Left Harpoons Nuclear Power...again

[airdvr 197]

First it was The China Syndrome and Three Mile Island.  Now it's HBO's Chernobyl, conveniently released just when the discussion of how to generate the massive amounts of electricity we'll be needing in the future is heating up.

[lnx 0]

You think "the left" is behind this series, with an agenda to scare people away from nuclear? That seems a little conspiratorial, don't you think..? 

I hope the series doesn't have that effect, although I fear it might. Especially since nuclear seems to be our best bet in fighting climate change.

[airdvr 197]

I don't know...who has always led the fight against nuke power?  Greenpeace anyone?  There's a bastion of right wing conservatives <sarcasm>

[lnx 0]

Yeah, the left has fought against nuclear power, but you're suggesting there's some plot behind the TV series, perpetrated by "the left". That seems a little ridiculous.

In any case, it's all pretty sad. The right don't "believe" in climate change, and the left are fighting against the best solution to it. Pretty sad to think that we've had the solution for decades, and just not used it.... and here we are.

My hope about the series is that it'll get people interested in nuclear power, and perhaps get a little more enlightened about it. But as any series, they need it to be dramatic, and so they play on the usual fears. Might people be smart enough to see through that?

[kallend 1,623]

1 hour ago, airdvr said:

First it was The China Syndrome and Three Mile Island.  Now it's HBO's Chernobyl, conveniently released just when the discussion of how to generate the massive amounts of electricity we'll be needing in the future is heating up.

Yes, HBO (a subsidiary of AT&T) is run by a bunch of devout socialists determined to bring about the end of capitalism. </sarcasm>

[billvon 2,396]

3 hours ago, airdvr said:

First it was The China Syndrome and Three Mile Island.  Now it's HBO's Chernobyl, conveniently released just when the discussion of how to generate the massive amounts of electricity we'll be needing in the future is heating up.

?? Chernobyl was an unmitigated disaster.  In fact, it was the only commercial power reactor ever to go prompt-critical, which is the process by which nuclear weapons are detonated.  We are very lucky it wasn't worse.

If the outcome of that is that the world as a whole decides to never build another RBMK reactor, never build another reactor with a positive void coefficient or never build another reactor with graphite-tipped control rods - then that is a good outcome.

[yobnoc 142]

8 minutes ago, billvon said:

?? Chernobyl was an unmitigated disaster.  In fact, it was the only commercial power reactor ever to go prompt-critical, which is the process by which nuclear weapons are detonated.  We are very lucky it wasn't worse.

If the outcome of that is that the world as a whole decides to never build another RBMK reactor, never build another reactor with a positive void coefficient or never build another reactor with graphite-tipped control rods - then that is a good outcome.

Modern reactors are built with poison-tipped control rods, which can cause a small power spike still, but cannot send the reactor prompt-critical. Bill, you know your shit; did you work in the industry?

Edited June 20, 2019 by yobnoc
used wrong terminology

[kallend 1,623]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

?? Chernobyl was an unmitigated disaster.  In fact, it was the only commercial power reactor ever to go prompt-critical, which is the process by which nuclear weapons are detonated.  We are very lucky it wasn't worse.

If the outcome of that is that the world as a whole decides to never build another RBMK reactor, never build another reactor with a positive void coefficient or never build another reactor with graphite-tipped control rods - then that is a good outcome.

Well, at least it wasn't built under a football stadium in the middle of a huge city like CP-1, with a guy with an axe in case it went out of control.

[billvon 2,396]

3 minutes ago, kallend said:

Well, at least it wasn't built under a football stadium in the middle of a huge city like CP-1, with a guy with an axe in case it went out of control.

Right.  One hopes we get smarter with time.

[airdvr 197]

If you think films that scare people away from reactors is a smart thing then good luck with your green energy dream.

I still believe that the timing of the film and the accident are a bit too coincidental.

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

1 hour ago, kallend said:

 an axe in case it went out of control.

Hi John,

Hey, that was cutting edge technology back then.

Jerry Baumchen

[billvon 2,396]

2 hours ago, airdvr said:

If you think films that scare people away from reactors is a smart thing then good luck with your green energy dream.

I think films that scare people away from bad reactor designs are excellent, and will do more in the long run to help the development of nuclear energy than to harm it.  More education is pretty much always better.

[AlanS 1]

 

Here is an interview with Craig Mazin who is the writer and executive producer.  It is very clear that he is for nuclear power. What he is against is living in a system where the people in power are lying all the time.  I could almost quote the entire article but will limit it to quotes below.

May 2, 2019 interview with writer and executive director of Chernobyl mini-series.

 

Quote

Mazin said. “I don’t intend this show to be an anti-nuclear power polemic. I’m in favor of nuclear power. Nuclear power is much cleaner than burning coal, we know that. There is absolutely a way to generate nuclear power safely. … The reactor in Chernobyl is of terrible design and it didn’t have a containment building around it and personnel weren’t properly trained and being asked to compensate for inherent flaws in that reactor that they didn’t even know about.

He is for nuclear power. What he is against is a society that doesn't value truth. 

Quote

Craig Mazin, the writer and executive producer of HBO’s upcoming “Chernobyl,” wants the historical drama’s viewers to think about what happens when truth is ignored because it doesn’t fit into a narrative.

 

And he is aware that he does change events some to make it an easier story to tell, but he will have a podcast available after each episode to describe what he changed from the real events and why. 

Quote

He said after each episode, there will be a podcast available and he explains what has been changed from real life in the episode and why it was changed.
“I do want to be accountable,” Mazin said. “I don’t want to be part of the problem I’m railing against. The elevation of narrative over truth.”

 

Edited June 21, 2019 by AlanS

[jakee 1,254]

4 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi John,

Hey, that was cutting edge technology back then.

Jerry Baumchen

An axe will always be cutting edge technology.

[kallend 1,623]

3 hours ago, AlanS said:

 

Here is an interview with Craig Mazin who is the writer and executive producer.  It is very clear that he is for nuclear power. What he is against is living in a system where the people in power are lying all the time. 

We have a separate thread about that:
 

https://www.dropzone.com/forums/topic/266166-trump-breaks-10000/

 

[airdvr 197]

7 hours ago, billvon said:

I think films that scare people away from bad reactor designs are excellent, and will do more in the long run to help the development of nuclear energy than to harm it.  More education is pretty much always better.

That would be true if there was more references to bad design.  It's not until the final 15 minutes that bad design is even discussed.  Instead we get hours of inaccurate portrayal of the physical effects of radiation exposure designed to scare people off of nuclear power.

Chernobyl doctor says TV show is 'dangerously' inaccurate

https://www.9news.com.au/world/chernobyl-hbo-chernobyl-hbo-disaster-tv-series-russia-radiation-death-toll-true/8ebcc15c-2b48-401d-ba53-844ea4a3346f

[DJL 232]

18 hours ago, airdvr said:

First it was The China Syndrome and Three Mile Island.  Now it's HBO's Chernobyl, conveniently released just when the discussion of how to generate the massive amounts of electricity we'll be needing in the future is heating up.

Because all those cinematic hack jobs on war by the left sure has made us as a country entirely abandon war as a solution to our issues hasn't it.

[DJL 232]

14 hours ago, kallend said:

Well, at least it wasn't built under a football stadium in the middle of a huge city like CP-1, with a guy with an axe in case it went out of control.

You know that never happened, right?  The reactor was to be shut down by dumping a liquid cadmium solution onto it.  There was never any axe or rope.

Edit: But that' still not much of an improvement.

Edited June 21, 2019 by DJL

[DJL 232]

10 hours ago, billvon said:

I think films that scare people away from bad reactor designs are excellent, and will do more in the long run to help the development of nuclear energy than to harm it.  More education is pretty much always better.

True.  Right now everyone is learning exactly what and why it happened instead of just lumping it into the "nuke is bad" blob in the back of their heads.

[billvon 2,396]

4 hours ago, airdvr said:

That would be true if there was more references to bad design.  It's not until the final 15 minutes that bad design is even discussed. 

That's 15 minutes more than most popular productions provide.  Good for them.

Nuclear power is inherently dangerous.  You can't shut down a PWR or BWR reactor easily or quickly, and if you have a loss-of-coolant accident during or after a shutdown, you can get significant releases of radiation.  With careful design, good training and good maintenance you can _make_ nuclear power quite safe, and we have demonstrated that.  But that's despite nuclear's risks, which are considerable.  And all that safety comes at a cost - which is why nuclear is our most expensive form of power.

I am all for more nuclear power plants for base load.  But have no illusions; that will massively drive up the cost of electrical energy in the US.  And maybe that's OK, because it's reliable and consistent, and we can afford it.  (And the dropping costs of renewables may well compensate for the increased spending on nuclear.)  I am also in favor of research into new reactor designs, like Gen III+ passively safe LWR's, TWR breeders (i.e Terrapower) and MSR designs.

If we go into the future concerned about the possibility of another Chernobyl (or even TMI) then the odds of them happening again go way down.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

4 hours ago, airdvr said:

That would be true if there was more references to bad design.  It's not until the final 15 minutes that bad design is even discussed.  Instead we get hours of inaccurate portrayal of the physical effects of radiation exposure designed to scare people off of nuclear power.

Chernobyl doctor says TV show is 'dangerously' inaccurate

https://www.9news.com.au/world/chernobyl-hbo-chernobyl-hbo-disaster-tv-series-russia-radiation-death-toll-true/8ebcc15c-2b48-401d-ba53-844ea4a3346f

You mean Rambo isn't true? This is shocking.

[PhreeZone 15]

3 hours ago, billvon said:

I am all for more nuclear power plants for base load.  But have no illusions; that will massively drive up the cost of electrical energy in the US.  And maybe that's OK, because it's reliable and consistent, and we can afford it.

First Energy here in Ohio just asked the state for a bail out of their entire energy platform via a really complicated set of house bill requirements. They had asked for the ability to charge about $200M annually on electric bills for "grid modernization" but ended up spending it on other things and the state Supreme Court just told they had to stop and can not use it to pay shareholders anymore.
https://www.ohio.com/news/20190619/ohio-supreme-court-rescinds-firstenergy-customer-rider-that-brought-utility-up-to-204-million-annually

Second thing happening is that a lot of coal producers are introducing legislation that will eliminate the states requirements to use "zero emission or renewable" power. 90% of this is nuke power from two plants, they currently receive state substitute money that the coal plants / producers want removed and put towards them instead.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/06/14/message-to-ohio-electricity-customers-stop-closing-nuclear-plants/#4d0f41b34d3b

This is creating a really unusual set of alliances here - Nuke plants, oil/gas producers and some Environmental groups are on one side fighting for the money and requirements to stay - another set of environment groups, some renewable company's and miners are teaming up with the coal producers to get the funding pulled to try and shut down the nuke plants. If the plants are shut down then coal will be the primary power source but a few new gas plants will be needed eventually but for the next few years it will be a boom for coal again. A few renewable companies are fighting it since they want the bill written to drop nuclear from the list and only offer up the money to solar/wind. Its a super complicated mess with a ton of lobbying dollars being dropped to control the energy production around here.

[wan2doit 6]

7 hours ago, DJL said:

Because all those cinematic hack jobs on war by the left sure has made us as a country entirely abandon war as a solution to our issues hasn't it.

Don't know much about all this but did watch a Public Television documentary (1 hour) about wildlife existing at Chernobyl since the melt down. Wildlife are flourishing all over the area that has been evacuated and closed off for however long. Trul amazing to see even previously very rare endangered species (cross of horse and elk - just a weird big ungulate) thriving and multiplying like rabbits. As per the documentary there hadn't been any of the dire  ill effects predicted for humans impacting wildlife of the area - made me think that maybe the humans didn't need to be relocated but I don't know much on nuclear side effects. Maybe someone else saw this program and can shed more light on if it was accurate.

[billvon 2,396]

26 minutes ago, wan2doit said:

Don't know much about all this but did watch a Public Television documentary (1 hour) about wildlife existing at Chernobyl since the melt down. Wildlife are flourishing all over the area that has been evacuated and closed off for however long. Trul amazing to see even previously very rare endangered species (cross of horse and elk - just a weird big ungulate) thriving and multiplying like rabbits. As per the documentary there hadn't been any of the dire  ill effects predicted for humans impacting wildlife of the area - made me think that maybe the humans didn't need to be relocated but I don't know much on nuclear side effects. Maybe someone else saw this program and can shed more light on if it was accurate.

There were pretty dire effects for wildlife - significantly increased stillbirth and mutation rates, for example.  A lot of swallows saw drastically lower birthrates and lifetimes, as seen in one study.  Over 1000 acres of forest were killed instantly from radiation exposure.

However, overall the effect was hugely positive for the wildlife around Chernobyl - because all the people left.  Endangered species, and even species thought to be extinct, have returned in large numbers. Lynx, wild boar, Eurasian wolves, Eurasian brown bears, European bison, Przewalski's horses, and Eurasian eagle owls have all had a massive comeback.   It's sad that people have a worse impact on such an area than a massive nuclear accident, but nowadays it's one of the healthiest ecosystems around.

[mbohu 77]

8 minutes ago, billvon said:

It's sad that people have a worse impact on such an area than a massive nuclear accident, but nowadays it's one of the healthiest ecosystems around

Well, isn't this the most likely ultimate outcome of global warming as well? After all, there are plenty of species that can survive in temperatures that will be untenable for humans. All the prior extinction-level events on earth also never killed ALL species. So: We can look forward to the best years for cockroaches, tardigrades and many other species, after we're all gone.