Nuclear fuel in the reactor cores melted after the magnitude 9.0 earthquake and tsunami in March 2011 caused the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant's cooling systems to fail
Nobody claims it was harmless, but it sure was very low on the harmless scale – especially if you compare it with every fear monger’s favorite, Chernobyl.
Lots of people claim it was harmless because relatively few people died. They have to focus on just one statistic (and a very unreliable at that) to prop up their delusions.
Don’t worry it probably won’t be long before the houthi rebels or some other terrorist state backed crazies manage to successfully launch an attack on a nuclear power station somewhere then you won’t have to keep hearing about three mile island, chernobyl, Fukushima, the windscale fire, sizewell leaks, or any of the other times nuclear power has gone dangerously wrong.
Thankfully Isreal doesn’t have nuclear power plants because it’s obviously too dangerous, let’s hope Russia, Iran, China, or any other well funded powerbase don’t get pushed into a corner and see funding an attack on a western nation as a viable response. Or some wacky religious group, race war proponents, attention seeking crazies or any of the usual suspects get as lucky as the 911 hijackers.
In all the famous cases, Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island, and Sellafield, it was close enough to a real disaster. Sure, only some people died, some more got radiation poisoning, cancer, even more lost their pets, their homes, their livelihoods, quite some animals died… thank god that’s “low on the harmless scale”.
Thing is, most types of power generation have some kind of issue. Of the cleaner options, hydro, tidal, and geothermal can only be built in select places; solar panels create noxious waste at the point of manufacture; wind takes up space and interferes with some types of birds. Plus, wind and solar need on-grid storage (of which we still have little) to be able to handle what’s known as baseline load, something that nuclear is good at.
Nuclear is better in terms of death rate than burning fossil fuels, which causes a whole slate of illnesses ranging from COPD to, yes, cancer. It’s just that that’s a chronic problem, whereas Chernobyl (that perfect storm of bad reactor design, testing in production, Soviet bureaucratic rigidity, and poor judgement in general) was acute. We’re wired to ignore chronic problems.
In an ideal world, we would have built out enough hydro fifty years ago to cover the world’s power needs, or enough on-grid storage more recently to handle the variability of solar and wind, but this isn’t a perfect world, and we didn’t. It isn’t that nuclear is a good solution to the need for power—it’s one of those things where all the solutions are bad in some way, and we need to build something.
And don’t forget the trillions and trillions it has already cost and will cost in the future to clean this shit up. But that gets paid by the taxpayer, so that’s OK, right?
In Germany, the state paid for all the research and development and then gave it to the companies for free. Then they massively subsidised the construction of the plants. Then the private companies got to reap the profits while the plants were running. And now the government is stuck with the bill for decommissioning. Totally not a racket.
When reading about dungeness reactor i learned that even reactors that haven’t melted down also take about a hundred years to decommission safely.
Another interesting stat I heard on a podcast is that the coal industry has proven much more deadly than the nuclear industry in terms of human lives lost.
The care and maintenance stage is part of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) decommissioning strategy and spans an 80+ year period. This waiting period allows for radiation levels within the reactor core to decline and helps to facilitate a smoother demolition process. Dungeness A is due to enter the care and maintenance phase in 2027. Demolition of reactor buildings and final site clearance is planned for 2088 to 2098
Sadly that’s what the human race does. It’s nothing unique to nuclear power.
It still baffles me, for example, that with all this technology, we still generate all this rubbish which we then bury in the ground. And we all know it. We all buy things in disposable packaging. We are all complicit.
Nuclear waste doesn’t really pose problems substantially different from other forms of waste. There’s lots of waste that isn’t good for you if you come into contact with it, and stuff that’ll remain in that state for a lot longer than anything radioactive enough to be a concern is.
That’s some really cool technology you got there, that can reprocess radioactive waste from decommissioning nuclear plants. You know, reactor vessels, bio shields, all the plumbing etc. Please point me to a source on how that technology works.
Like I said below, it’s basically recycling, which also doesn’t make the waste disappear. I’m with you on this one, but you also did ask how reprocessing works, so there’s that.
More or less everyone is allowed to return to their homes as of this year. Even the radiation in the direct vicinity of the plant is nearly nearly down to pre-accident levels
It’s much better than the alternative, yes cancer rates shot up and a huge area of once beautiful and productive land is contaminated but if we had rooftop solar then rich corporations wouldn’t be able to manipulate us with price spikes and lock us into being helpless without them.
The rich need to have power over us and centralized power generation controlled by the ultra wealthy is the only option that let’s them have that dominamce so every propaganda bot must ignore all the safety risks, spiraling economic costs, and political bullshit so they can push for it and divert money from.far more viable and effective alternatives.
Manufacturing of solar panels produces a different kind of contamination, though—it’s just not located at the point of power generation. Wind is probably a bit better, with fewer exotic chemicals required, but “rooftop wind” isn’t exactly a common catchphrase.
Wind Turbine’s problems is we have to replace the blades every 3-7 years depending on the model and there is no good way to recycle or break down the fiberglasse components. So every every 3-7 years you have 3 XL tractor truck trailer size turbine blades going into landfills.
Wind and Solar are still good, don’t get me wrong, but lets not pretend they have no downsides or drawbacks.
See, totally harmless accident. Just give it another hundred years and the place will be good as new.
Nobody claims it was harmless, but it sure was very low on the harmless scale – especially if you compare it with every fear monger’s favorite, Chernobyl.
Lots of people claim it was harmless because relatively few people died. They have to focus on just one statistic (and a very unreliable at that) to prop up their delusions.
Don’t worry it probably won’t be long before the houthi rebels or some other terrorist state backed crazies manage to successfully launch an attack on a nuclear power station somewhere then you won’t have to keep hearing about three mile island, chernobyl, Fukushima, the windscale fire, sizewell leaks, or any of the other times nuclear power has gone dangerously wrong.
Thankfully Isreal doesn’t have nuclear power plants because it’s obviously too dangerous, let’s hope Russia, Iran, China, or any other well funded powerbase don’t get pushed into a corner and see funding an attack on a western nation as a viable response. Or some wacky religious group, race war proponents, attention seeking crazies or any of the usual suspects get as lucky as the 911 hijackers.
It’s been an issue in the Ukraine a couple of times already. So far, nothing has come of it.
In all the famous cases, Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island, and Sellafield, it was close enough to a real disaster. Sure, only some people died, some more got radiation poisoning, cancer, even more lost their pets, their homes, their livelihoods, quite some animals died… thank god that’s “low on the harmless scale”.
Thing is, most types of power generation have some kind of issue. Of the cleaner options, hydro, tidal, and geothermal can only be built in select places; solar panels create noxious waste at the point of manufacture; wind takes up space and interferes with some types of birds. Plus, wind and solar need on-grid storage (of which we still have little) to be able to handle what’s known as baseline load, something that nuclear is good at.
Nuclear is better in terms of death rate than burning fossil fuels, which causes a whole slate of illnesses ranging from COPD to, yes, cancer. It’s just that that’s a chronic problem, whereas Chernobyl (that perfect storm of bad reactor design, testing in production, Soviet bureaucratic rigidity, and poor judgement in general) was acute. We’re wired to ignore chronic problems.
In an ideal world, we would have built out enough hydro fifty years ago to cover the world’s power needs, or enough on-grid storage more recently to handle the variability of solar and wind, but this isn’t a perfect world, and we didn’t. It isn’t that nuclear is a good solution to the need for power—it’s one of those things where all the solutions are bad in some way, and we need to build something.
And don’t forget the trillions and trillions it has already cost and will cost in the future to clean this shit up. But that gets paid by the taxpayer, so that’s OK, right?
Exactly. There’s a reason no insurance company wants to take on nuclear power plants and countries have to.
In Germany, the state paid for all the research and development and then gave it to the companies for free. Then they massively subsidised the construction of the plants. Then the private companies got to reap the profits while the plants were running. And now the government is stuck with the bill for decommissioning. Totally not a racket.
Easy: don’t decommission.
Plenty of really dumb takes here but this one takes the cake. Congratulations.
That’s only if you assume we all agree that nuclear energy is a threat to humanity.
When reading about dungeness reactor i learned that even reactors that haven’t melted down also take about a hundred years to decommission safely.
Another interesting stat I heard on a podcast is that the coal industry has proven much more deadly than the nuclear industry in terms of human lives lost.
It doesn’t take a hundred years, but a couple of decades and it’s hugely expensive. And nobody knows what to do with the waste.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeness_nuclear_power_stations
It’s an amazing place. I visited last month. You can overlook the power station from a nearby lighthouse.
Fantastic. Just kick the can down the road and make it some future generations’ problem. Great technology!
Sadly that’s what the human race does. It’s nothing unique to nuclear power.
It still baffles me, for example, that with all this technology, we still generate all this rubbish which we then bury in the ground. And we all know it. We all buy things in disposable packaging. We are all complicit.
Do you really have trouble understanding the difference between nuclear waste and regular waste?
Nuclear waste doesn’t really pose problems substantially different from other forms of waste. There’s lots of waste that isn’t good for you if you come into contact with it, and stuff that’ll remain in that state for a lot longer than anything radioactive enough to be a concern is.
So, no. Gotcha.
Everyone that does their research knows what to do with it. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/fuel-recycling/processing-of-used-nuclear-fuel
But isn’t the amount you can recycle limited?
This place says 96% https://www.orano.group/en/unpacking-nuclear/all-about-used-fuel-processing-and-recycling
Ooooh. Is there a catch? Are the Fukushima spent fuel caskets all fully recycled?
Looks like the soil is going to https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2024/09/4895fe8d3ef8-japans-plan-to-reuse-decontaminated-soil-in-fukushima-safe-iaea.html?phrase=defense budget poll&words=
But what about their 307cu³ and counting of spent fuel?
That’s some really cool technology you got there, that can reprocess radioactive waste from decommissioning nuclear plants. You know, reactor vessels, bio shields, all the plumbing etc. Please point me to a source on how that technology works.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing?wprov=sfti1
Did you even read what I wrote before?
Like I said below, it’s basically recycling, which also doesn’t make the waste disappear. I’m with you on this one, but you also did ask how reprocessing works, so there’s that.
My question was specifically how reprocessing the stuff other than fuel would work. And it was a rhetorical question because it obviously doesn’t.
https://www.pnnl.gov/news-media/recycling-gives-new-purpose-spent-nuclear-fuel
More or less everyone is allowed to return to their homes as of this year. Even the radiation in the direct vicinity of the plant is nearly nearly down to pre-accident levels
It’s much better than the alternative, yes cancer rates shot up and a huge area of once beautiful and productive land is contaminated but if we had rooftop solar then rich corporations wouldn’t be able to manipulate us with price spikes and lock us into being helpless without them.
The rich need to have power over us and centralized power generation controlled by the ultra wealthy is the only option that let’s them have that dominamce so every propaganda bot must ignore all the safety risks, spiraling economic costs, and political bullshit so they can push for it and divert money from.far more viable and effective alternatives.
Manufacturing of solar panels produces a different kind of contamination, though—it’s just not located at the point of power generation. Wind is probably a bit better, with fewer exotic chemicals required, but “rooftop wind” isn’t exactly a common catchphrase.
Wind Turbine’s problems is we have to replace the blades every 3-7 years depending on the model and there is no good way to recycle or break down the fiberglasse components. So every every 3-7 years you have 3 XL tractor truck trailer size turbine blades going into landfills.
Wind and Solar are still good, don’t get me wrong, but lets not pretend they have no downsides or drawbacks.