What if the Chernobyl disaster never happened? (DO NOT Add potitics to this discussion, or I will report your post))

[Spaceception]

Watch the video, then discuss  

Alternate history hub

Edited February 13, 2016 by Spaceception

[kunok]

The video is very political and the discussion will be very political.

In my country (and many others) private companies are allowed to make new nuclear plants but they don't do, only if the government puts lots of money.

Edited February 13, 2016 by kunok
typos

[Elthy]

I dont like the way the video retells the story of chernobly, simply not enough time to say anything meaningfull. Im pretty sure people in pripyat noticed the radiation directly, that would have been to extreme...

But im sure that such a disaster would have happened somewhere else later, this reactordesign was simply to risky.

[Scotius]

Yeah. Something somewhere would give. Nuclear reactors are not foolproof - Fukushima disaster proved it without a doubt. Ugh. I wish it would happen in another time and place though - i was a kid then, but i still remember the horrible taste of anti-radiation medicine we were given at school prophylactically. But at least we knew something bad was happening. Many people living close to the Chernobyl weren't given the luxury of warning.

[Tex_NL]

If Chernobyl had never happened people would probably be not so irrationally scared of nuclear power. Agree with me or not, believe me or not, I don't care. But nuclear energy IS currently our best option to fight global warming. Solar and wind are too unreliable for large scale production. Hydro and geothermal or too reliant on local features.
The risks of nuclear energy production are absolutely minimal. It's just that the results of a failure are so immense. Both Chernobyl and Fukushima failed only because ALL back-up and safety systems were either temporarily disables or failed. Chances of that happening ever again are close to zero.

People nowadays are so scared of radiation they would rather live next to a coal powered plant than next to a nuclear plant. Guess what, the nuclear plant is so well shielded it gives off LESS radiation than the coal stored at the coal plant. I'll take a well maintained nuclear plant any day of the week.

[Elthy]

Quote

Chances of that happening ever again are close to zero.

Thats not how propablity works...

There we go again...

Quote

People nowadays are so scared of radiation they would rather live next to a coal powered plant than next to a nuclear plant. Guess what, the nuclear plant is so well shielded it gives off LESS radiation than the coal stored at the coal plant. I'll take a well maintained nuclear plant any day of the week.

I dont know how the Anti-Nuclear movement around you argue against powerplants, but here in germany you hear other arguments, noone is scared by an intact nuclear powerplant (those against nuclear power here know quite much about them). There are other arguemnts way more important:

-Costs over the lifetime (operationcosts are not the problem)
-Unsolved problem of nuclear waste (it can be solved, but not that cheap that the energy companys can afford it)
-Similar to renewables they cant contribute 100% of the energy to a grid without additional energystorage
-Some reactors can be used to produce nuclear weapons
-Centralized power generation has its own problems (powerfull corporations, ties with politics)

[Tex_NL]

6 minutes ago, Elthy said:

T-Costs over the lifetime (operationcosts are not the problem)

-Unsolved problem of nuclear waste (it can be solved, but not that cheap that the energy companys can afford it)
-Similar to renewables they cant contribute 100% of the energy to a grid without additional energystorage
-Some reactors can be used to produce nuclear weapons
-Centralized power generation has its own problems (powerfull corporations, ties with politics)

True, there is nuclear waste. But coal plants spew out CO₂ and numerous other chemicals by the ton.
Nuclear can't power 100% of the grid? And coal plant can? BULLCRAP!
Indeed certain plants can be used to produce weapons. But others, like the plant at Petten Netherlands, produce life saving isotopes to fight cancer.

[RainDreamer]

Well, we would not learn about how to not handle nuclear power then. It serves as a warning so we learn from them and make better safety procedures and reactor designs later on. So it is likely a similar accident would happen some other time, somewhere else. Then people learn what they did wrong, and move on to do better.

[kunok]

3 minutes ago, Tex_NL said:

If Chernobyl had never happened people would probably be not so irrationally scared of nuclear power. Agree with me or not, believe me or not, I don't care. But nuclear energy IS currently our best option to fight global warming. Solar and wind are too unreliable for large scale production. Hydro and geothermal or too reliant on local features.
The risks of nuclear energy production are absolutely minimal. It's just that the results of a failure are so immense. Both Chernobyl and Fukushima failed only because ALL back-up and safety systems were either temporarily disables or failed. Chances of that happening ever again are close to zero.

People nowadays are so scared of radiation they would rather live next to a coal powered plant than next to a nuclear plant. Guess what, the nuclear plant is so well shielded it gives off LESS radiation than the coal stored at the coal plant. I'll take a well maintained nuclear plant any day of the week.

Your post takes a false dichotomy, you can have no coal plants and no nuclear plants. In fact nowadays a gas combined cycle power plant is the most usual around here in new plants, even if we don't use them.

This is the real time Spanish generation https://demanda.ree.es/generacion_acumulada.html We only have coal plants running again because the government (this is politics and I will not enter in them, but you can't talk about this without mentioning), they were stopped for years.

 

Today most of our energy comes from the wind even taking into account the anti renewable energy politics of the last ¿5? years (yeah politics again, the same problem as before).

2 minutes ago, Elthy said:

 

-Costs over the lifetime (operationcosts are not the problem)
-Unsolved problem of nuclear waste (it can be solved, but not that cheap that the energy companys can afford it)
-Similar to renewables they cant contribute 100% of the energy to a grid without additional energystorage
-Some reactors can be used to produce nuclear weapons
-Centralized power generation has its own problems (powerfull corporations, ties with politics)

I will add that the central itself is very very very expensive.

[Green Baron]

Yes, without a little glimpse on thesubjectthatshallnotbespokenabout it's difficult. So sue me :-)

The Chernobyl-Desaster was the result of pure carelessness (letting the coolant run on it's own inertia), in conjunction with not enough respect to the dangers. Those were no idiots, they knew the design and possible dangers but just ignored them.

What if Harrisburg (Three Mile Island) never happened (stuck valve) in conjunction with confused personnel, or Fukushima (wrong design for the geography) in conjunction with carelessness ? The latter keeps on happening by now and will do so for the next decade, probably longer. It's just out of the news.

I'd say: If Chernobyl never happened we would be even more careless with fission energy. The human factor (fear, responsibility, *lowers voice* thesubjectthatshallnotbespokenabout) will be the main reasons. Nevertheless it will happen over again, a few hundreds or thousands will die more or less directly (within a year or so), uncounted later on (per accident). No exaggeration. That'll be in the news for month or so, clever people will stand up and claim something, everyone will be more or less shocked for a limited time.

Ok, i go and blow up a few nervas on Kerbin :-)

 

[Laie]

Public opinion was turning against nuclear power since, like, forever. By the mid-to-late seventies, opposition was strong enough that new projects barely made any headway anymore (at least in the parts of the world I know something about. Dunno about China or India). Doubt in nuclear power was sufficiently mainstream that the topic was picked up by Hollywood even before Three Mile Island happened.

In my country, Chernobyl invigorated the opposition sufficiently that the almost finished breeder reactor never went online, and the half-finished reprocessing plant was eventually cancelled. The latter would probably still have been pulled through if it wasn't for the death of it's most important political proponent, however.

But: even if these projects had been completed and went online, no matter how successful they were, there could not have been any more plants.

 

[fredinno]

27 minutes ago, Elthy said:

Thats not how propablity works...

There we go again...

I dont know how the Anti-Nuclear movement around you argue against powerplants, but here in germany you hear other arguments, noone is scared by an intact nuclear powerplant (those against nuclear power here know quite much about them). There are other arguemnts way more important:

-Costs over the lifetime (operationcosts are not the problem)
-Unsolved problem of nuclear waste (it can be solved, but not that cheap that the energy companys can afford it)
-Similar to renewables they cant contribute 100% of the energy to a grid without additional energystorage
-Some reactors can be used to produce nuclear weapons
-Centralized power generation has its own problems (powerfull corporations, ties with politics)

And the problem of nuclear waste can't be solved because of the anti-nuclear public preventing things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository not really cost. (though it's huge, the amount of waste is so small, everyone can pile in their money together to fund a single dump)

And no energy sources can provide 100% of the needed energy- hydro gets the closest, but that only works if you have a LOT of mountains and water- even then, you still need small fossil fuel plants for remote areas (run of river is still slow to take off)

And are you implying that we haven't had centralized power generation? That's how it's been going on for forever! Fossil fuel plants have the same problem.

1 hour ago, Spaceception said:

Watch the video, then discuss  

Alternate history hub

This belongs here, btw: http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/forumdisplay.php?f=16

9 minutes ago, kunok said:

Your post takes a false dichotomy, you can have no coal plants and no nuclear plants. In fact nowadays a gas combined cycle power plant is the most usual around here in new plants, even if we don't use them.

This is the real time Spanish generation https://demanda.ree.es/generacion_acumulada.html We only have coal plants running again because the government (this is politics and I will not enter in them, but you can't talk about this without mentioning), they were stopped for years.

 

Today most of our energy comes from the wind even taking into account the anti renewable energy politics of the last ¿5? years (yeah politics again, the same problem as before).

I will add that the central itself is very very very expensive.

No, Spain's energy is actually pretty evenly spaced, with nuclear almost 25%.

[kunok]

10 minutes ago, fredinno said:

No, Spain's energy is actually pretty evenly spaced, with nuclear almost 25%

I said today as 13/02/2016, not as currently, sorry for my english. And that mix is with all the government regulations against renewable energies (seriously guys I can't talk about energy in spain without entering in politics).

All the nuclear plants here are very old, and we can stop all of them tomorrow, there are enough combined cycled plants for all the energy we use.

Edited February 13, 2016 by kunok
adding things

[Spaceception]

10 minutes ago, fredinno said:

This belongs here, btw: http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/forumdisplay.php?f=16

 

??? I don't use that.

[Tex_NL]

Sure, gas is a lot cleaner than coal. But is still pumps out tons of CO₂.
Pure nuclear is also not the solution and neither is pure renewable. There should be a combination between the two just as there is one between coal/gas and renewable today. Fredinno's diagrams are a good example. The polluters just need to go.

The problem with renewables is often visual or noise pollution and social impact.
Beach tourists complain about 'horizon pollution' when they spot a barely visible row of windmills 10km off the coast. Entire villages need to be relocated in order to make space for a new lake as a result of a hydroelectric dam. Nobody wants their beautiful view of the alpine meadows replaced by a mountainside paved with solar panels.
A number of windmills near where I live have been removed a few years ago. They caught a lot of wind and produced a good deal of energy but they where build next to a marina. Tourists started complaining about the noise and in fear of loosing revenue the mills bit the dust.
Everybody wants clean energy, but not in their back yard. Sorry people, you can't always have your cake and eat it too. Sometimes sacrifices have to be made. They needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one.

Edited February 13, 2016 by Tex_NL

[micr0wave]

In my opinion, digging in waste (nuclear or not, doesn't matter) is the same as closing your eyes and say "I can't see it anymore, it's gone".

Looking away won't solve things.

As others mentioned before, if Chernobyl never happened some other plant would have taken that place (to be honest, there were enough accidents before and after as well as other fountains of constant contamination).

The decrease of nuclear power plants will happen anyway, when the ore concentration falls under a certain level it will not have a positive power output anymore due to the effort that has to be taken for refining the ore into useable levels and all the other things that are involved into higher risk industries.

[Green Baron]

17 minutes ago, micr0wave said:

In my opinion, digging in waste (nuclear or not, doesn't matter) is the same as closing your eyes and say "I can't see it anymore, it's gone".

Looking away won't solve things.

As others mentioned before, if Chernobyl never happened some other plant would have taken that place (to be honest, there were enough accidents before and after as well as other fountains of constant contamination).

The decrease of nuclear power plants will happen anyway, when the ore concentration falls under a certain level it will not have a positive power output anymore due to the effort that has to be taken for refining the ore into useable levels and all the other things that are involved into higher risk industries.

I hope so. I'm absolutely with you.

And: digging in does'nt t only not solve the problem, it worsens the problem. The germans put it in a saltdome in northern germany, that's a timebomb. Salt is highly mobile, tends to come up and crack under changing pressure, and of course dissolves in water. In 200 years they will curse their ancestors.

Moreover, because noone wants the stuff any more, it's stacked in special containers besides the powerplants. And since nuclear weapons aren't needed any more in great numbers and people are aware of the dangers of transport, those nuclear processing plants have lost their appeal as well.

 

[RocketSquid]

38 minutes ago, micr0wave said:

As others mentioned before, if Chernobyl never happened some other plant would have taken that place (to be honest, there were enough accidents before and after as well as other fountains of constant contamination).

The decrease of nuclear power plants will happen anyway, when the ore concentration falls under a certain level it will not have a positive power output anymore due to the effort that has to be taken for refining the ore into useable levels and all the other things that are involved into higher risk industries.

1) Coal plants consistently release more radiation than a functioning nuclear plant. A 1000-MW plant dumps 5.2 (metric) tons of uranium into the atmosphere per year, including approximately 34 kg of U-235. This means that we get over one Chernobyl worth of nuclear fuel release (not one reactorful, and only for fuel) per 177 coal plants per year.

2) Coal, oil, etc will likely run out before uranium does. Also, Uranium holds a lot of energy. A LOT. Also, you can just as easily say that one day we'll run out of silicon for solar panels, or out of steel and concrete for wind turbines and hydroelectric dams (Exaggeration). We have ~90 years of uranium, ~115 years of coal, and ~55 years of oil and natural gas from the reserves we currently have found.

Edited February 13, 2016 by RocketSquid

[kunok]

12 minutes ago, Tex_NL said:

The problem with renewables is often visual or noise pollution and social impact.
Beach tourists complain about 'horizon pollution' when they spot a barely visible row of windmills 10km off the coast. Entire villages need to be relocated in order to make space for a new lake as a result of a hydroelectric dam. Nobody wants their beautiful view of the alpine meadows replaced by a mountainside paved with solar panels.
A number of windmills near where I live have been removed a few years ago. They caught a lot of wind and produced a good deal of energy but they where build next to a marina. Tourists started complaining about the noise and in fear of loosing revenue the mills bit the dust.
Everybody wants clean energy, but not in their back yard. Sorry people, you can't always have your cake and eat it too. Sometimes sacrifices have to be made. They needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one.

Here we don't have that kind of problems, as far I know, people have been used to the wind generators and even want them in the mountains of their villages, it pays good and they improve the roads, photovoltaic solar farms were a good option until the government cut the bountys (not sure how to translate this) retroactively (our country it's being sued from every international and national investor). Dams are a bad option IMHO, or at least more, we have already a lot.

And tourists, well I think It's more important the energetic independence than the tourism. And we can't have it with nuclear power.

[Elthy]

8 minutes ago, kemde said:

And: digging in does'nt t only not solve the problem, it worsens the problem. The germans put it in a saltdome in northern germany, that's a timebomb. Salt is highly mobile, tends to come up and crack under changing pressure, and of course dissolves in water. In 200 years they will curse their ancestors.

They are allready cursing them now. The Asse is allready leaking and costs of recovering the waste (without disposal) is in the billions.

 

51 minutes ago, Tex_NL said:

The problem with renewables is often visual or noise pollution and social impact.
Beach tourists complain about 'horizon pollution' when they spot a barely visible row of windmills 10km off the coast. Entire villages need to be relocated in order to make space for a new lake as a result of a hydroelectric dam. Nobody wants their beautiful view of the alpine meadows replaced by a mountainside paved with solar panels.
A number of windmills near where I live have been removed a few years ago. They caught a lot of wind and produced a good deal of energy but they where build next to a marina. Tourists started complaining about the noise and in fear of loosing revenue the mills bit the dust.
Everybody wants clean energy, but not in their back yard. Sorry people, you can't always have your cake and eat it too. Sometimes sacrifices have to be made. They needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one.

I know a lot of people who want windmills in their backyard. I see them everyday from my window, noone is complaining here anymore. People are proud to have lots of renewables...

Its another case with the coal power plant here. Ugly as love, lots of CO2, too...

[Green Baron]

6 minutes ago, RocketSquid said:

1) Coal plants consistently release more radiation than a functioning nuclear plant. A 1000-MW plant dumps 5.2 (metric) tons of uranium into the atmosphere per year, including approximately 34 kg of U-235. This means that we get over one Chernobyl worth of nuclear fuel release (not one reactorful, and only for fuel) per 177 coal plants per year.

2) Coal, oil, etc will likely run out before uranium does. Also, Uranium holds a lot of energy. A LOT. Also, you can just as easily say that one day we'll run out of silicon for solar panels, or out of steel and concrete for wind turbines and hydroelectric dams, or out of heat in the earth's core for geothermal. We have ~90 years of uranium, ~115 years of coal, and ~55 years of oil and natural gas.

Even if that's true, a single accident will make an area uninhabitable for decades, spoil the whole foodchain and kill thousands. Up to now i know of three such accidents, i'm sure there are more to come and there were and are probably a whole lot of smaller leaks that don't get in the news.

 

[Tex_NL]

4 minutes ago, kunok said:

And tourists, well I think It's more important the energetic independence than the tourism. And we can't have it with nuclear power.

Too bad tourism is a huge sector where I live. I guess at least two thirds of the people here earn their living directly or indirectly from tourism. I myself work for a large restaurant supplier. If the tourists stay away restaurants go bust and I too am out of a job.

1 minute ago, kemde said:

Even if that's true, a single accident will make an area uninhabitable for decades, spoil the whole foodchain and kill thousands. Up to now i know of three such accidents, i'm sure there are more to come and there were and are probably a whole lot of smaller leaks that don't get in the news.

 

Three 'major' accidents worldwide in the entire history of nuclear power. That is actually an incredibly low number if you compare it with those that have died (in)directly from coal/gas pollution. And WILL die from the results of global warming.

[Elthy]

6 minutes ago, Tex_NL said:

Three 'major' accidents worldwide in the entire history of nuclear power. That is actually an incredibly low number if you compare it with those that have died (in)directly from coal/gas pollution. And WILL die from the results of global warming.

The number of those dying from renewables is even lower...

[micr0wave]

13 minutes ago, RocketSquid said:

1) Coal plants consistently release more radiation than a functioning nuclear plant. A 1000-MW plant dumps 5.2 (metric) tons of uranium into the atmosphere per year, including approximately 34 kg of U-235. This means that we get over one Chernobyl worth of nuclear fuel release (not one reactorful, and only for fuel) per 177 coal plants per year.

 

yes, and that might reveal why coal isn't an alternative.

Quote

2) Coal, oil, etc will likely run out before uranium does. Also, Uranium holds a lot of energy. A LOT. Also, you can just as easily say that one day we'll run out of silicon for solar panels, or out of steel and concrete for wind turbines and hydroelectric dams (Exaggeration). We have ~90 years of uranium, ~115 years of coal, and ~55 years of oil and natural gas from the reserves we currently have found.

Uranium has to be enriched to be able to be used as fuel in the power plants, once the raw material falls below a certain level you'll have to invest more energy to bring the concentration up to useable levels. There will probably still be enough raw material to build all the panels and windmills when mankind has long vanished since it isn't really used up like fuel gets used, e.g. sand contains silicon and we have lots of it on this planet.

[Tex_NL]

4 minutes ago, Elthy said:

The number of those dying from renewables is even lower...

Lower, yes. But not zero.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hydroelectric_power_station_failures

I am not saying the world should go pure nuclear. I prefer a balance combination as pure renewable can not cover the 24/7 demand.