Chernobyl No.4's New Roof is Completed; Currently Moving Into Position

[DeVotchKa]

[QUOTE=download;51516446]I feel like a broken record player.

Reactors 1 to 3 I said could be demolished now. Not reactor number 4 which might be able to be demolished once 1 to 3 are done. Much of the internal work for reactor 4 could probably be done based on the dose rate in control room 4 given in your BBC article.

[editline]12th December 2016[/editline]

The BBC article also notes that disposal isn't happening because they don't have the money for it.[/QUOTE]

You're right though, especially given how technology has advanced since then, demolition and cleanup of sites 1 through 3 is absolutely possible. 4 will be quite a ways off though.

[Overhauser]

Ok but I thought we were talking about 4 all along? That's what got me confused in the first place when Pentium started talking about different decomissioned plants and their "basic cleanup" when of course everyone who is talking about Chernobyl is talking about 4.

[editline]12th December 2016[/editline]

Also he does NOT say that it's not happening because there is no money.
[quote]Philippe Casse acknowledges that getting rid of all this highly radioactive material will be far more difficult than building the arch.
"Disposal will be an even bigger project," he says.
"There is no money at the moment.
"It could be done in 50 years' time. Perhaps there will be the technology to solve the problem then."[/quote]

Sure it's a factor but by connecting the first two sentences like you did you can not just leave out the third one that clearly states that it's not just a matter of money.

Nothing about this is basic.

[Shwoop]

[QUOTE=Overhauser;51519335]Ok but I thought we were talking about 4 all along? That's what got me confused in the first place when Pentium started talking about different decomissioned plants and their "basic cleanup" when of course everyone who is talking about Chernobyl is talking about 4.

[editline]12th December 2016[/editline]

Also he does NOT say that it's not happening because there is no money.

Sure it's a factor but by connecting the first two sentences like you did you can not just leave out the third one that clearly states that it's not just a matter of money.

Nothing about this is basic.[/QUOTE]

I took that to mean that he was hoping in fifty years time we'll have technology that will lower the cost to a feasible amount.
[B]"There is no money at the moment" [/B]is a pretty broad statement and I'm pretty sure that is almost the entire reason they haven't pushed on with it.

Nowhere does it clearly state that it is not just a matter of money.
In fact, quite the opposite.

I do agree that it's not "basic", but I don't think there is much holding them back beyond the sheer cost of the project.