Russia鈥檚 invasion of Ukraine on 24 February was an extraordinary event for many reasons, yet it also marked a dangerous first in the history of warfare: a country with a large and advanced network of nuclear power plants was turned into a battleground.
Ukraine contains Chernobyl, the infamous site of the 1986 reactor disaster, as well as Europe鈥檚 largest nuclear plant, Zaporizhzhia. In all, Ukraine has the seventh largest nuclear power production capacity in the world, plus four active power stations with a total of 15 reactors.
The initial concern around the potential for collateral damage of these plants grew as Russian troops occupied them. Chernobyl was captured by Russian forces in the first days of the war and was held until the end of March, during which time safety was put at risk as troops hindered staff entering and leaving the plant. The Zaporizhzhia plant has also been held by Russian forces since early in the war and has been hit by Russian artillery. The electricity supply to all four of Ukraine鈥檚 nuclear plants, which powers vital cooling systems that maintain safety, has also been interrupted by attacks on the nation鈥檚 power grid.
Advertisement
at the University of Pittsburgh says that all these new risks will have to be considered when designing nuclear power plants in the future, just as previous security events informed older designs.
鈥淚n North America, we design the nuclear island [the heart of a reactor] for physical loadings that are technically secret, but they鈥檙e basically aimed at [stopping] either missiles or some sort of a 9/11-type scenario,鈥� he says. 鈥淟ooking into the future, yes, I think we will probably be considering different risks.鈥�
Many of Ukraine鈥檚 reactors date back to the 1980s, but Harries says that newer designs are already more resilient to the sort of attacks seen during Russia鈥檚 invasion.
For instance, the latest AP1000 designs used in the US have water held above the reactor that can be released even without electrical power to safely shut down in the event of a problem. These would prevent a meltdown like that seen in Fukushima, Japan, in 2011, when a tsunami knocked out the plant鈥檚 emergency generator system, leaving safety measures without power.
at the Ukrainian Institute for Safety Problems of Nuclear Power Plants, who works in the Chernobyl exclusion zone and saw her research destroyed during the occupation, says that proposed small modular reactors (SMRs) are likely to be a less risky option in the future.
鈥淚t鈥檚 obvious that, from now on, we鈥檒l have to take the possibility of large-scale nuclear terrorism into account when designing reactors,鈥� she says. 鈥淧robably, building smaller units, like SMRs, will be one of the solutions, as their impact on the environment in case of an accident or attack will be smaller.鈥�
But Harries says that no amount of protection and built-in safeguards will be enough when faced with a determined attacker. 鈥淭he cynical engineer in me thinks, sadly, we will come up with ways if we want to cause damage.鈥�
