Chernobyl Vs. Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Plants: Why the Latter is Safer and Doesn't Spread Too Much Radiation?

The news that the Russian military blasted the neighborhood of Europe's largest nuclear power facility, Zaporizhzhia, has sparked international outrage.

A fire at the Zaporizhzhia plant was allegedly contained to residential quarters, indicating that the risk of catastrophe comparable to the 1986 Chernobyl meltdown is minimal.

But how does the Zaporizhzhia plant stack up to Chernobyl's? What are the imminent threats to the region?

What Happened to Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Station

Russian soldiers were "shooting from all sides" of the facility, according to Ukraine Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba, who tweeted at approximately 2:00 a.m. local time.

The Zaporizhzhia nuclear power station is 310 miles from Chernobyl and has a total capacity of 5.7 gigawatts, enough to power over 4 million households.

A shell hit the plant's first production unit, which was undergoing repair, according to Petro Kotin, the chairman of Ukraine's Energoatom nuclear power company.

Thankfully, emergency personnel extinguished the fire, and no injuries were reported.

According to a previous Science Times report, the reactors were not harmed, and no radiation escaped, despite the Russian military reportedly occupying the Zaporizhzhia facility.

In a statement, U.S. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm stated that the reactors are now "protected by substantial containment structures."

The second and third units of the facility were placed into a safe "cold mode," and only the fourth remained operational since it was further away from the bombardment.

Differences between Zaporizhzhia and Chernobyl

The main difference between Zaporizhzhia and Chernobyl is that the former has safety safeguards that the Chernobyl facility lacked before the 1986 meltdown. Zaporizhzhia was created in the early 1980s, about 10 years after Chernobyl's development began.

Also, Chernoby had graphite-moderated reactors, while Zaporizhzhia used pressurized (VVER) water reactors with containment buildings to prevent radioactive leakage, which is generally safer.

When Chernobyl's moderators were caught on fire, they burned for 10 days, according to Professor Claire Corkhill, nuclear materials expert at the University of Sheffield. The radioactive smoke was taken high up into the atmosphere spreading radiation throughout Europe. Zaporizhzhia has no graphite, so the release of radiation would not be that vast and much more localized.

According to a Bloomberg report, emergency core cooling systems and numerous injection systems are in place to avert a core meltdown.

The reactors are additionally shielded by thick metal and cement casings designed to resist a plane crash.

Even if a meltdown occurred, security procedures would most likely keep the fallout contained within the site.

It means that a situation like Chernobyl, when 350,000 people had to be evacuated and many had to find new homes, is unlikely to occur.

Still, there are hazards, and we're in unknown territory - this is the world's first military strike on a working nuclear power facility. Because of its closeness to Crimea, which Russia seized in 2014, Russia attacked the factory.

There would be a bigger chance of a nuclear accident if Russia's soldiers took out the plant's backup diesel generators.

The Fukushima nuclear tragedy, for example, occurred because backup power was taken out by the 2011 tsunami in Japan.

For the time being, Russian soldiers are in charge of the facility, and Ukrainian authorities claim it is not in danger of exploding.

Comparing Nuclear Power Plants Are 'Wrong,' Experts Say

Other experts believe that drawing parallels between Zaporizhzhia and the Chernobyl tragedy are a mistake.

Since the devastating explosion of Ukraine's Chernobyl nuclear power plant in 1986, large portions of the Chernobyl exclusion zone, roughly 60 miles (100 kilometers) north of the capital, Kyiv, have been cordoned off.

Two explosions within the plant's reactor turned the lid of the 2,000-ton (1,800-metric-ton) reactor like a coin, blanketing the surrounding 1,000 square miles (2,600 square kilometers) in radioactive dust and reactor fragments.

Following the evacuation and extinguishment of the nuclear fire, which claimed the lives of many firemen, the reactor was shut off, and the region was declared unusable for the next 24,000 years.

Nuclear physicists told Live Science that Zaporizhzhia's reactors are far safer than Chernobyl's despite the scary superficial parallels between the two tragedies.

Unlike the RBMK-1000 reactors at Chernobyl, Zaporizhzhia employs more contemporary pressurized water reactors, which need substantially less uranium fuel in the reactor core, reducing the risk of a chain reaction.

The reactor is also surrounded by two protection layers - a steel-reinforced concrete outer containment unit and an 8-inch-thick (20-centimeter) steel inner vessel.

Zaporizhzhia has no graphite, which makes radiation leakage more localized. In fact, there have been no changes in radiation readings in the area.

Furthermore, both layers are resistant to earthquakes and explosives. In the case of an emergency, pressurized water reactors also shut down automatically.

According to Robin Grimes, a materials physics professor at Imperial College London, a direct shell impact to the exterior of a reactor might still be deadly.

Puncturing the dual shells of the Zaporizhzhia reactors would not result in an explosion like Chernobyl. However, he claims it would still unleash a lot of toxic material.

Check out more news and information on Energy in Science Times.