←back to thread

Nuclear energy key to decarbonising Europe, says EESC

(www.eesc.europa.eu)
129 points mpweiher | 1 comments | 12 Dec 25 17:32 UTC | HN request time: 0.194s | source
Show context
softwaredoug ◴[12 Dec 25 19:42 UTC] No.46247934[source]▶
I think Fukushima rather than Chernobyl looms over us as a more realistic disaster that could happen again.

When you look at the data though, its political fallout was much worse than the actual toll on human life, etc. Fukushima released a small about of radiation into the environment. But modern reactors don’t have the same runaway reactivity flaws that Chernobyl did.

Not zero risk. But not the level of risk resulting in half a continent potentially being uninhabitable.

replies(2): >>46248126 #>>46248248 #
goatlover ◴[12 Dec 25 19:59 UTC] No.46248126[source]▶
Would Chernobyl have realistically made half a continent uninhabitable had the Soviets not taken all measures to contain it? Or is it more worse case fear mongering nuclear has always had, while oil tankers s[ill into oceans, pipelines leak into national parks, people die from polluted air, and climate change continues to grow worse?
replies(2): >>46248431 #>>46248552 #
1. mandevil ◴[12 Dec 25 20:36 UTC] No.46248552[source]▶
I mean, the basic problem at Chernobyl was the lack of a big heavy containment vessel that essentially all other reactor designs have. That containment vessel (and a couple of other design features, e.g. negative void coefficient in a PWR) has, so far, largely prevented Chernobyl like issues at other, better designed reactors. So far a TMI/Fukushima Dai Ichi/Chalk River is about the worst that has been observed in a reactor with a containment vessel.

And as for how realistic it was that it would make large areas unlivable, the threat was of a melt-down going far enough down to hit the water table and contaminating the groundwater. That would make large areas only livable if you brought your own water, even for bathing, basically making the area impracticable. Obviously it didn't happen, but I'm not clear whether it was a 0.5% chance, a 5% chance or a 50% chance.