Get Ready For A New Chernobyl In Ukraine

Tyler Durden's picture

Via Oriental Review,

With the onset of winter and the increasing strain on Ukraine’s energy system, the threat of a new nuclear disaster in Central Europe is becoming more than just a theoretical danger.

According to analysts from Energy Research & Social Science (ERSS), there is an 80% probability of a “serious accident” at one of Ukraine’s nuclear power plants before the year 2020. This is due both to the increased burden on the nuclear plants caused by the widespread shutdowns of Ukraine’s thermal power plants (the raw material they consumed – coal from the Donbass – is in critically short supply) and also because of the severe physical deterioration of their Soviet-era nuclear equipment and the catastrophic underfunding of this industry.

Should such an incident occur, the EU would not only be faced with the potential environmental consequences, but also – given the recent introduction of visa-free travel – a large-scale exodus of Ukrainians out of contaminated areas.

Let’s start by taking a brief tour of the Ukrainian nuclear industry:

Ukraine currently has four operating nuclear power plants: the Zaporizhia (the largest in Europe, with six reactors and a combined power output of 6,000 MW), the Rivne (four reactors and a combined power output of 2,880 MW), the Khmelnitskiy (two reactors and a combined power output of 2,000 MW), and the South Ukraine (three reactors and a combined power output of 3,000 MW):

The Chernobyl plant with its four reactors was finally shut down for good in 2000.

Of the 15 nuclear reactors currently operating in Ukraine, 12 were brought online during the Soviet era, prior to 1990. All of them rely on the classic type of VVER nuclear reactors that were designed during the 1960s and 1970s at the Kurchatov Institute in Moscow. Those reactors should have a maximum life expectancy of 30 years. But as of today, 10 of the 15 reactors operating in Ukraine have already outlasted their expected service life.

And all the while, the strain on Ukraine’s crumbling reactors constantly increases due to the dramatic decline in the availability of anthracite reserves from the Donbass at the country’s thermal power plants (by mid-2017, electricity production at Ukraine’s thermal power plants had dropped to almost half of 2013’s output, down to just over 50 billion kWh per year). According to Energoatom, the state company that runs Ukraine’s nuclear plants, in 2016 those plants were operating at only 65.5% of their total capacity, but by January 2017 they were up to 77.6%. During the first half of 2017, Ukraine’s nuclear power plants produced more than 45 billion kWh of electricity (up 13% compared to 2016), which means that they were responsible for 58% – an unprecedented share – of the country’s total energy matrix.

Today Ukraine is desperately squeezing out the last drops of use from its decrepit Soviet-era nuclear facilities.

The situation is being aggravated by Ukrainian energy officials, who are under political pressure to find a substitute for the nuclear fuel made by the Russian company TVEL. Thus at a number of reactors they have made repeated attempts to instead use a product made by the Westinghouse Electric Company, an American-Japanese corporation.

It is astonishing how the Ukrainians have entirely ignored the painful experiences of the Czechs. Back in 1996, the Czech Temelín nuclear plant (built by the Soviet Union) signed a contract with Westinghouse. After the reactors at the plant were fed an American fuel that had been designed to mimic the Russian TVEL product, the plant was forced to repeatedly refuel the reactors ahead of schedule, because the American assemblies leaked and exhibited structural defects. The scientists at Westinghouse could not correct the problem. In addition to the threat of a nuclear accident, the faulty fuel assemblies significantly increased the costs of producing electricity, since the reactors had to be continually shut down to replace the American parts. As a result, after yet another major accident in January 2007, the Czech Republic refused to purchase further fuel from the US and by 2010 Temelín had fully returned to the use of Russian TVEL products.

The Czech Temelin nuclear power station had effectively got rid of the counterfeit Westinghouse fuel by 2010.

Ukraine has been experimenting with American-made clones of Russian fuel assemblies since 2005. That was the year that Energoatom shipped six TVS-WR assemblies manufactured by Westinghouse to the South Ukraine nuclear plant and began their pre-installation inspection. As a result of their experiments, it was concluded that the American fuel assemblies were defective. However, they still decided to proceed to the next stage of the experiment – the annual loading of the reactor using this fuel. In 2008, Energoatom and a Swedish subsidiary of Westinghouse signed an agreement to supply the South Ukraine nuclear plant with enough American fuel for the scheduled annual partial refueling of the three reactors from 2011 to 2015.

However, as early as April 2012, malfunctions in the American assemblies were noted at the reactors of the South Ukraine nuclear plant. In an emergency procedure, all the TVS-WR assemblies were completely unloaded from the reactors after they were found to be damaged, mainly due to structural flaws in the spacer grids. As a result, in 2013, following a thorough inspection, Ukraine’s State Nuclear Regulatory Inspectorate instituted a total ban on the use of American fuel at Ukrainian nuclear plants.

But the victory of the Revolution of Dignity has once again cleared the path for American TVS-WRs to be used in Ukraine. In April 2014, Kiev carefully reassembled the torn-up scraps of its old contract with Westinghouse and decided to give things another go. The media reported that American fuel was subsequently loaded into reactor no. 3 at the South Ukraine nuclear plant (March 2015), reactor no. 5 at the Zaporizhia nuclear plant (June 2016), and reactor no. 2 at the South Ukraine nuclear plant (August 2017). The consequences were soon evident.

In February 2016 there was an emergency shutdown of reactor no. 3 at the South Ukraine nuclear plant “due to an increase in the level of coolant in the steam generator.” As local residents reported on social media, the area surrounding the nuclear plant was immediately cordoned off by the military. And on March 23, 2016, operations at the South Ukraine nuclear plant were completely suspended for an entire day!

The Zaporizhia nuclear plant has already undergone a dozen emergency shutdowns of its reactors since 2014. For example, in November 2015, military troops in the Zaporizhia region beefed up their safety measures after the reactors at the nuclear plant suffered an emergency power loss – all of the soldiers and officers were issued special equipment to protect themselves from radiation and chemicals. But no official comment was forthcoming about the incident.

Curiously enough, in May 2015 the Guardian published a bombshell report, claiming that over 3,000 spent nuclear fuel rods were being stored in metal casks in an open-air yard on the grounds of the Zaporizhia nuclear plant. Apparently these were Russian TVEL assemblies that had been hastily stored after being replaced with the TVS-WRs. This would seem to indicate that experiments to introduce the defective fuel rods into the reactor cores at the Zaporizhia nuclear plant were being conducted long before the reactor was officially brought online using American fuel in June 2016.

This being the case, the time line of accidents at the Zaporizhia nuclear plant can be viewed in a different light:

Nov. 28, 2014 – There was an emergency shutdown of reactor no. 3 after the automatic system that prevents damage to the core was activated.

July 18, 2015 – There was an emergency shutdown of reactor no. 1 in connection with the automatic shutdown of the pump responsible for cooling the nuclear reactor.

April 11, 2016 – There was an emergency shutdown of reactor no. 6 at the Zaporizhia nuclear plant in connection with the depressurization of the gas system of the turbogenerator. The local media reported a 10-fold increase in radiation levels around the station.

May 18, 2016 – There was an emergency shutdown of reactor no. 4 due to damage to the transformer.

August 14, 2016 – Reactor no. 5, the first at Zaporizhia to have been loaded with the Westinghouse knockoff product, was sent out for repairs.

Sept. 20, 2016 – Reactor no. 6 was taken off-line for “scheduled maintenance” (at the very start of the winter heating season!).

Oct. 24, 2016 – There was an emergency shutdown of reactor no. 2, only two and a half weeks after being overhauled.

In March 2017, at the peak of the energy crisis, that same reactor had to be taken off-line again.

April 18, 2017 – There was yet another emergency shutdown of reactor no. 6.

In early August 2017, reactor no. 4 was taken off-line for “scheduled maintenance work.”

As a result, only two of the six reactors at the Zaporizhia nuclear plant are currently fully serviceable. Overall, the accident rate at Ukraine’s nuclear plants has increased 400% since 2010!

The report from Energy Research & Social Science mentioned above also stressed that “[i]n Ukraine, for example, most nuclear energy accidents and incidents have not been included in databases over the past several years, although state Media confirmed their occurrence.”

In addition to the use of knockoff fuel, the biggest reason for the increased number of incidents at Ukraine’s nuclear plants has been the chronic underfunding of the industry. In the 25 years since the collapse of the USSR, literally not a cent has been invested in that sector. But in the meantime, the reactors that have outlived their 30-year lifespan either need to be closed (which would cost money that Energoatom does not have) or have their service life extended. Naturally, the Ukrainians are pursuing the second option. Ideally, when the operational life of a nuclear plant is extended, that should involve a major overhaul and updates. The estimated costs of extending the lifespan of a single reactor range from $150-180 million. But neither Energoatom nor the government of Ukraine has that kind of money, nor do they expect to find it anytime soon, hence the authorization to extend the operation of the reactors is a pure formality. Judging by publicly-accessible reports, regular 10-year extensions on the service life of Ukrainian nuclear reactors are granted readily and without arguments. However, the internal documents from Energoatom that were released this week by Cyber-Berkut paint quite a different picture.

Cyber-Berkut Documents

Cyber-Berkut obtained access to documents from government offices in Austria, Romania, Moldova, Belarus, Greenpeace, and the Bankwatch network of environmental NGOs, dated from the summer of 2017, which sound the alarm about Energoatom’s plans to prolong the operation of these old reactors.

The most informative of these is a chart drawn up by the Ukrainians listing all the grievances put forth by their foreign partners, plus their own responses (the document is primarily written in Ukrainian).

The first fact that jumps out is that Kiev arbitrarily decided to extend the operation of the reactors back in 2015, but it was not until 2017 – after the fact – that it sent that (pre-approved) program to update the nuclear plants to its neighboring countries and international environmental organizations for study.

This was a simultaneous breach of two UN Conventions that require signatories to obtain public and intergovernmental approval prior to (not after) commencing work at a nuclear power plant: the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment (the 1991 Espoo Convention) and the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (the 1998 Aarhus Convention). Jan Haverkamp, a recognized expert in nuclear energy and a Greenpeace staffer, writes about this issue specifically:

The Ukrainian response to him (third column) states, “The State Nuclear Regulatory Inspectorate [the Ukrainian acronym is ?I??? – OR] is an independent body and its actions are not subject to these conventions [!!!-OR]”

Echoing Mr. Haverkamp, Bankwatch’s Romanian representative, Maria Seman, also raises a red flag:

In accordance with the Aarhus Convention, article 6 (4), public participation (along with a cross-border process to allow public participation in the Environmental Impact Assessment – EIA) should take place when all options are still open. In the case of decision-making processes that happen at many different levels, if there was no public participation in previous decisions, the public should once again be invited to take part in those decisions that were made earlier and they should still be viewed as open. This applies to reactors 1 and 2 of the South Ukraine nuclear power plant and reactors 1 and 2 of the Zaporizhia nuclear power plant, where updates were made and their license was renewed despite the red flags raised by neighboring countries and Espoo Convention Implementation Committee.”

Ukraine offered a simple, straightforward answer:

The answer to this question was provided above.”

Following are more of Maria Seman’s contentions about how Ukraine has violated international legislation: Kiev refused to notify stakeholders before making decisions about nuclear plants and now cannot guarantee that all input will be taken into account as the reactors are being updated:

However, Kiev seems relatively unconcerned, offering only mocking answers to the objections made by the foreign investigators:

Ukraine did not refuse to do anything. A delay occurred. The decisions to extend the licenses were made in accordance with national law and it was not possible to postpone them.”

There may be a conflict between the laws, but the regulatory body that made the decisions on this matter did not violate national law.”

In other words, the Ukrainians call ignoring the demands of the UN – “a conflict between the laws,” and violating the basic principles of environmental oversight – “a delay.”

Ukraine seems unaware that these conventions were created in order to preclude arbitrary actions by political authorities on questions of nuclear energy. Violations of international law are a matter of concern not just for environmentalists. They are a legal issue that calls for investigation, the identification of the perpetrators, and the correction of the transgressions. Where are the international commissions, where are the criminal cases that have been filed, where are the courts and tribunals that should be avidly defending the letter of the law? Why is the Ukrainian government being allowed to ignore UN treaties that it is bound to observe? The Espoo Convention Compliance Committee and other relevant authorities must respond.

According to Mr. Haverkamp, the authors of the program to extend the licenses of the nuclear power plants do not know the first thing about risk assessment and have not learned the lessons of Chernobyl or Fukushima, because the continued use of the reactors at the South Ukraine and Zaporizhia nuclear plants raises the chance of another nuclear disaster:

In turn, the Romanian government has submitted a whole list of transgressions, omissions, and missing information. Here are just two items:

The statements [by the Ukrainians] about their policy in regard to nuclear safety are misleading, incomplete, and not supported with pertinent details …”

The documents submitted by the Ukrainians are missing important information about the assessment of the consequences of potential accidents at the nuclear power plants …”

However, the Ukrainians are not troubled with remorse for their shoddy work – their answer again takes a defiant tone. The experts in Kiev apparently believe that there are not enough qualified investigators in the Romanian government to legitimately request such information:

This information, in our opinion, may be a subject of interest to suitably qualified experts, but for the discussion of the EIA at the state level, it is superfluous.”

Representatives from other neighboring countries also complain about the lack of data necessary to fully evaluate the program to update Ukraine’s nuclear power plants.

In particular, the Ministry of the Environment of the Republic of Moldova has emphasized that the environmental impact assessment does not take into account the physical aging – resulting from bombardment by neutron fluxes – of either the reactors or the components of their radiation shield.

The Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection of the Republic of Belarus has requested “comprehensive information regarding the documents on the basis of which the decision was made to extend the service life of the two reactors at the nuclear power plant, as well as information regarding the updates to each reactor,” and so on.

Ukraine’s reaction: That answer lies outside the scope of our authority.

Serious concerns are being raised about the fact that the Ukrainian state agencies responsible for nuclear energy have not yet devised ways to dispose of the spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive waste, now that the service life of the reactors has been extended and given the fact that Ukraine is refusing to use Russian storage facilities. Maria Seman, for example, has this to say:

“The section on radioactive nuclear waste does not provide enough information on the total quantity of waste generated over the course of a year, nor a detailed plan for handling it, which must include storage. The on-site facilities for storing nuclear waste at the nuclear plants are limited, and the transportation of waste and spent fuel to Russia was suspended once the civil war in eastern Ukraine intensified. It is essential to request this information.”

However, Kiev seems less concerned with problem of how to dispose of radioactive waste than with offering its own rhetoric about events in the eastern part of its country. Instead of providing a substantive answer about what to do with the increasing quantity of spent fuel, the officials advised the Romanian investigator on her choice of newspapers:

There is no civil war in Ukraine – only the aggression of the Russian Federation [!!!-OR]. The author should find reliable sources of information.

Among other topics the Europeans raised for discussion with their Ukrainian colleagues: the massive doses that Kiev has decided fall within the bounds of “permissible radioactive contamination,” despite the fact that they are lethal to 50% of the population of the zone that has been thus contaminated; the sources of the funding for the impending programs to take the Ukrainian nuclear power plants off-line in the future; the absence of assessments in Energoatom’s materials regarding the impact of radiation on the rise in leukemia among children living near nuclear power plants; and so on:

Officials in Kiev either evade answering these questions or else play the fool: “What, we should keep records of every case?” (in regard to the incidence of childhood leukemia).

*  *  *

All these facts are evidence that Ukraine’s nuclear power plants not only present a genuine threat to Europe’s security, but that given the current economic situation and political instability in Ukraine, they also have no chance of bucking this negative trend. How to effectively cope with this aggravating situation should be a matter of urgent technical and political talks between the Russian and concerned EU states authorities.

Comment viewing options

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

Can we just give Lvov back to Poland and let them deal with Rivne, the Russians can have everything East of the Dnieper and and the EU can pay for the rest of it, because they are so eager to get the Ukies into the EU?

land_of_the_few's picture

Yep, and the Poles would just shut it down because their only other wish would be to put the faulty US fuel in it, which would be caught out immediately by the press. No way would they humiliate themselves by buying reliable fuel from Russia after all their long years of baiting them.

HockeyFool's picture

More nuclear fear porn. 

This reads like it was written by snowflakes from Greepeace. They try to conflate fuel failures with steam generator activity levels. Meaning, they are trying to confuse you.

A VVER system is similar to a PWR in the US. So high levels of radioactivity in the steam generator only mean a leak in the heat exchange tubes, it is not related to the fuel integrity at all.

Just another author counting on your ignorance when it comes to radiation and radioactivity to scare you.

By the way, Look up how many nuke plants in the US have had operating licenses extended.

They are now shooting for 80 years of use, original licenses were for 40 years:

https://www.bna.com/maintenance-key-nuclear-n57982074391/

Guderian's picture

I am adamant hat those elderly reactors in the US have been undergoing major inspection, overhaul and updates.

Just another Ukrop trying to impress us with half-truths, instead of focussing on the issue at hand.

anarchitect's picture

When I see an article that purports to translate something in Cyrillic characters while writing Chernobyl as SNZYAIOVU?, I have to wonder.

HenryHall's picture

Agreed, that was the first thing that struck me (SNZYAIOVU), but chances are the artwork moron is not the same person as the article author. Still it's not exactly doing much to command respect for the writing (perhaps sabotage was an intention however, a thought that just came to me).

DeadFred's picture

Yet the photo had a captivating look to it. Kind of reminded me of the Charlottesville pic of the dude flying through the air with two stop signs next to each other in the background. Great effect, poor photo editing.

land_of_the_few's picture

OK I did read your post and for sure some good points. I still think it could get messy, or meltdown slowly if it loses cooling, but not go bang like Chernobyl since like you imply the VVER isn't an RBMK and is unlikely to explode in the same way if it boils by losing a lot of water or pumps, since it doesn't have the graphite core and has a negative void coefficient.

However excessive additional radioactivity in the secondary heat exchanger / steam generator circuit water may be from leaky fuel, if the heat exchanger primary circuit is also leaky. And if a lot of fuel gets distorted and stuck, well that could be fun too ... really bad at refuel / overhaul time.

JLM's picture

It's not fear porn in the sense that all that nuclear fuel lying above ground on the plant site waiting for storage is just begging for a military strike by some wack job. Imagine a fertilizer bomb rolled up beside it.  It needs to be moved and pronto!  This is a highly vulnerable area.

Teja's picture

Correct. I would also add the fact that not only in Ukraine, but also on lots of older countries, many nuclear power plants have reached an age which they were not designed for. The question is not only the "hard" components like containment, tubes etc. which should be checked regularly, but also the electronic components for which it is quite difficult to get spare parts. Try to buy some PCB and chips designed in the 1970's today!

Also, the human component - old experts being pensioned off, but difficult to get new people working in this not very sexy field these times. And, as you say, maybe also terrorism.

Basically, only a question of time until the next large accident in a nuclear plant happens. We were "lucky" with the last two, the radioactive stuff mostly over forests, swamps or the sea.

Volkodav's picture

     After Kiev coup many qualified of nuclear left for Russia

     and continued cos earn 3X and more, no Kiev bullshit,

     no radicals threats, better work conditions, many reasons

     We know several engineers left Zaporizhia

     which they tell of many problems

 

 

 

 

 

 

hestroy's picture

Glory to Ukraine! Glory to imbeciles!

SoDamnMad's picture

Quick  Let's attack North Korea because they have nuclear weapons.  Hell, this would be a nuclear strike in central Europe blowing god knows which way.

I think maybe we got some priorities wrong.  

Secondly, the Russians are building a modern nuclear plant in Belarus 90 miles from Vilnius Lithuania who is livid.  I think the greater danger is from Ukraine whose Chernobyl plume spread over Lithuania and was detected first in Sweden.

Wasn't Westinghouse part of that Fukishima disaster? Just asking.

Thordoom's picture

What about Slovakia?They should get back Zakarpattia as well  when you are already dividing that failed country. After all it seems like it is the new trend in Europ since those bastards desiced to recognize Kosovo. Talk about blow-back.

Boris Alatovkrap's picture

Photograph is pretend to read "Chernobyl", but is just fake letter.

achmachat's picture

Somebody just used the "Tetris" font. :-)

hestroy's picture

Geez! You are very "smart".

new game's picture

a world in chaos run by idiots. and yes we let this happen. but, soon the majority will start looking for answers here and there. these fuks will not survive the oncoming forth turning. bankers beware...

JackT's picture

Dang it Boris! I thought I could read Russian.

A. Boaty's picture

Three people dinged him for stating an obvious truth. Amazing.

Debugas's picture

the tragedy is that nobody ( neither EU nor russians nor US ) want to take Ukrain and feed 40 mln population. There are no jobs for them and nobody wants to pay to feed them

Manipuflation's picture

Ukraine has always been fucked.  There is a certian mentality with Ukrainians.  Just last night one of our Ukrainian friends ran out of gas on the way but lost my phone number, so he called his Ukranian wife who then texted my wife who was asleep.  He makes good money so how do you run out of gas on the way home from work in the middle of the night?  You shouldn't.  That is not how Ukrainians think.  Sergey was waiting for the gas price to go down by one cent is what he was doing.(he would do this)  If nothing else he was finding an excuse to avoid his wife.  They do things that are bizarre even to Russians. 

hestroy's picture

What do you expect from people who are a mix of Polaks and Khazars?

Manipuflation's picture

Don't forget the Don Cossacks.  Badass.

Blue Steel 309's picture

A good STALKER can make a living selling the anomalies.

Fireman's picture

"Crimea disputed"... says the Ukrop map of impending disaster. If you ask the people of Crimea and not Nudelman's NAZIS in Kiev, then there is no "dispute" whatsoever. Meanwhile let USSA and EUSSR pay for the drunken NAZIS and their inability to repair a tractor. These are the scum that destroyed Ukropland to begin with.

 

Onward to oblivion at all co$ts!

07564111's picture

But that's the problem you see, they can't close them down, because there's nothing to replace them with.

Manipuflation's picture

I am not waking that Russian woman of mine up to read that.  I can understand some spoken Russian but I can't read it.  Plus it is in Ukrainian which is not Russian.  I can't make a comment as to what is going on.   Vlad will get it done.    

land_of_the_few's picture

OK great stuff but 2 points,

-why not put the decommissioned Chernobyl actually on the Ukraine map with the others, its 68 miles north of Kiev, 10 miles from the border with Belarus.

Or you could simply label the region at the north Kiev-Chernobyl, which seems appropriate these days.

-the "namesign" for Chernobyl in the picture at top could perhaps read phonetically approximately the following:

"TSNZYAEEOVOOG" which is presumably what the fire chief said when he saw what happened

Neochrome's picture

Slavs are kept divided in "Europe" for centuries, 40 million of Ukrainians are painfully naive to think that they will ever be allowed to have the full membership in EU, may as well rename EU into Euroslavia....

land_of_the_few's picture

They would need a market for their production. But it is already clear the EU is not that market, it doesn't like competition, it thinks Ukraine is the market - product substitution to replace locally-produced items. It would like to control Ukraine to access mineral resources. Other countries would like to use the farmland to test GM crops.

In general the EU only permits some honey, and people to be exported from Ukraine, which is not so good if you do engineering or metallurgy.

BiggestLoser's picture

Are you saying "free trade" in the EU is a one-way street? That used to be called colonialism.

Volkodav's picture

      What make you think 40 million ever wanted into EU firstly?

 

 

 

BritBob's picture

They obviously need help ASAP. Where is the EU ?

buzzsaw99's picture

the ecb should just put those defective westinghouse fuel rods on their balance sheet.  problem solved.

hestroy's picture

Islas Malvinas belong to Argentina.

Teja's picture

Argentina belongs to Spain. The Pope said so, in 1494.

detached.amusement's picture

the EU is part of the apparatus that is fucking ukraine, you dumb shit

. . . _ _ _ . . .'s picture

So the pro-US agents in Ukraine want to use defective American equipment in Ukrainian nuclear plants... the wind blows straight over Russia from there, doesn't it?

US doesn't even need nukes in Poland.

Can you say, "industrial sabotage?"

quasi_verbatim's picture

No wonder the Russkies won't invade.

07564111's picture

It's not just Ukraine we don't want ;)

The Baltics are also something there are no plans to take. No one wants them, their economies are struggling, their governments are all but busted broke and the people are worthless Russophobes. So..fuck them, they can rot in hell.

Manipuflation's picture

That is probably true.  Russia probably the best option they have.  I don't see Finland or Sweden stepping up to help.  It is a different world there. 

NuYawkFrankie's picture

"Chernobly II" - Yet Another NEOCON ZOG-USSA Block Buster!!! Proudly Sponsored by The SOROS Foundation!

And - Dont Worry! - you wont miss "The Show"... that is, if you happen to live in the Northern Hemisphere!

Sambo's picture

I wonder when the world will make the transition from hot fission to cold fusion energy? 

Guderian's picture

...as soon as fusion produces a surplus in energy and plants can be built cost-efficient.

. . . _ _ _ . . .'s picture

No need to wait, LFTR would do just as well.

44_shooter's picture

Is it just me or do others pickup on the subtle clues in a lot of ZH articles, that these articles are not written by native English speakers?

The grammar, punctuation and vocabulary just isn't American. It's very subtle, but if you read enough of the articles here you start to see it.

---------

Well - there you have it

From the Oriental Review home page:

ORIENTAL REVIEW is an independent Moscow-based Internet journal