a prolonged loss of power, could lead to a catastrophe that would dwarf the impact of Chernobyl."
The head of the United Nations' nuclear power watchdog, who has spent months trying to persuade Russian and Ukrainian officials to establish a demilitarized zone around the site, called for immediate action "to prevent the threat of a severe nuclear accident and its associated consequences for the population and the environment."
Although all six nuclear reactors at the Zaporizhzhia plant have been shut down since September, they still require a constant supply of electricity to keep spent nuclear fuel rods cool and prevent a meltdown of the kind that devastated Chernobyl, roughly 400 miles away, some 37 years ago.
On Monday, the Moscow-installed governor of the Russia-controlled part of Ukraine's Zaporizhzhia region reportedly suspended operations at the plant. According to The Associated Press, "Russians have laid minefields around the plant and built defensive positions."
In a Wednesday statement, Beyond Nuclear said that just because "all six Zaporizhzhia reactors are currently shut down... does not mean they are out of danger."
"The fuel in the reactor core still requires electricity to power cooling, as do the pumps that supply cooling water to the fuel pools," said the group's international specialist, Linda Pentz Gunter. "A meltdown is still possible. Putting the reactors in what is termed 'cold shutdown' just buys workers more time to restore power, but a reliable supply of electricity to the site is still essential to avoid disaster."
"It is time for the United States to step up efforts toward a negotiated peace agreement rather than helping to prolong a likely unwinnable war."
"The consequences not only for the people of Ukraine and neighboring Russia, but for all of Europe, should any or all of these reactors melt down or suffer a fuel pool fire are unimaginably dire," Gunter warned.
"We only have to look at the fallout map from the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, a single unit with a far smaller radioactive inventory, to understand the potential scale of such a tragedy," she added.
Experts have repeatedly sounded the alarm about the growing risk of a continental-scale catastrophe, noting that the Zaporizhzhia plant contains more radioactive waste than was present at Chernobyl when it exploded.
That nuclear accident in what is now Ukraine "contaminated 40% of the European landmass with long-lived radioactive fallout," Beyond Nuclear pointed out. The meltdown rendered an area of more than 1,000 square miles uninhabitable and caused the illnesses and deaths of potentially hundreds of thousands of people.
"A major assault on Zaporizhzhia, or even a prolonged loss of power, could lead to a catastrophe that would dwarf the impact of Chernobyl," said Gunter.
"Despite the seeming entrenchment from both Ukraine and Russia, it is time for the United States to step up efforts toward a negotiated peace agreement rather than helping to prolong a likely unwinnable war," she added. "The stakes are simply too high."
Keep ReadingShow Less
People Power Ends Nuclear Energy Era in Germany
The German nuclear phase-out is a victory of reason over the lust for profit; over powerful corporations and their client politicians.
Apr 16, 2023
Millions of people worked towards this day for years. People who protested against reprocessing plants, nuclear waste transport, unsafe nuclear waste storage facilities, and the construction of new nuclear power plants. Those decades of resistance were worth it.
The German nuclear phase-out is a victory of reason over the lust for profit; over powerful corporations and their client politicians. It is a people-powered success against all the odds.
I thank all the brave people who took risks for their beliefs; everyone who took part in demonstrations; all the people who signed petitions and sent letters of protest. And I'm proud of the role Greenpeace has played in opposing high-risk nuclear technology.
Roland Hipp (left) coverses with Greenpeace nuclear expert Heinz Smital in September 2020. (Photo: Michael Löwa/Greenpeace)
In the current debate about the last remaining nuclear power plants in Germany, it is often forgotten how big the movement against nuclear plants was in this country, even before the catastrophic events at Chornobyl and Fukushima.
The construction of the planned reprocessing plant in Wackersdorf was stopped in 1989 after years of widespread protest, a first major success of the anti-nuclear movement, with which Greenpeace is inextricably linked.
Greenpeace activists protest during the Bund-Laender Kommission meeting in Berlin against Gorleben as a possible nuclear waste final storage. (Photo: Paul Langrock/Greenpeace)
Greenpeace: protest and research
Greenpeace has repeatedly protested against the transport of nuclear waste from German nuclear power plants to the reprocessing plants in Sellafield (England) and La Hague (France) and was also able to prove that these plants are anything but harmless.
Greenpeace measurements from 1998 showed that soil samples from the vicinity of the Sellafield nuclear plant were comparable to radioactively contaminated samples taken from the 30-kilometer exclusion zone around the Chornobyl reactor.
At the turn of the century, in the North Sea off La Hague we found radiation levels well above regulatory limits, revealing routine illegal discharges of radioactive wastewater.
In 2005, shipments to so-called nuclear fuel recycling plants in England and France from Germany were banned. This is also a success of Greenpeace, of protest based on facts.
The latest major milestone of the anti-nuclear movement, here in Germany, was the decision against the Gorleben repository. Once again, the nuclear industry and their political apologists were unable to oppose or overwrite the science: The dilapidated salt dome is demonstrably unsuitable for storing radioactive waste, which must be kept safe for hundreds of thousands of years.
Greenpeace volunteers present Advent wreaths during protest against the Castor nuclear waste transport from LaHague to the intermediate storage Gorleben. (Photo: Gordon Welters/Greenpeace)
At the same time, the success points to the huge problem that advocates of nuclear power want to pass on to future generations: There is not one single safe repository for nuclear waste anywhere in the world. It is also good that Germany will not produce any new nuclear waste after April 16.
Nuclear power is not only risky, but also not a solution to the energy crisis. Before the anniversary of the Fukushima disaster, Greenpeace activists are calling for the German nuclear power plants to be finally switched off.
The accidents in Chornobyl and Fukushima have shown us in the most emphatic way that this technology cannot be controlled by humans in the event of a disaster. The German federal government's decision in 2011 to shut down nuclear power plants was correct at the time, and it still is.
Nuclear energy is expensive, risky, and far from independent: More than half of the uranium traded worldwide comes from Russia, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan. With resources no longer squandered on the false promise of nuclear energy, following its removal from the energy mix, the renewable energy transition can finally pick up speed. I look forward to a safe and secure future with renewable energies, without fear of the next nuclear accident and misguided investments in error-prone and outdated technology.
Today I celebrate the nuclear phase-out and the many people who made it possible.
This story was originally posted by Greenpeace Germany.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Staff at Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Plant in War-Torn Ukraine Awarded for Heroism
"We must continue to do everything we can to avert the danger of a serious nuclear accident," said the IAEA chief, who plans to visit Ukraine next week for talks to establish a safety zone around the Russian-occupied facility.
Jan 13, 2023
A U.S.-based group on Friday recognized the "heroic" Ukrainian staff at a Russian-controlled nuclear power plant, highlighting concerns about the facility nearly 11 months into Russia's invasion.
The Arms Control Association (ACA) hosts an annual online contest celebrating efforts to "advance disarmament, nuclear security, nonproliferation, civilian protection, and international peace, security, and justice."
"Russia's illegal and unprecedented occupation of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant created an untenable nuclear safety and security situation."
After thousands of votes were cast from nearly 80 countries, the Energoatom workers at Ukraine's Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) were selected as the 2022 Arms Control Persons of the Year.
ZNPP is one of four nuclear energy facilities in Ukraine, also home to the Chernobyl disaster of 1986. Ukrainian workers remain at the six-reactor Zaporizhzhia plant despite the Russian military's takeover and shelling that the countries have blamed on each other.
"Russia's illegal and unprecedented occupation of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant created an untenable nuclear safety and security situation," said Kelsey Davenport, ACA's director for nonproliferation policy, in a statement. "In the face of harassment and threats by Russian forces, Ukrainian personnel have continued to operate the plant and avert a nuclear crisis."
"The international community owes a debt of gratitude to the heroism and bravery of the Zaporizhzhia personnel, but this dire situation cannot continue," Davenport stressed. "The ongoing safety and security risks underscore the critical importance of establishing a zone of protection at the site, returning control of Zaporizhzhia to Ukraine, and strengthening the norm against targeting civilian nuclear infrastructure."
Rafael Mariano Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), plans to travel to Ukraine next week to discuss a proposed nuclear safety and security protection zone around ZNPP with Ukrainian government officials in Kyiv.
"I remain determined to make the much-needed protection zone a reality as soon as possible," Grossi said in a statement Friday. "My consultations with Ukraine and Russia are making progress, albeit not as fast as they should. I remain hopeful that we will be able to agree and implement the zone soon."
Since the IAEA Support and Assistance Mission to Zaporizhzhya (ISAMZ) was established in September, five groups of agency experts have spent time at the facility, with the latest team arriving this week.
As the IAEA detailed:
The ISAMZ team reports that the ZNPP's last remaining 330 kilovolt (kV) backup power line is now connected to the plant, after suffering some further disconnections in the last week, highlighting the continued fragile off-site power supply situation for Europe's largest NPP. The ZNPP's six reactors are in shutdown but still need electricity for reactor cooling and other essential nuclear safety and security functions. The ZNPP receives off-site power also from its last remaining operational 750 kV external power line. In case of loss of external power, all the site's 20 diesel backup generators are ready to supply the site with the electricity needed for all safety related equipment. In addition, nine mobile diesel-fueled boilers are now operating to help prevent critical ZNPP systems from freezing during the winter and provide heating for ZNPP personnel. The situation at the ZNPP remains precarious.
The agency also noted that ZNPP staff are under pressure to accept new labor contracts with the Russian state nuclear energy company Rosatom, which the national Ukrainian operator Energoatom has discouraged.
"The reduced ZNPP staffing levels combined with psychological stress due to the ongoing military conflict and the absence of family members who fled the area have created an unprecedented situation that no NPP staff should have to endure," said Grossi.
"As this tragic war enters its second year, we must continue to do everything we can to avert the danger of a serious nuclear accident that would cause even more suffering and destruction for the people of Ukraine and beyond," he emphasized.
In addition to meeting with officials in the Ukrainian capital, Grossi plans to visit the South Ukraine and Rivne nuclear plants as well as to the Chernobyl site to launch the missions of two experts at each facility. The IAEA also intends to soon station a two-member team at the Khmelnitsky plant. The missions were requested by the Ukrainian government, according to the global agency.
"Soon the IAEA will be permanently present at all of Ukraine's nuclear pwer facilities, including Chernobyl," Grossi said. "This is an important step in our work to help Ukraine during these immensely difficult and challenging times. Our nuclear safety and security experts will monitor the situation at the plants, assess their equipment and other needs, provide technical support and advice, and report their findings to IAEA headquarters."
Discussing his Ukraine trip on an Italian television channel earlier this week, Grossi said: "After that, there is hope to get to Moscow. The plant is Ukrainian but under Russian control, and it is a reality. And I have to work with both sides."
"Our duty is to secure the plant. The establishment of a permanent group [of IAEA observers] is the first concrete and tangible result of our efforts, but we cannot stop; the main thing is to protect the plant's safety," he continued, stressing the need for a deal to establish a zone around ZNPP.
"This agreement is not impossible," he said, "because a nuclear accident is not in the interests of anyone, not even the Russians."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Critics Decry 'Disappointing' Billion-Dollar Biden Bailout of California's Last Nuclear Plant
"Instead of putting Diablo Canyon back on life support, dependent on a drip of taxpayer subsidies, California should turn a new leaf and lean into building the electric system of the future," said one campaigner.
Nov 21, 2022
Environmental and climate campaigners decried Monday's announcement that the Biden administration--which promotes nuclear energy as part of its solution to the climate emergency--will give more than a billion dollars to California's largest utility to keep the state's last nuclear power plant operating.
"Our state and our nation need to be laser-focused on building an efficient energy system powered by renewable sources."
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) said it will award $1.1 billion in credits to Pacific Gas & Electric--which has pleaded guilty to numerous manslaughter charges resulting from dozens of wildfires caused by the utility--to keep the Diablo Canyon plant, located near Avila Beach in San Luis Obispo County, online.
Noting that nuclear energy provides about half of the nation's carbon-free electricity, U.S. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm called the grant "a critical step toward ensuring that our domestic nuclear fleet will continue providing reliable and affordable power to Americans as the nation's largest source of clean electricity."
While California politicians including U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein and U.S. Rep. Salud Carbajal--both Democrats--joined Green Nuclear Deal and other advocates in welcoming the Biden administration's move, anti-nuclear campaigners expressed their chagrin.
"We need to get our priorities straight. It's disappointing to see the federal government throw PG&E more than a billion in taxpayer dollars for an outdated and potentially dangerous power source, when cleaner, safer, and more affordable energy solutions exist. This is a poster child for sending good money after bad," Laura Deehan, state director at Environment California, said in a statement.
"Taxpayers shouldn't prop up aging nuclear plants while commonsense energy efficiency programs, such as the Weatherization Assistance program, get only a fraction of the federal support," she added.
DOE's announcement came two months after California lawmakers voted 67-3 to keep Diablo Canyon--which was slated to shut down in 2025--online until at least 2030, including by loaning bankrupt PG&E $1.4 billion.
State lawmakers, nuclear advocates, and even some environmental groups pointed to soaring summer temperatures and expected energy shortages in calling to keep Diablo Canyon open, arguing that it will be difficult to achieve California's goal of transitioning to 100% renewable energy by 2045 without the plant's 2,250-megawatt capacity.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, asserted in September that Diablo Canyon "is critical in the context of making sure we have energy reliability going forward."
"That energy does not produce greenhouse gases," he noted. "That energy provides baseload and reliability and affordability that will complement and allow us to stack all of the green energy that we're bringing online at record rates."
However, opponents point to catastrophes like the 2011 Fukshima meltdown in Japan and the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in the then-Soviet Union--which left an area the size of the U.S. state of Rhode Island uninhabitable for centuries, if not millennia--in arguing against nuclear power.
"Instead of putting Diablo Canyon back on life support, dependent on a drip of taxpayer subsidies, California should turn a new leaf and lean into building the electric system of the future," said Deehan. "Our state and our nation need to be laser-focused on building an efficient energy system powered by renewable sources such as the sun, the wind, and the heat of the Earth."
Meanwhile, a group of Chumash--the largest Indigenous tribe in California prior to the genocidal Spanish, Mexican, and U.S. conquest of the region--is seeking a return of the stolen land on which Diablo Canyon was built.
"We want to be in a position to protect this land. Protect what's there, not just for our benefit, it's for the benefit of California. It's for the benefit of all people," Mona Tucker, chair of the Yak Tityu Tityu Yak Tilhini Northern Chumash, told the New Times of San Luis Obispo in July.
"[While] I can't speak for other tribes, I'd like for communities and governments, organizations [to] maybe reach out to the local tribes in your area and ask them what help can you provide," Tucker added. "Because we all need allies. We all need friends. And in order for us to get our land back, we're asking for help."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Knowing the Difference Between These Nuclear Explosions
Any time nuclear use of any kind is a realistic possibility you can be sure we have moved into a whole new, and incredibly dangerous, state of the world.
Nov 19, 2022
The past year has seen an unsettling amount of new interest in nuclear weapons. While the likelihood of nuclear use is still generally agreed to be very low, it is significantly higher than it was this time last year. Russia's invasion of Ukraine and Putin's very unsubtle threats have raised speculation about how far he might be willing to go. Would he resume Russian nuclear tests? Or actually use a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine? Those who did not live through the Cold War have probably never given much (or any!) thought to these kinds of questions. Even those who did have now spent decades in a post-Cold-War era, where the idea of intentional nuclear war between the US and Russia felt like a nightmare from the bad old days. The reemergence of such possibilities in the wake of Putin's nuclear threats has created much alarm--and an equal amount of confusion--over what is happening, what could happen, and what it would mean.
In theory, a dirty bomb or nuclear bomb attack could happen anywhere, but the danger presented by an attack on a nuclear power plant is bound to a fixed location.
The alarm is warranted; any time nuclear use of any kind is a realistic possibility you can be sure we have moved into a whole new, and incredibly dangerous, state of the world. The confusion is understandable--for most people there has been no need to think about these kinds of threats for decades and hearing the words "nuclear" and "war" in the same sentence is enough to inspire at least a small degree of panic. Understanding more about what the risks are and what they might mean is one way to begin to deal with this fear and transform it into an impetus for action and change that could help to avert the most dire scenarios.
What types of nuclear risks do we face in Ukraine?
One place to begin sorting out this confusion is in clarifying the distinctions among different types of nuclear risk. Since the beginning of the Ukraine war, experts have discussed several different ways that nuclear weapons or technology might be involved in the conflict. The key ones here are (1) an incident at a Ukrainian nuclear power plant caused--either accidentally or deliberately--by the conflict; (2) a "dirty bomb" attack; and (3) tactical nuclear weapons use.
Attacks on nuclear power plants
Concerns about how attacks--either accidental or deliberate--might affect nuclear power plants in Ukraine arose shortly after the war began. Russian troops first occupied the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, located on Ukrainian territory and site of one of the world's worst nuclear disasters in 1986. They also took control of Ukraine's Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant after shelling set part of the complex on fire. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky accused Russia of deliberately attacking the plant to cause "nuclear terror." Due to ongoing shelling, the plant has periodically had to rely on backup diesel generators for power to keep its reactors cool and prevent a meltdown. Zaporizhzhia is one of four nuclear power plants currently operational in Ukraine.
While many have argued that attacks on nuclear power plants are illegal under international humanitarian law, the reality is that this is not as clear cut as it should be. Moreover, such facilities could easily be damaged in the course of an active conflict even if they are not specifically targeted.
The consequences of an attack resulting in damage to a nuclear power plant are the closest to a "known" event, with multiple historical precedents. Major accidents at nuclear power plants such as the 1986 disaster at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (located within Ukrainian territory and occupied by Russia early in its invasion) or the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi disaster in Japan, would be comparable to the damage that might result in a war. These disasters can result in the release of large amounts of radiation, rendering surrounding areas uninhabitable for many years and requiring extensive and very expensive cleanup efforts that can last decades. Around 200,000 people were evacuated at the time of the Chernobyl accident, and an area of 150,000 square kilometers (almost 58,000 square miles) was contaminated with radioactive material; cleanup of the site is still underway today.
One major difference between an attack on a nuclear power plant and other types of attacks is that the location is known in advance of any potential attack. In theory, a dirty bomb or nuclear bomb attack could happen anywhere, but the danger presented by an attack on a nuclear power plant is bound to a fixed location. Moreover, even outside of wartime, nuclear power plants develop plans to mitigate the effects of various kinds of incidents, including terrorist attacks. So there would likely be pre-existing plans for containment, evacuation, medical assistance to victims in surrounding areas, and other contingencies. Without a doubt, an attack during an active military conflict would make it considerably more difficult--if not impossible--to carry out many of these plans as they were intended, but they might give at least a bit of a head start in preparation.
Dirty bombs
More recently, Russian statements have raised fears about possible use of a "dirty bomb" to spread radiation. The Russian statements expressed concern that Ukraine might use a dirty bomb itself but try to attribute it to Russia in a "false-flag" operation aimed at gaining international support and additional military assistance. But experts have noted that Russia has been known to float ideas accusing others of actions that it plans to take itself and that Russia could use claims that Ukraine had used a dirty bomb as a pretext to further escalate the war.
Some have also suggested that Russia might try to use a very low-yield nuclear weapon and claim that the radiation it gave off was caused by a dirty bomb set off by Ukraine. However, as experts have pointed out, it would be relatively easy to tell the difference between these two types of bombs by both the type of radiation that results and also the blast effects from the initial explosion.
A "dirty bomb," known in more technical terms as a "radiological weapon," or "radiological dispersal device (RDD)" is entirely different from a nuclear bomb. While a nuclear bomb relies on nuclear fission and fusion, a dirty bomb simply uses a conventional explosive--like dynamite--to disperse radioactive materials; there is no nuclear explosion.
This means that the damage done by a dirty bomb is mainly from the explosion, not the radiation. The radiological contamination from a dirty bomb would be spread much less widely than in a nuclear explosion--the Nuclear Regulatory Commission says "within a few blocks or miles of the explosion," rather than the "thousands of square miles" that it could spread if a nuclear bomb were used. Damage and casualties would depend on the size of the explosion; deaths caused by radiation would be rare.
A dirty bomb is intended to achieve different goals than a nuclear weapon. The goal of a dirty bomb is to disperse radioactive materials, harming those who are in the area and contaminating the site to render it unusable for some period of time, and sowing fear among the general public. Dirty bombs are generally weapons of terror, not of conquest. They have been called "weapons of mass disruption," rather than "weapons of mass destruction."
None of this is to say that there would not be serious consequences in the event a dirty bomb was used. While the number of deaths and amount of destruction would be far less than with the use of a nuclear weapon, it would still be unprecedented. A dirty bomb used in a crowded area could kill or injure many people in its explosion, just like other terror attacks, such as the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. But, unlike an attack with a conventional bomb, radioactive contamination would complicate efforts to aid victims, evacuate the area, undertake a search for the perpetrators, and all the other activities that would normally follow such an incident. The cleanup efforts would be extensive and expensive, and if the attack occurred in an area where active military conflict was taking place, that would add another layer of difficulty.
Use of a dirty bomb, especially for the first time, would also likely have major psychological consequences. This might be even more true in Ukraine, with its historical memory of nuclear disaster at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. But the impact would be felt worldwide, as the unprecedented use of such a weapon of terror would create widespread fear and likely demands for a military response.
Politically, if it became clear that Russia was behind the use of a dirty bomb, this would further isolate Russia from the international community.
Tactical nuclear weapons
One of the first threats that came up in media reports and expert commentary following the Russian invasion--spurred by dangerous and irresponsible rhetoric from Russian President Vladimir Putin--was the possibility that Russia might use a tactical nuclear weapon to dissuade the US and NATO from further aiding Ukraine. If such a weapon were used, even in symbolic fashion with few casualties, it would break a taboo against the use of nuclear weapons that has not been broken since the US dropped two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. There is no guarantee that it would not start an escalatory spiral culminating in all-out nuclear war.
Although they are often thought of as "small," the most important thing to know about tactical nuclear weapons is that they are still full-fledged nuclear weapons. The modifiers "tactical" or "strategic" indicate how these weapons would likely be used, but both operate in the same way, and have the same effects, to greater or lesser degrees.
Modern nuclear weapons work by using conventional explosives to compress nuclear material, causing nuclear fission (this is called the "primary"). This fission releases massive amounts of energy, creating the extremely high temperature and pressure needed to ignite nuclear fusion (the "secondary"). The energy released by these weapons creates a fireball that reaches temperatures of tens of millions of degrees--the same range as the center of the sun.
Characterizing tactical nuclear weapons as "small" is misleading--some so-called "tactical" nuclear weapons have yields as great or greater than that of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945 (15 kilotons) that killed more than 70,000 people instantly and reduced the city to ruins.
The idea that using a tactical nuclear weapon would be anything other than a catastrophe is inaccurate and unspeakably dangerous. First, even one nuclear explosion could spread radiological contamination over a wide area if weather conditions, such as high winds, allow it.
But even if Russia were to detonate a single low-yield nuclear weapon in an uninhabited area with the intention of simply sending a message; even if there were very few--or even no--casualties and fallout was negligible, this would still constitute a fundamental shift in the entire international security system. It would violate a central norm--that of nuclear non-use--and, in the worst case, could set off a series of escalatory moves that could spin out of control into a full-fledged nuclear war, with civilization-ending consequences.
Even an attack not large enough to cause widespread environmental damage would still create varying levels of uncertainty and panic worldwide. In the immediate area of the attack, chaos would ensue as medical workers and first responders struggled to aid victims and deal with the aftermath of the explosion in a radioactive environment. It is unlikely that sufficient medical help would be available, particularly of the specialized kind that would be in greatest demand (such as burn beds). The most well-resourced cities during peacetime would struggle to meet such needs; the situation would be far worse during an active conflict. Farther afield, people would flee large cities that they imagined might be future targets. Global economic and financial networks would be disrupted.
Understanding and averting risks
While it is undeniably alarming to think of any nuclear involvement in wartime, understanding the differences among possible scenarios can help to understand how we can prevent the worst from happening. In some cases, there are immediate practical steps that could be taken. For example, to avoid a nuclear power plant accident, combatants could create "safe zones" around nuclear power plants as the International Atomic Energy Agency has recommended.
Undoubtedly, use of a tactical nuclear weapon is the scenario with the potential for the most far-reaching consequences. While no one can control Putin's actions, we must work now to ensure that if he does carry out his irresponsible threats, the US and its allies do not act in a way that leads down the path to nuclear war. Most crucially, the United States and NATO must not respond with nuclear weapons. As my colleague Stephen Young has pointed out, "the only fight with Russia that the United States will lose is a nuclear conflict." That goes for the rest of the world as well.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Plant Relying on Diesel Generators After Shelling
If the generators run out of fuel, "they will stop, and after that there will be a disaster," said a Ukrainian nuclear expert. "There will be a melting of the active core and a release of radioactivity from there."
Oct 08, 2022
The Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant in southeastern Ukraine has been forced to switch to emergency diesel generators after overnight shelling disconnected the facility from the electric grid, Ukraine's state-run nuclear operator and the United Nation's atomic watchdog said Saturday.
"The resumption of shelling, hitting the plant's sole source of external power, is tremendously irresponsible."
If the generators run out of fuel, "they will stop, and after that there will be a disaster," Petro Kotin, the head of Ukraine's public nuclear enterprise Energoatom, told BBC World News. "There will be a melting of the active core and a release of radioactivity from there."
Warning that diesel supplies at Europe's largest nuclear power plant are limited, Kotin said that "right now we are working on logistics to supply more fuel for these generators."
Although all six nuclear reactors at the Zaporizhzhia plant have been shut down as of last month, they still require a constant supply of electricity to keep spent nuclear fuel rods cool and prevent a catastrophic meltdown of the kind that occurred 36 years ago at Chernobyl, some 400 miles away.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which left a pair of independent observers at the facility last month following a weeklong site visit, confirmed that "the plant had switched to its diesel generators after shelling at around 1 a.m. cut the main 750 kilovolt line supplying external power to the plant," Reuters reported.
IAEA Director-General Rafael Mariano Grossi said in a statement that "the resumption of shelling, hitting the plant's sole source of external power, is tremendously irresponsible."
"The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant must be protected," said Grossi, who added that he will "soon travel to the Russian Federation, and then return to Ukraine, to agree on a nuclear safety and security protection zone around the plant."
"This is an absolute and urgent imperative," the leader of the Vienna-based atomic watchdog stressed.
At the conclusion of his team's fact-finding mission last month, Grossi warned that "something very, very catastrophic could take place" if shelling persists at the Zaporizhzhia plant. "We are playing with fire," the IAEA chief said as he referenced the agency's latest report on the "seven indispensable pillars for ensuring nuclear safety and security in Ukraine."
As the U.N. summarized:
The report proposes setting up a nuclear safety and security protection zone that would be limited to the perimeter and the plant itself.
Other recommendations call for removing all military vehicles and equipment from nuclear buildings at the site and ensuring the return to clear and routine responsibilities for staff, in addition to re-establishing an "appropriate" work environment.
U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres endorsed the recommendations outlined in the IAEA report, reiterating his call for Russian and Ukrainian forces to cease fighting near the Zaporizhzhia nuclear facility and for both countries to agree to a demilitarized perimeter around the site.
Each nation has accused the other of being responsible for shelling the site in recent weeks. Experts have repeatedly sounded the alarm about the growing risk of a far-reaching disaster, noting that the Zaporizhzhia plant contains more radioactive waste than was present at Chernobyl when it exploded.
Radioactive contamination from that 1986 nuclear accident in what is now Ukraine rendered an area of more than 1,000 square miles uninhabitable and caused the illnesses and deaths of potentially hundreds of thousands of people.
"Any damage, whether intentional or not, to Europe's largest nuclear power plant in Zaporizhzhia--or to any other nuclear facility in Ukraine--could spell catastrophe, not only for the immediate vicinity, but for the region and beyond," Guterres said last month. "All steps must be taken to avoid such a scenario."
Just two weeks after the U.N. chief's remarks, a missile hit within 1,000 feet of another Ukrainian nuclear plant held by Russia, heightening fears that the ongoing war could lead to a massive environmental and public health calamity.
Zaporizhzhia is one of four Ukrainian regions that Russian President Vladimir Putin recently annexed in violation of international law.
"While the nuclear plant has been under Russian control for months, the city of the same name remains under Ukrainian control," The Associated Press reported Saturday. "Putin signed a decree Wednesday declaring that Russia was taking over the plant. Ukraine's Foreign Ministry called it a criminal act and said it considered Putin's decree 'null and void.' Ukraine's state nuclear operator, Energoatom, said it would continue to operate the plant."
Referring to the Zaporizhzhia nuclear facility, the IAEA said that "16 of the plant's diesel generators started operating automatically, providing its six reactors with power. After the situation stabilized, 10 of the generators were switched off, leaving six to provide the reactors with necessary electricity."
"All the plant's safety systems continue to receive power and are operating normally," the IAEA said, citing what Ukrainian nuclear technicians told the agency's experts stationed at the facility. "The plant's diesel generators each have sufficient fuel for at least 10 days. ZNPP engineers have begun work to repair the damaged 750 kV power line."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Operator Fears 'Sputtering of Radioactive Substances' at Ukraine Nuclear Plant
"As a result of periodic shelling, the infrastructure of the station has been damaged," Energoatom said in a statement.
Aug 27, 2022
Ukraine's state-run energy operator warned Saturday that "there are risks of hydrogen leakage and sputtering of radioactive substances" from the country's Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant as shelling in the Russian-occupied area continues, despite international pleas for a ceasefire.
"As a result of periodic shelling, the infrastructure of the station has been damaged," Energoatom said in a statement, cautioning that "the fire hazard is high" and that the plant "operates with the risk of violating radiation and fire safety standards."
The firm's statement came two days after fire damage disconnected the massive nuclear complex from Ukraine's power grid for the first time in the facility's history, heightening fears of a Chernobyl-like disaster.
Russia and Ukraine have repeatedly accused each other of imperiling the structural integrity and day-to-day operations of the plant, which Russia seized in the early days of the invasion. Ukrainian workers are still running the plant under the watch of Russian forces.
Rising concerns of a catastrophe at the largest nuclear energy plant in Europe have added fresh urgency to negotiations between Russia and Ukraine to allow International Atomic Energy inspectors to safely examine the facility as the devastating war rages on with no end in sight.
The New York Times reported Saturday that "Russia had given its approval to the inspection team and indicated that it had acceded to Ukraine's demand that the mission originate in territory it controls rather than in Russian-occupied land."
"A list of the team's members seen by The New York Times includes the nuclear agency's chief, Rafael Mariano Grossi of Argentina, and 13 other experts from mostly neutral countries," according to the newspaper. "Neither the United States nor Britain, countries that Russia scorns as unfairly biased because of their strong support for Ukraine, is represented."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy