loading...
10 Abandoned Crimean Atomic Power Plant

Abandoned Crimean Atomic Power Plant

Posted on September 23, 2015 by tim


Crimea has experienced frequent electricity shortages for the last two years, with some parts of the peninsula getting their lights on only for a few hours a day. Russia is trying to build a technological bridge which would carry power cables to feed Crimea with electrical power from continental Russia. In these unstable times, this might play a crucial role for the Crimean people had it not been abandoned and neglected in late Soviet times. Here are a few photos of the interior of this place, called Crimean Nuclear Power Plant.

“This was such a beauty before, but now it looks like a war was here!” says a local who was a construction worker a few decades ago when it was built.

They wanted to turn Crimea into a paradise for the tourists. This required a lot of electrical power, so they started building the plant. They wanted to run electric buses and trolley buses along the shore, and to keep the air clean and not polluted. This large scale plan could also bring thousands of new jobs for locals.

By the way this power plant is totally complete. They even started the reactor! But the Chernobyl accident made the authorities more cautious about the new stations. In the same year, Gorbachev declared Perestroika and Glasnost and the USSR started collapsing.

Advertisement



Exchange traffic with English Russia, click here

10 Responses to “Abandoned Crimean Atomic Power Plant”

  1. Alain says:

    Like with Stalin praising, seems the Russian have shorts memories. The power plant was abandoned because it is built on a “geologically volatile site”. Sure it is a good idea to start it again, if you want a second Chernobyl, much nearer from Russian shores…

    Beside this, the plant has never been started. The nuclear fuel was delivered, but the reactor was not started (it was ready at 80% when the project was stopped)…

  2. L'hiver says:

    Thanks Alain- I learn so much from the commenters here, I find it really valuable information.

  3. ausGeoff says:

    I just don’t have the patience to scroll through these images at 2 number per page. Why not 10 images per each of two pages? This is very tedious and is no doubt discouraging people from viewing your site. Please fix it.

  4. Hugh says:

    How do you arrive at the statement “second Chernobyl”?

    Chernobyl was basically down to to operator error and mismanagement.

    No contribution from the local geology, just incompetence – and an old shoddy reactor design didn’t help.

    • Pom2Ter says:

      Because the site is unstable… might not be due to human error but a geological one this time. Still the result would turn out to be the same… The reactor design they would have used was the same one as Chernobyl. It may have used VVER-1000/320 reactors when completed but for them to identify geological factors as a good enough reason to cancel a central with a 80% and a 18% completed reactor which at the time was in the Guiness book of records “The most expensive” nuclear power in the world it must have been good enough reasons don’t you think???

      • Pom2Ter says:

        The VVER-1000/320 reactors are not the same design as chernobyl but they are still close enough and outdated as the RBMK that’s what I meant, I can’t edit once posted and I didn’t correct that part by mistake before posting sorry.

        • Gazza says:

          Not even remotely true. The VVER is water filled and has a concrete and steel environmental containment vessel, while the RMBK is essentially a large pit full of graphite blocks with a heavy lid. VVER design is a modern reactor, while the RBMKs were an older compromised design driven by the need to produce both plutonium for military use, and power for civilian industry. The Soviets lacked the resources for two seperate design on a large scale, so they built ones that could serve both purposes.
          People should learn some facts before lecturing others…

  5. audeamus says:

    Russia should not be in Crimea

    • Gazza says:

      Not even remotely true. The VVER is water filled and has a concrete and steel environmental containment vessel, while the RMBK is essentially a large pit full of graphite blocks with a heavy lid. VVER design is a modern reactor, while the RBMKs were an older compromised design driven by the need to produce both plutonium for military use, and power for civilian industry. The Soviets lacked the resources for two seperate design on a large scale, so they built ones that could serve both purposes.

      People should learn some facts before lecturing others…

    • Gazza says:

      The Crimeans live in Crimea, and they left Ukropistan. Deal with it.

      Crimea is Russia!!! Now and forever!!

Leave a Reply