Al Kibar: The Reactor Photos

by CKR

Overhead Photos
Orienting the Destruction Sequence

The alleged Syrian nuclear reactor photo is split-screened with the Yongbyon reactor for comparison in the CIA video. (Again, photos courtesy of Moon of Alabama. Also again, click on the photos to enlarge.)

Let's count those fuel element channels. They're easier to see in the full-width photo.

For the alleged Syrian nuclear reactor, counting from the left-hand side, the rows contain 4, 6, 8, possibly 8 (one seems to be obscured by a cloth), a row that might be 3 control rod channels, two more rows of 8, then 6 and 4. For the Yongbyon reactor, counting from the right, the rows contain 5, 7, 9, four rows of eleven, then presumably, although they're out of the photo, 9, 7, 5.

That's a pretty big difference for a reactor. It means that the fuel in the fuel elements will have to be configured differently. And the Yongbyon reactor doesn't have that odd 3-channel row down the middle.

If we're not particular about numbers or configuration of fuel element channels, then lots of reactors look like this from the top. Here's the closest match I found, the ship's reactor from the Russian icebreaker Lepse:

That even has four fuel element channels in the outer row.

This one is fancier, apparently from the British Generation IV Very High Temperature Reactor, so I guess we can't blame the University of Manchester.

And, finally, I guess it's not modeled on the Krasnoyarsk-26 reactor, because we see squares instead of circles. Although it's not clear if those square things are tiles over the top of the reactor or the top of the reactor itself.

Comments

[Charles]

Strange.

One would think that the briefers would have pointed out the differences in reactor design, if only to forestall questions.

[Andrew Foland]

Damn you, CKR! I finished the counting this afternoon and was hoping to be the first to point it out--but I find now you've beaten me to it. I decided (based on symmetry) that there are likely 5 rows of 11. But I was too lazy to go looking for other ones.

Nice work.

[Andrew Foland]

So, is the steel RPV + core pattern conclusively magnox?

[CKR]

Look for more to come on the reactor design. Might be here or elsewhere.

[CKR]

More on the reactor design now posted at Arms Control Wonk.

[b]

@Andrew @CKR

Hey folks - I was the one who pointed out that the "Syrian reactor" is smaller.

On the page with the photos you all steal from (you'r welcome) I wrote:

"This supposed to be the top of a reactor vessel. Note that the alleged Syrian one is smaller than the North Korean one (8 or 9 pots in the longest row instead of 11)."

[CKR]

I'm sorry, b. I got so engrossed in the photos I tended to ignore the words.

A number of us seem to have come up with the idea of counting the channels. Too bad the CIA didn't see fit to count them, or maybe just to inform us of the difference.

[Andrew Foland]

Actually b, I'd been doing my own screencaps; I followed over to your place from after I read CKR's link here. But in any case, I'm glad to see a whole collection of people working on it, and humbly acknowledge being at least third, and judging from acw, probably more like thirtieth :)

CKR--the West Wall still in the video is not too horrifically distorted by perspective, and putting a ruler up to my screen seems to say its height is in the neighborhood of 60-70% of the width. There's also this image from outside (sorry, didn't notate the time and don't have time right now to go back and find it) which probably contains enough information, knowing the lateral dimensions and what's parallel/perpendicular to what, to reconstruct the height. It looks like it would give a similar answer.