Technical accuracy of the Chernobyl miniseries.

[chris_leyson]

[ogden]

Im not trying to say nuclear power is completely clean, just that compared to other ways it is the cleanest reliable source of large amounts power that we have invented so far.

Right. Nuclear is cleaner than any other energy sources we consider as reliable. Agreed.

Hydroelectric is better because rivers have a bit more of a steady flow and there is a decent amount of water storage behind a dam, this also lets them adjust the power output very rapidly to stabilize the grid in the case of transients. Unfortunately (in Europe at least) we have already used up most of the nice geographical locations where a large hydroelectric dam makes sense, so we can't just keep building more of them.

Hydro actually is not that "clean" as we would like. Environmental impact is negative, thankfully not in form of pollution but "just" lost land and some migrating fish resources that we have to (forcibly) replenish in result.

But we also have a single nuclear plant, yet that thing is producing about half of all electricity we make!

Good. Perhaps you shall consider one more, just do not leave waste for your grandchildren to handle. This is what I stand for here in this discussion - nuclear is good, but take care of your s***t as well. Please.

And yes we don't have a proper place to put it and nobody wants it.

Yes. People do not want it, nor politicians want it. Do you even have any idea of potential nuclear graveyard site location? Even US have problems finding such...

[apis]

Hydroelectric is better because rivers have a bit more of a steady flow and there is a decent amount of water storage behind a dam, this also lets them adjust the power output very rapidly to stabilize the grid in the case of transients. Unfortunately (in Europe at least) we have already used up most of the nice geographical locations where a large hydroelectric dam makes sense, so we can't just keep building more of them.

I agree that hydroelectric is good, however it can be very dangerous. When, for example, the Banqiao dam failed it killed 26,000 from flooding, 145,000 died from subsequent famine and epidemics, and about 11 million became homeless. It is also very destructive to the local environment, in and near the rivers in which it is placed.

[TerraHertz]

https://www.rt.com/news/461348-chernobyl-disaster-tarakanov-hbo/
https://www.rt.com/news/461152-chernobyl-general-tarakanov-reacts-hbo/



Not for the faint-hearted: The Children of Chernobyl. (video)

This is a greatly abbreviated version of an original much more harrowing documentary. Google the same term for more on that topic.

If you want to really feel the atmosphere of the Exclusion zone:
http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/
A Ukrainian woman who likes to go exploring the Zone on her motorbike. Father is a nuclear scientist, and she knows what she is doing.

But put aside all talk of half-lives and how long radioactive contamination takes to become 'safe' (ask the people of Iraq about how 'safe' DU is, and check out the current tragic and still rising birth defect rates.) Put aside that Chernobyl is not the worst contamination disaster, Fukushima is, and still ongoing. Most of the major food growing area of Japan is contaminated, Tokyo really _should_ be evacuated (but that's impossible), the Nth Pacific Ocean is dying, and the US West Coast is getting seriously hit, while both Japan and US governments are actively suppressing related news. Such as the shocking childhood thyroid cancer rates in Japan now.

Forget all that. You know why I oppose any and all use of nuclear fission power?

Because Earth regularly gits hit by major meteorite impacts. Every few tens of thousands of years. Geological record is clear. The most recent big one was probably the Hiawatha crater in Greenland, about 12000 years ago. That one nearly sent Homo Sapiens extinct worldwide. If we'd had civilization and hundreds of nuclear power plants, along with thousands of tons of high level radioactive waste in containment dumps at that time, it would have sent ALL LIFE ON EARTH extinct, for a million years.

Having one or two (or five- Chelyabinsk, Semipalatinsk, Komsomolets) nuclear contamination disasters is bad enough. We can survive that. Massive natural disasters happen, and life can survive that too. But not a natural disaster that smears dozens, hundreds of nuclear plants and waste dumps across the landscape. That's a terminal event. Background radiation level goes higher than any complex lifeform can reproduce in reliably over multiple generations. Even if it doesn't kill everything outright.

Don't even bother prattling on about 'meteor defenses.' We can't. And by the time we can, we'll have fusion power anyway (much safer, no high nuclear weight long-life isotopes, no tons of radioactive fuel in reactors.)

[apis]

Yes. People, nor politicians wants it. Do you even have any idea of potential nuclear graveyard site location? Even US have problems finding such...

It was mentioned before that Finland is constructing one (payed for by the nuclear industry). Sweden was about to build one too and the locals were positive about it, but the anti-nuclear lobby have made appeal after appeal, so it's currently in legal limbo. It will happen eventually, but there's no reason to rush it (because there's so little waste produced).

(This is pretty controversial, but depositing the waste on the deep ocean floor in a subduction zone would probably be the safest alternative, but it's politically impossible.)

[nctnico]

Those who say that nuclear waste is easily manageable - Japan needs your help. NOW.
By 2021 they will have 14m cubic metres of contaminated soil and 1.37 million tons of contaminated water.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/11/fukushima-toxic-soil-disaster-radioactive
http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201903190042.html

The people in Bhopal (India) also need your help.

There's space pollution as well. So what? How does chemical contamination of Bhopal can be argument in discussion about nuclear waste management problems? You somehow imply  that we shall send nuclear waste to Bhopal or what?

It has already been established that the radiation drops to safe levels in an overseable amount of time (a couple of hundred years). What remains are toxic (not radioactive) materials and in that respect there is no difference between toxic spills like the one in Bhopal. In the end you have to put things in perspective and look at it objectively without all the stigmas. At some point they'll probably clean the Bhopal disaster and they'll run into the exact same problems as with the contaminated soil from Fukushima.

[ogden]

It has already been established that the radiation drops to safe levels in an overseable amount of time (a couple of hundred years). What remains are toxic (not radioactive) materials and in that respect there is no difference between toxic spills like the one in Bhopal.

 

Perhaps you shall actually read some reports and do not watch Simpsons cartoon so much.

[NiHaoMike]

Hydro actually is not that "clean" as we would like. Environmental impact is negative, thankfully not in form of pollution but "just" lost land and some migrating fish resources that we have to (forcibly) replenish in result.

What about damless hydroelectric, a little like wind power but far more predictable?

[nctnico]

Yes. People, nor politicians wants it. Do you even have any idea of potential nuclear graveyard site location? Even US have problems finding such...

It was mentioned before that Finland is constructing one (payed for by the nuclear industry). Sweden was about to build one too and the locals were positive about it, but the anti-nuclear lobby have made appeal after appeal, so it's currently in legal limbo. It will happen eventually, but there's no reason to rush it (because there's so little waste produced).

In the Netherlands there is a fund setup to build an underground storage somewhere around 2100. The cost is estimated at around 2 billion euro by that time (between 0.2 to .5 billion in today's money).

[Kleinstein]

....
Forget all that. You know why I oppose any and all use of nuclear fission power?

Because Earth regularly gits hit by major meteorite impacts. Every few tens of thousands of years. Geological record is clear. The most recent big one was probably the Hiawatha crater in Greenland, about 12000 years ago. That one nearly sent Homo Sapiens extinct worldwide. If we'd had civilization and hundreds of nuclear power plants, along with thousands of tons of high level radioactive waste in containment dumps at that time, it would have sent ALL LIFE ON EARTH extinct, for a million years.

Having one or two (or five- Chelyabinsk, Semipalatinsk, Komsomolets) nuclear contamination disasters is bad enough. We can survive that. Massive natural disasters happen, and life can survive that too. But not a natural disaster that smears dozens, hundreds of nuclear plants and waste dumps across the landscape. That's a terminal event. Background radiation level goes higher than any complex lifeform can reproduce in reliably over multiple generations. Even if it doesn't kill everything outright.

Radioactivity is bad, and the reactors contain quite some activity, but things are not that bad. The Chernobyl reactor spew out much of it's inventory of fission products, especially caesium. So even an older reactor can only be about 10 times as bad, worst case. The actual uranium is usually not really mobile and will usually stay inside.  There still is the closed zone around Chernobyl, but even this area is not absolutely non inhabitable - wild life around there does thrive. It's just not healthy - but so are some cities in China.

However the argument with another disaster striking and leaving us with the nuclear waste not yet send to final disposal and nobody caring about this and the fund's set aside in dollars or bonds getting worthless is a real problem.  So even the temporary storage used to wait for the first few decades should worst case withstand at least a few centuries - just in case.  I don't know for sure, but chances are most reactors and storage facilities are not that bad - though nothing guarantied. So even if abandoned chances are good most of the material will stay inside. Things also get better in a few centuries with especially the more mobile isotopes down to a much lower level - not really safe, but already a lot less dangerous by than.

[Berni]

Hydro actually is not that "clean" as we would like. Environmental impact is negative, thankfully not in form of pollution but "just" lost land and some migrating fish resources that we have to (forcibly) replenish in result.

But we also have a single nuclear plant, yet that thing is producing about half of all electricity we make!

Good. Perhaps you shall consider one more, just do not leave waste for your grandchildren to handle. This is what I stand for here in this discussion - nuclear is good, but take care of your s***t as well. Please.

And yes we don't have a proper place to put it and nobody wants it.

Yes. People do not want it, nor politicians want it. Do you even have any idea of potential nuclear graveyard site location? Even US have problems finding such...

We had planned some waste storage site, but i think the project was halted because unsurprisingly the people anywhere near it protested against it.

There have been also plans to add a 2nd block to the existing nuclear plant, no idea how far that is but id also expect people in the area to also be against it being built. Despite these being fairly modern reactors. The plant began operation in the 80s and uses the same reactor design as the one that melted down on three mile island, but despite the meltdown has not caused any significant contamination (Tho its not the same model as its made by a different US supplier).

And yes a large dam can indeed be incredibly destructive if it fails (As history has proven). But the environmental impact of them can be pretty low. Here we have some rivers that run inside of deep valleys. This allows the water level to be raised quite a lot without actually flooding a lot of land, while the small bit of it that is flooded is part of a steep hill so its not really useful for much else. So yes hydroelectic power does have an environmental impact but in a good location its fairly minimal, while sometimes also serving as flooding control for some of the down stream areas as the dam can help smooth out large surges in flow due to abnormally heavy rainfall.

Also we would still find those hydro dams very useful even if we replace all coal plants with nuclear, due to the fact that current designs of nuclear plants are not made to change the power output very rapidly, so they do need other plants to take care of any sudden surges in demand. Areas that don't have enough hyroelectric to handle it have to keep a coal plant in "hot standby", burning coal and ready to send out more power at the push of a button, wasting the heat energy in the process. Tho natural gas plants tend to be used to help there because they can ramp up power faster (Those are essentially giant stationary jet engines with a generator strapped to it)

[nctnico]

A small error in the above: a small lake contains only a little bit of power. For hydro to make sense you need a huge lake (and a large supply of water).

[2N3055]

Actually it's the height... Locally we have relatively small lake Bajer in the mountains feeding water through the tunnel  down to a power plant that is at the sea level... there is 658,5 m of fall, installed power is 3x35MW. It is used as a peak supply plant, with pretty much instant regulation time. It is a part of a hydro system that is reversible, so sometimes they pump water back. That is rarely needed though, because surrounding mountains provide ample water.

[Buriedcode]

Those who say that nuclear waste is easily manageable - Japan needs your help. NOW.
By 2021 they will have 14m cubic metres of contaminated soil and 1.37 million tons of contaminated water.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/11/fukushima-toxic-soil-disaster-radioactive
http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201903190042.html

The people in Bhopal (India) also need your help.

There's space pollution as well. So what? How does chemical contamination of Bhopal can be argument in discussion about nuclear waste management problems? You somehow imply  that we shall send nuclear waste to Bhopal or what?

You were the one who made the comparison between nuclear waste and chemical weapons.  So he made the comparison between chemical weapons and chemical spills.  The difference is of course, chemical weapons are designed to intentionally harm humans.  Nuclear waste and chemical spills aren't.  Your comparison is almost like comparing nuclear waste to nuclear weapons.

You have repeatedly tried to imply that those who don't immediately agree with you play down the dangers of nuclear waste. 

No-one is claiming nuclear waste is easily "managable".  The terms used were all relative. Safer, more managable.  Cyanide is safer than the botulinum toxin - it doesn't mean I would like to drink it.

No-one is saying it is safe enough to be put in general purpose landfills.  It is pretty nasty stuff, but it can be contained, it is a pity not every country has done this.

No-one is saying it is an ideal for of energy production and that it doesn't have any problems.   No form of energy production is clean.  The production of lithium batteries is hell on the local environment. Fossil fuels - if we ignore the obvious carbon problem - produce vast quantities of carcinogens and have stained our cities.  Natural gas is "cleaner" but releases a fair bit of methane into the atmosphere - a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.   When people call nuclear power "clean" they do not mean in absolute terms - nothing is "clean" - but compared to alternatives, its waste is far more concentrated, and therefore has the potential to cause less harm if properly handled.

As for

It has already been established that the radiation drops to safe levels in an overseable amount of time (a couple of hundred years). What remains are toxic (not radioactive) materials and in that respect there is no difference between toxic spills like the one in Bhopal...

The point here is "overseeable amount of time".  This spans many generations which is certainly achievable., and I think it is somewhat misleading to claim that all wastes radiation level has dropped to safe levels, because it depends on the isotopes in question.   But you should realise we don't just collect all the waste, package it up, and bury it - it is processed.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-waste-management.aspx

I'm unsure why Bhopal was brought up, but if one is comparing the deaths and injuries from nuclear power generation to deaths/injuries/legacy of the Bhopal spill, then I think you really should google the numbers.  Here, I have done it for you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_by_death_toll

And Bhopal... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster

[nctnico]

In the end the problem with nuclear waste is that it is not radioactive but toxic. The parallel with the Bhopal disaster is that just like at Fukushima a large area has become contaminated with toxic materials and that when cleaned the soil has to go somewhere. The difference is that Japan has the money to do a cleanup operation and India does not.

[wraper]

In the end the problem with nuclear waste is that it is not radioactive but toxic. The parallel with the Bhopal disaster is that just like at Fukushima a large area has become contaminated with toxic materials and that when cleaned the soil has to go somewhere. The difference is that Japan has the money to do a cleanup operation and India does not.

The difference is that chemical contamination is much easier to deal with. Put chemical protection on and you're free to do the job. If you have radioactive contamination, no protection will save you when you need to deal with highly radioactive source of contamination, which happens at Fukushima. They try to patch the problem here and there, wandering around. But they can do nothing about actual source of contamination.

[nctnico]

In the end the problem with nuclear waste is that it is not radioactive but toxic. The parallel with the Bhopal disaster is that just like at Fukushima a large area has become contaminated with toxic materials and that when cleaned the soil has to go somewhere. The difference is that Japan has the money to do a cleanup operation and India does not.

The difference is that chemical contamination is much easier to deal with. Put chemical protection on and you're free to do the job. If you have radioactive contamination, no protection will save you when you need to deal with highly radioactive source of contamination, which happens at Fukushima. They try to patch the problem here and there, wandering around. But they can do nothing about actual source of contamination.

Only the plant itself is highly radioactive. The surrounding land not so much; the radiation levels are not dangerous to your health. However the partikels can be toxic when ingested or inhaled.

[wraper]

Only the plant itself is highly radioactive. The surrounding land not so much; the radiation levels are not dangerous to your health. However the partikels can be toxic when ingested or inhaled.

The problem is they have leaking radioactive water. Therefore they need to do something about reactors which is a very big pain in the ass. Here are water tanks they are collecting that crap into.

[apis]

Actually it's the height... Locally we have relatively small lake Bajer in the mountains feeding water through the tunnel  down to a power plant that is at the sea level... there is 658,5 m of fall, installed power is 3x35MW. It is used as a peak supply plant, with pretty much instant regulation time. It is a part of a hydro system that is reversible, so sometimes they pump water back. That is rarely needed though, because surrounding mountains provide ample water.

To be completely accurate power is proportional to the height times the flow (think power=voltage*current).

[Berni]

Only the plant itself is highly radioactive. The surrounding land not so much; the radiation levels are not dangerous to your health. However the partikels can be toxic when ingested or inhaled.

The problem is they have leaking radioactive water. Therefore they need to do something about reactors which is a very big pain in the ass. Here are water tanks they are collecting that crap into.

That's a photo from Fukishima. They have so much of that contaminated water because they pumped lots and lots of sea water into the damaged reactor to cool the nuclear fuel. This water ended up flooding the facility and needed to be pumped out before it leaks down into the ground and sea (Well some of it already did leak).

Water flowing trough the core of a normally operating reactor wouldn't be nearly as bad, The water does become a bit radioactive so it can't be poured down the drain, but i have no idea whats the half life of the stuff that ends up in it. The real nasty isotopes stay inside the rods when things go to plan.

[wraper]

Only the plant itself is highly radioactive. The surrounding land not so much; the radiation levels are not dangerous to your health. However the partikels can be toxic when ingested or inhaled.

The problem is they have leaking radioactive water. Therefore they need to do something about reactors which is a very big pain in the ass. Here are water tanks they are collecting that crap into.

That's a photo from Fukishima. They have so much of that contaminated water because they pumped lots and lots of sea water into the damaged reactor to cool the nuclear fuel. This water ended up flooding the facility and needed to be pumped out before it leaks down into the ground and sea (Well some of it already did leak).

Water flowing trough the core of a normally operating reactor wouldn't be nearly as bad, The water does become a bit radioactive so it can't be poured down the drain, but i have no idea whats the half life of the stuff that ends up in it. The real nasty isotopes stay inside the rods when things go to plan.

Nope, it's never ending ground water. They have 1.1 million tons of that stored already.

[schmitt trigger]

I only hope that these tanks can withstand the next big earthquake.

[Berni]

Ah yes sorry i did miss the fact how much natural ground water is getting in to the facility

[Kleinstein]

The main sources of radioactivity they have in the water at Fukushima  should be Caesium and Strontium with a half life of some 30 years. So the same isotopes that are the main contamination from Chernobyl.

The problem is not that these are toxic, but it is the radioactivity. With lower levels the problems is that these elements get into the food and the radioactive strontium can collect in the bones.

For the water it makes sense to store it for some time and not release it to the ocean. Still it would not be a real disaster if after another earth quake some of the water would end up in the ocean.

The difference for the clean to a chemical spill is that there is no good way to separate the radioactive contamination from the soil. For many chemical contaminations the soil can actually be cleaned and the waste volume reduced.

[apis]

It wasn't just a magnitude 9 earthquake, it was a record level tsunami. According to Wikipedia: 15,897 deaths, +2 (Overseas), 6,157 injured, 2,533 people missing.



The nuclear accident which killed 1 person (again wikipedia) is really only a small part of the damage the tsunami caused.

It makes no sense to look at the nuclear accident as an isolated event.