3 ms·

There was a radioactive cloud over most of Europe after Chernobyl. It is much harder politically to defend nuclear energy once you lived through that disaster.

mpweiher 7y ago
Except that that radioactive cloud was much less harmful than reported. And much less harmful than the emissions from our other power sources.
- spython 7y ago
  The amount of harm doesn't matter. It's the magnitude of the event that counts. The same with the perceived and real safety of airplanes vs. cars.
i_am_proteus 7y ago
There's a cloud of particulants from burning coal and oil over most of Europe--- and it has killed orders of magnitude more people than contamination from Chernobyl.
- juped 7y ago
  Even if radiation is your only concern, coal emissions disperse a lot of radiation into the environment! (Still not very much radiation in absolute terms - but more radiation than the nuclear industry emits.)
  - piker 7y ago
    > more radiation than the nuclear industry emits buried the lede there
- pgeorgi 7y ago
  Do you have to check mushrooms and boar for radioactivity due to coal like you have for Tchernobyl? (https://www.bfs.de/DE/themen/ion/umwelt/lebensmittel/pilze-wildbret/pilze-wildbret.html https://www.bfs.de/DE/themen/ion/umwelt/lebensmittel/pilze-w...)
- DoctorOetker 7y ago
  where do I learn more about the isotope composition of coal? does it vary significantly from deposit to deposit? can they be chemically removed on the basis of their current element identity? similarily are there significant radioactive isotopes related to the manufacture of plastic products? Regardless if they remain in the plastic or another byproduct? How is such a byproduct dealt with?
11thEarlOfMar 7y ago
Chernobyl was a Gen II reactor. Three Mile Island and Fukushima were also Gen II. [0] There has never been a meltdown of a Gen III reactor, which is the bulk of the fleet in France. Gen IV are being designed to be impossible to melt down, and, to use waste from other plants as a fuel source. They do not emit radioactive waste.[1] [0] "To date, there have been five serious accidents (core damage) in the world since 1970 (one at Three Mile Island in 1979; one at Chernobyl in 1986; and three at Fukushima-Daiichi in 2011), corresponding to the beginning of the operation of generation II reactors. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_plant [1] http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/generation-iv-nuclear-reactors.aspx http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fue...
- anoncake 7y ago
  > There has never been a meltdown of a Gen III reactor yet. > Gen IV are being designed to be impossible to melt down Fukushima was designed to be tsunami-safe. Using NPPs risks rendering large areas uninhabitable. Using fossils risks most of Earth. That does make NPPs a better solution in the short term, but relying on them permanently is still madness.
  - core-questions 7y ago
    > Fukushima was designed to be tsunami-safe. If you look at the compromises made in the design, I don't think you can really say that this was the case. Even if so, all it proves is that maybe we should build such reactors in safer places, not on fault lines near the ocean.
    - anoncake 7y ago
      The people who planned the Fukushima plant made some stupid mistakes. That proves that we shouldn't make stupid mistakes. But that's not possible. Yes, we can mostly avoid past mistakes. Until there is no accident for a while, people become complacent and start cutting costs. We cannot avoid the mistakes we have neither made yet nor thought of.
YayamiOmate 7y ago
Im not sure if it's so hard. There already exist a strong narrative that it wasn't so bad,and severe misconduct and negligence must happen for a big disaster. And that in absolute terms it wasn't so bad. I thinkits easy to politically argue for nukes. They are like planes, when they crash it's a big deal, still comparatively safest method. I am not a fan of mass producing waste that renders some area or space inhabitable for most of life, for longer than our written history or even our species. Though, maybe it's better than burning fossils as a mean of getting to something cleaner and safer (and cheap). Tough choice. I think i'd nuke waste and some disasters over greenhouse I guess, especially runaway.
- DoctorOetker 7y ago
  I am really curious about tidal energy projects, since in principle the cost for the wall is linearly proportional to the circumference, but the energy stored is proportional to the area, hence quadratic in price. Roughly speaking a project 10 times as expensive would store and generate 100 times as much energy... Unlike solar and wind, the tides are very predictable and 2 cycles per day are guaranteed. The constant false dilemma between nuclear and coal is poisoning the discussions and blinding us from investing in alternatives... Did the Japanese project for tidal energy get scrapped? Wikipedia is mute about the current status at [1] and doesn't list the Japanese tidal energy project as under construction at [2] either... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Japan#Ocean_energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Japan#Ocean_energy [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tidal_power_stations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tidal_power_stations
vidarh 7y ago
Coal plants spew much more radioactivity into the air and keep doing so. Add on the particulate matter, and we'd be better off with a Chernobyl a year - the death toll from coal is much higher.

mpweiher 7y ago

Except that that radioactive cloud was much less harmful than reported. And much less harmful than the emissions from our other power sources.

spython 7y ago
The amount of harm doesn't matter. It's the magnitude of the event that counts. The same with the perceived and real safety of airplanes vs. cars.

i_am_proteus 7y ago

There's a cloud of particulants from burning coal and oil over most of Europe--- and it has killed orders of magnitude more people than contamination from Chernobyl.

juped 7y ago
Even if radiation is your only concern, coal emissions disperse a lot of radiation into the environment! (Still not very much radiation in absolute terms - but more radiation than the nuclear industry emits.)
- piker 7y ago
  > more radiation than the nuclear industry emits buried the lede there
pgeorgi 7y ago
Do you have to check mushrooms and boar for radioactivity due to coal like you have for Tchernobyl? (https://www.bfs.de/DE/themen/ion/umwelt/lebensmittel/pilze-wildbret/pilze-wildbret.html https://www.bfs.de/DE/themen/ion/umwelt/lebensmittel/pilze-w...)
DoctorOetker 7y ago
where do I learn more about the isotope composition of coal? does it vary significantly from deposit to deposit? can they be chemically removed on the basis of their current element identity? similarily are there significant radioactive isotopes related to the manufacture of plastic products? Regardless if they remain in the plastic or another byproduct? How is such a byproduct dealt with?

11thEarlOfMar 7y ago

Chernobyl was a Gen II reactor. Three Mile Island and Fukushima were also Gen II. [0] There has never been a meltdown of a Gen III reactor, which is the bulk of the fleet in France. Gen IV are being designed to be impossible to melt down, and, to use waste from other plants as a fuel source. They do not emit radioactive waste.[1] [0] "To date, there have been five serious accidents (core damage) in the world since 1970 (one at Three Mile Island in 1979; one at Chernobyl in 1986; and three at Fukushima-Daiichi in 2011), corresponding to the beginning of the operation of generation II reactors. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_plant [1] http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/generation-iv-nuclear-reactors.aspx http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fue...

anoncake 7y ago
> There has never been a meltdown of a Gen III reactor yet. > Gen IV are being designed to be impossible to melt down Fukushima was designed to be tsunami-safe. Using NPPs risks rendering large areas uninhabitable. Using fossils risks most of Earth. That does make NPPs a better solution in the short term, but relying on them permanently is still madness.
- core-questions 7y ago
  > Fukushima was designed to be tsunami-safe. If you look at the compromises made in the design, I don't think you can really say that this was the case. Even if so, all it proves is that maybe we should build such reactors in safer places, not on fault lines near the ocean.
  - anoncake 7y ago
    The people who planned the Fukushima plant made some stupid mistakes. That proves that we shouldn't make stupid mistakes. But that's not possible. Yes, we can mostly avoid past mistakes. Until there is no accident for a while, people become complacent and start cutting costs. We cannot avoid the mistakes we have neither made yet nor thought of.

YayamiOmate 7y ago

Im not sure if it's so hard. There already exist a strong narrative that it wasn't so bad,and severe misconduct and negligence must happen for a big disaster. And that in absolute terms it wasn't so bad. I thinkits easy to politically argue for nukes. They are like planes, when they crash it's a big deal, still comparatively safest method. I am not a fan of mass producing waste that renders some area or space inhabitable for most of life, for longer than our written history or even our species. Though, maybe it's better than burning fossils as a mean of getting to something cleaner and safer (and cheap). Tough choice. I think i'd nuke waste and some disasters over greenhouse I guess, especially runaway.

DoctorOetker 7y ago
I am really curious about tidal energy projects, since in principle the cost for the wall is linearly proportional to the circumference, but the energy stored is proportional to the area, hence quadratic in price. Roughly speaking a project 10 times as expensive would store and generate 100 times as much energy... Unlike solar and wind, the tides are very predictable and 2 cycles per day are guaranteed. The constant false dilemma between nuclear and coal is poisoning the discussions and blinding us from investing in alternatives... Did the Japanese project for tidal energy get scrapped? Wikipedia is mute about the current status at [1] and doesn't list the Japanese tidal energy project as under construction at [2] either... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Japan#Ocean_energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Japan#Ocean_energy [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tidal_power_stations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tidal_power_stations

vidarh 7y ago

Coal plants spew much more radioactivity into the air and keep doing so. Add on the particulate matter, and we'd be better off with a Chernobyl a year - the death toll from coal is much higher.