Ukraine's Largest Nuclear Power Plant Suffers 2nd Emergency Shutdown In 3 Weeks

Tyler Durden's picture

Following a reported "minor" accident three weeks ago, Ukraine's Zaporizhia nuclear power plant, Europe's largest and the 5th biggest in the world, was shutdown. The 'glitch' it appears has reoccurred as RT reports, one of the reactors at the Zaporizhia Nuclear Power Plant has automatically shut down. Causes are still being investigated.



As RT reports,

One of the reactors at the Zaporizhia Nuclear Power Plant has automatically shut down after a glitch. This is the second halt in operations in recent weeks at the plant in Ukraine’s southeast, which covers at least one fifth of the country’s power needs.



“Unit 6 at Zaporizhzhya NPP was disconnected from the network by the automatic system that prevents damage to the generator. The reactor is running at 40 percent of nominal power,” the plant’s official website says stressing that radiation at the facility is equal to the natural background, which is 8-12 microroentgen/hour.


This accident took place on Sunday morning at 05:59 am local time (03:59 GMT). Causes are still being investigated, while the Energy Ministry hopes to restart the unit in the coming days. The remaining five reactors continue to generate an estimated 4,530 MW.


The previous incident at Zaporizhia NPP happened on November 28, but the fact went public five days later, when Ukraine’s Prime Minister Arseny Yatsenyuk revealed it during the first session of his new cabinet.

*  *  *

As we concluded previously,

Of course, there is no way to actually know what is happening on the ground as the NPP is located close enough to the "fog of war", that its status, and updates thereof, could merely be part of the fog of war. That said, if there is an unspoken message here by Ukraine, which recently handed over its gold to unknown "Western" interests, and suddenly feels neglected by its western allies (as its central bank head is about to find out personally), it is targeted directly at the IMF: "hand over more loans, or the nuclear power plant gets it."

*  *  *

Which raises the following question...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Debugas's picture

they are trying to replace russian nuclear rods with US made wich are incompatible with USSR reactors technology

TurdOnTheRun's picture

more detail and references, please

Debugas's picture

this is old news


several years ago Chechs tried to use the same rods at their Temelin nuclear power plant and had an incident.

After that they switched back using russian made rods compatible with USSR reactors tech

Bananamerican's picture

Seems a more cogent argument that Kiev stomping its feet for more financial aid

CrazyCooter's picture

Hah, Russian reactors can't use American fuel rods, but Russian rifles can use American ammo.

Might be design complexities or it might be thinking ahead!

Regardless, this is the joy of nuke power ... using the damn things after political/societal shit falls apart ...



Publicus's picture

Hopefully the wind blows to the West when the 3rd Chernobyl blows.

SoilMyselfRotten's picture

Damnit Vlad, will you please stop messing with Ukraine?

Latina Lover's picture

Damnit Barry, will you please stop messing with Ukraine?

There, fixed it for you.

SoilMyselfRotten's picture

Sorry that wasn't dripping enough for you

StychoKiller's picture

Mmm, dripping Latina Lover! :>D

Paveway IV's picture

Rabbit hole depth estimate = [FAIL]

Remember what the doormouse said.

Jack Burton's picture

I've never been against nuclear power on principal alone. It seems a good logical way to make power without carbon production. But, you are right, nuclear power has at it's base one single assumption. That war and chaos will not sweep over the areas where nuclear plants are operating. Nor will unprecedented natural disasters occur where these plants sit. At one time societies and governments felt safe enough from these threats, to build plants at will. Now that much time has passed, the law of averages is catching up with nuclear power plants. War is approaching them in places, and time is bringing the unprecedented natual disasters we felt safe to discount.

Sooner than later the Pacific Northwest will have the overdue Mega Thrust Undersea Earthquake that happens every few hundred years as the plates subduct off the coast of Wsahington State and up and down that coast. Are the nuclear plants out west immune, or safely positioned? I do not know, but I hope they are.

trulz4lulz's picture

What pisses me off the most about it, is peoples assumption of nuclear "power". THere is no such thing as nuclear "power" as radioactivity brought about by rapid decay of isotopes does not create electricity but heat.

There is no such thing as nuclear power, only steam powered turbines.

Stoopid fucking monkies think its a great idea to boil water with Uranium. G$d help us all.

FredFlintstone's picture

Ever hear of horse power? Power is work or energy divided by time. A nuclear event can pack plenty of power.

Dame Ednas Possum's picture

It's encouraging to see that the Ukes learned from their Chernobyl experience...because that ended well.

I'm sure we can trust them to tell the truth.

Yats the Yid is clearly in this because he cares do much about the next generation of children.

Latina Lover's picture

Jack Burton,  Thorium reactors are a good alternative relative to other types of nuclear reactors in terms of safety and non production of Transuranics.   Of course the USSA does not like this because we need plutonium to create  high yield kill weapons.

mjcOH1's picture

"There is no such thing as nuclear power, only steam powered turbines"

Coal power.  Wind power.   Water power.  

Power is energy consumed per unit time.   X power is understood to be X as the commonly recognizable source of the energy.

We can all be obtuse and say 'strong nuclear force power' or 'gravitational force power'.   But since we buy and sell oil/coal/uranium, and the infrastructure for obtaining energy from each is different, maybe 'obtuse' is not the best approach.

trulz4lulz's picture

I dont think I explained muh frustrations well enough. Nuclear power is sold as magic to the public, where as people have the false belief that Uranium somehow produces electricity, which it does not. It creats heat during decay which technically is "power" obviously, but it isnt electricity.

Electricity is created by the boiling of water with the Uranium which in turn powers the turbines and causes them to spin, then the copper brushes created static electricity which is stored in capacitors and so on and so forth.

Nuclear "energy" is no different than wind turbines creating electricty or Hydro Elecric power like they have in Ontario thanks to Niagra falls.

Thats what I am trying to say. Nuclear power dosent create electricity, it creates heat, which creates steam and so on and so forth. Its basically "creating" electricity with 150 year old technology....

mjcOH1's picture

Hey....let's not go knocking new ways of moving a conductor through a magnetic field.   Yes.....AC current isn't exactly new tech.   But people like it, especially when it's cold or it keeps their oxygen concentrators working.   

If anyone has a plan to arrange crystals in a meaningful way to spin a turbine, I'm all for it.    Short of that, heating water and directing the vapor works for me.   Energy is harder to come by than complaints about it.

trulz4lulz's picture

I get that. I really do, my coplaints are with the nuclear industry and the way they portray nuclear power. THey make it seem as though Uranium just  sits around making electricity, which is doesnt do. It sits around and creats heat, two entirely different things altogether. The way that heat is harnessed is what creates electricity not Uranium itself. I think if that was explained to people a little better peoples veiwpooint on nuclear power would change.

Basically it is a very high risk high reward way to harness heat to boil water and I am sure there are far better ays to do it than with nuclear. Hell, I would prefer coal over nuclear as it is low risk high reward. Neither are very good for the environment, however the selling point of nuclear is that its a "clean" energy. Clean as being described as something youcant smell or see with the human eye.

However, human beings must constantly be in control of nuke plants for them to remain viable and thats where it begind to be a very dicey proposition. Take Fukushima for example; here we are facing 100's of years of pollution into the Pacific Ocean unabated and continuous poisoning of a body of water. But the water isnt where radiation collects, due to it being naturally shielded by salt, instead it colects primarily in plankton as shown by recently declassified reports from the US gubmint. In fact it has been shown that radiation collects at nearly 1000x in plankton as compared to the water that it lives in. Then you have the problem that can cause in the food chain, not to mention plankton making up a tremendous amount of oxygen for planet Earth.

If I were part of an Alien Invasion on planet Earth I would use Nuclear Power, knowing full well that after I raped the planet for all its worth, the aftermath of what I had wrought just isnt my problem.

In short, Nuclear Power is great if you have somewhere else to go, but as it stands we dont. To put it another way, dont shit where you eat.

Lumberjack's picture

Ever hear of nuclear battteries? They use them in deep space probes and satellites etc.. Voyager has them onboard and they are still kicking the absolute bejeesus out of the energizer bunnies ass.


Note that the Military is currently working on nuclear batteries:


and a new water based nuke battery for cell phone and other applications.

mophead's picture

No glitch. It's inflation, dummies.

Urban Roman's picture

The problem is that the nuclear fuel does not operate on a human time scale.

The worst of the fission products (Cesium and Strontium) are effectively gone in 600 years (20 half-lives or ~1/10^6) but how many human-built things from 600 years ago are still intact?

And of course, our descendants for the next 600 years won't mind tending all the plants and waste sites, without benefitting from the power they produced over about the first 100 years.

mjcOH1's picture

"The problem is that the nuclear fuel does not operate on a human time scale.

The worst of the fission products (Cesium and Strontium) are effectively gone in 600"


Ground was broken on St Peter's Bassilica in 1506.   It was completed in 1626......still get's maintained.   Occasionally visited.

Not everything must be begun and ended within one man's lifetime.

markam's picture

I am sure that St Peter's Bassilica still returns a profit from its continued existence.  Don't think the same thing will apply to nuclear waste and abandoned reactors.

mjcOH1's picture

No the profit is realized when you free the neutrons.   The waste is, long before the permits are granted, an understood and accepted cost.

markam's picture

"an understood and accepted cost"


that nobody wants to pay once the profit motive is gone.

cossack55's picture

Pretty sure St. Petes does not contain Uranium or Plutonium.  Pretty sure the pyramids don't either.

mjcOH1's picture

"Pretty sure the pyramids don't either."

But that is an intriguing possibility.

Steaming_Wookie_Doo's picture

Have you read Christopher Dunn's or Joseph Farrell's works on the Giza "power plant"? Interesting premises...

Urban Roman's picture

OK, so now assume that the old Basilica changed into a toxic dump in 1606. No longer visited, and not making money. The maintenance budget pilfered by hucksters some time in the 1500s.

But it still needs to be maintained. Forever.

Matt's picture

Keep in mind, nuclear security. Plutonium 239 has a half-life of 24,000 years. Once those other dangerous mateials have decayed, it will be much safer for someone to loot the plutonium to make nuclear weapons. If, of course, the technology and infrastructure exist to do so.

Urban Roman's picture

That only makes the problem worse. I was trying to keep it simple for this, umm, eclectic audience.

What language were your forbears speaking 24,000 years ago? Or how about 480,000 years (20 half lives)?

DutchR's picture

It's one hell of a way to boil water....


*not mine

ebworthen's picture

Convenient excuse for cutting power to Crimea and stomping their feet for more cash from U.S. and E.U. taxpayers.

Kiev's Parliament this past week renounced neutral status (non-alignment) as a step towards joining NATO.

Oh sure, that will go over well.  I wouldn't be surprised to see China get in the fray if NATO tries to get into Ukraine and have a Black Sea NATO base in Odessa.  Unwise move by Kiev and the West to say the least.


I'll bet there are going to be some nail-biting sessions at the UN early in January. The thought of a peacekeeping force led by China +77 to turn Ukraine into a DMZ crossed my mind. Very sticky wicket!

I can understand the anger and frustration directed at Russia from the families of the victims but everyone has to get their 'T's crossed and their 'i's dotted (think MH17). They need to try to remember Russia is not the one shelling the Eastern Ukraine. I know, "Be patient" is easy for me to say : (

testing international law, 1,2,3. Testing...

Max Steel's picture

R.F. Nuclear tech and plants are much better .

Urban Roman's picture

e.g. Chernobyl.

Worth noting: the radiation from Cesium and Strontium out of Chernobyl is now down to about ½ as much as right after the accident. So it has gone from "off the scale" to only "halfway off the scale" whatever that is. Probably still pretty toxic in parts of the exclusion zone.

Urban Roman's picture

That wasn't me by the way. The thread seems to be infested by a nattering nabob...

And I have no doubt the RF designs are better. They've had a lot of time and experience to improve them. Chernobyl was already obsolete in 1986, but was still being used as a breeder.

The problem is that the planet still has hundreds of these aging rustbuckets (more like Fukushima than Chernobyl) from the 50s and 60s, and it's just a matter of time until they are damaged in some way. And when that happens, they tend to catch fire and worse.

Lumberjack's picture

You mean the tungsten filled ones?

tplink's picture
tplink (not verified) Debugas Dec 28, 2014 11:42 PM

my neighbor's step-mother makes $68 hourly on the laptop . She has been out of work for 10 months but last month her pay check was $15196 just working on the laptop for a few hours. try here...

Son of Captain Nemo's picture

Darth Soros to "John(s)" Kerry and Brennan...

Hurry the the fuck up you two and "getter done"!

I can't keep  30 year T's propped up with the disconnected and incoherent slogan "backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government" much longer!!!

giggler321's picture

Stuxnet flexing it's tentacles prior to Fukushima Zaporizhia melt down, to be blamed on Russian separatists no doubt.  That Putin, look what he's done now.

Nothing like a *real* emergency to bring inline all euroites to Kiev's beckon call and obviously lead on to something more agressive against Russia.

Jack Burton's picture

Rebel forces in Donetsk have been warning for over a month now that a flase flag nuclear event is being planned by Kiev to force the NATO forces to corss into Ukraine and stablize the Junta in Kiev's control. Anything nuclear, like this plant failing, could prompt western forces to invade to protect the plant and secure it for western technicians to correct it's failures. Think about it. It is the perfect cover for NATO to move in as security. Then NATO would truely own all of West Ukraine, and Russia could never do a thing about it. I think this is so tempting to Kiev and Washington, that it must be under consideration as the perfect coup.

noben's picture
noben (not verified) Jack Burton Dec 28, 2014 3:12 PM

In that case, Russia is the one that needs to -- nay, MUST be the one to move in for the exact same reasons that NATO would give.

If Putin and Russia keep playing pure defense, and keep being REactive, they are toast. The US imperialism and its Full Spectrum Dominance will NEVER EVER NEVER cease, until it achieves its global objective: Conquer Russia and control its vast resources, and thus put an economic stranglehold on China.

Until that happens, the US will use China as the Useful Fool to keep Russia on a leash, because China has a Blind-spot: its cultural mentality is to maintain a course of avoiding direct confrontation between super powers; China's Oligarchs, who have extremely strong influence in it government, will opt for safeguarding their own wealth and profits, rather than back Russia in a fight with NATO.

My analysis is that Russia will run out of time and options against US/NATO aggression, before any expected monetary wars dethrone King Dollar. IOW... NATO will march into Ukraine, and Putin will do nothing but huff & puff, because he is being held back by his Oligarchs (who are are deluded by their own greed plus hope, which is beating their sense of the End Game), and also held back by the Chinese.  This is a strategic and pivotal PsyOps play that the US is playing and winning so far.

I hope he does something strategic to turn the tide, but until he does, I have to give the Match so far to the US imperialists, on points.

p.s. As speakers on Radio Sputnik have stated... Putin's PR works well on Russians, but needs a complete and extreme makeover for Western and US consumption. Bear in mind that his PR war has two fronts: Domestic and Foreign. Time to amp up the Global PR, or let the US dictate the Western talking points and perceptions.

Dame Ednas Possum's picture

I'm sure the EU population will be licking their lips at the prospect of being served a large slice of bankrupt-Neo-nazi-failed-state-cake smeared with nuclear-disaster-icing. They just need to place a cherry on top comprising of full-blown Washington-initiated-civil war re-erupting that risks a continent-wide hot war between multiple nuclear-armed parties.

Ode to Joy.

Maxter's picture

"MP Garza" should update his map, because Crimea is no longer part of Ukraine.

HenryHall's picture

It never was part of Ukraine. The putative 1954 transfer from Russia was, it turns out, unconstitutional as a Soviet Union act, so Ukraine was an illegal occupier for many years under international law.

Jack Burton's picture

This is all true, and fact. But the west will never recognize it as such. Crimea was the big prize NATO felt was in it's grasp. So much so that the US Navy already had the plans drawn up for it's new naval and air bases in the Crimea. I am sure the Air Force had it's air bases and missile bases already drawn up and ready for construction. Do not underestimate how big a loss this was to NATO. They felt Crimea would be THE place from which Russia would be destroyed by a coordinated nuclear attack.

Latina Lover's picture


Crimea was the keystone to attacking Russia on many different levels, including military, economic, and cultural.   Instead Putin out foxed the Neocons.  plus the Chabad jews that were planning to turn Crimea into their new Khazaria. 

THe USSA will use every filthy trick to remove Russia from Crimea. They will, of course, fail.

Meanwhile the dumbass western Ukies will believe that the  EU/USSA  are there to help them, LOL!