OT: Chernobyl on HBO
I haven’t seen any posts on the board about the show but I figure a large number of people are watching given how successful the miniseries has been for HBO.
Personally it has been the most effecting thing I have watched in a long time and I already went back and rewatched the first three episodes over the weekend. I think the acting is phenomenal and the writing and directing have also been great. I know a few things were exaggerated such as the size of the explosion if the core hit the bubbler pool below the reactor, but they have mostly stayed true to what happened. Terrifying stuff and I like that they focused on the “cost of lies” rather than just making individual people the villains.
Tldr: what has the board thought about the show?
Yeah it's fantastic, and currently the only reason I'm keeping my HBO subscription going now that Game of Thrones is over. I curious about what its effect will be on public opinion of nuclear energy. As someone who has always thought nuclear energy is the way to go, this show is making me a little bit less enthusiastic.
I was born in '90, so I'm also really curious how big of a story it was in the US at the time. With the soviets not really telling the whole story initially I'm wondering how long coverage lasted and if regular people in the States knew how big and bad the whole situation was.
You need to keep the subscription for the Deadwood movie as well.
Just through this Friday night, right? But yes, we'll keep it on until Chernobyl is done, then we are ending HBO.
Chernobyl should not change anyone’s enthusiasm level either direction. That system setup was so poorly designed. The fact that the system allowed them to purposefully bypass the safety stops means it was a poor design. The systems we run now literally won’t allow themselves to get to that point. The number of safeguards in place are so vast....double and triple redundancies all around. The risk of a meltdown is exceedingly low.
My point is that there are reasons to not be in support of nuclear power, but using Chernobyl as an example is not a legitimate one insofar as the failure itself.
if you’re saying that this is showing you the consequences of what can happen and you are convinced it’s not worth the risk, then you could certainly make a legitimate argument there. It’s a tough debate, one I wrestle with myself. It’s clean emissions wise, but we’re creating waste that will literally never go away. It must be stored. Not to mention the potential security issues. There’s always the possibility someone could infiltrate and cause a meltdown, but I don’t know how possible that would even be.
Working in nuclear power, there is virtually almost a zero chance someone could infiltrate and cause a meltdown. The amount of security that there are at these plants is amazing. It’s pretty much a military compound and the plan would have to be completely time sensitive and basically an inside job (basically they would need to know exactly where to go within the plant to begin with to even get to the control room or make the necessary changes to energize or de-energize certain components/systems that could effect the core —— which in of itself would be super difficult to find in such a massive place... like a needle in a haystack)
But even then if they were able to do all that within 10ish minutes and not get shot while doing so, there are usually at least 3 different complex layers of safeguarded systems in place that would trip the reactor and shut it down.
Its always best to always remain on high alert and always stay in a “prevention” mode every day, and try to figure out any weak points and fix them within this industry so this sort of thing does not happen.
Chernobyl was flawed in many ways it was built and was coupled with a government to proud and did not have the standards in place to do the right thing.. Horrible disaster and the show really does a good job of displaying it. Back in the day these plants really didn’t have the right technology and over-site to handle such a beast. Now i believe they do.
I've never interacted within anyone in the nuclear industry before and really appreciate your insight. Two questions for you:
1) do you find it difficult to stay on 'high alert' each day because it is so safe, or is there a kind of looming urgency that keeps you on your toes when you work at a reactor?
2) mentioned above, there is (currently) no use or treatment for waste products from these processes. Is there a sense within the industry that a solution is on the horizon - or even possible - or are authorities really just sticking their heads in the sand?
To your first question; as with any job, complacency can be a killer and the more your there the more that can happen. But the companies are very aware of this, and drill it into the employees every day from the very start of your day. You HAVE to come in everyday and realize that you have to be excellent at your job, have questioning attitude, and be conservative with every action you take. They have various exercises and accountability measures you will have to do on every task or job you take, no matter how big or small. And usually there will be 2 or more people there to monitor, observe, and help with everything you do. There is a lot of money the companies throw at varies positions to make sure everything we do is safe and accurate.
So in a way yes, it can be difficult but you have a lot of support to help you stay keep that mindset and focus on the task at hand ( lots of paperwork and logging as well as over-site committees that come in randomly to tag along for any process they desire like the NRC) Plus the companies get plant performance grades which are extremely strict and effect everyone’s bonuses every year.
Its not so much of a looming urgency... upper management will fight for their workers to take as much time someone needs, give them as many resources as they need, and not rush things (which in the past that was not the case as much).
To your second question:
There was a master plan to store spent fuel that has lost steam. It was to store the fuel in Yucca Mountain in the desert out west. That is governmental with a congressional committee just voting down the act by a slim majority. So now the spent fuel is stored on site. Each site has a huge water pool called a “spent fuel pool” for the fuel assemblies that have just been taken out of the reactor core for the past couple cycles. Those fuel assemblies are typically stored in there for number of years (typically 5ish) to let them cool down. Then they are transferred to a more long term storage arrangement, our facility calls them “dry cast storage”. These dry cast surround the fuel assembly bundles out of thick wielded steal with some type of neutron absorber typically boron, and then that is further surrounded by thick concrete. Our site’s storage tanks are cylinder shaped and about 20ft tall with a diameter of 10ft weight about 260 tons each (more then twice the weight of our militaries state of the art battle tanks). These storage casts provide the radiation shielding and are extremely durable so they withstand freak/man-made accidents (like a Fukushima or the like). And lastly regarding the space for them, I do not know of any site that is running out of room. I know for instance we have plenty to continue storing them on site until the plant is not operational anymore. They do not take up a lot of space.
How do aircraft carriers do nuclear with no problems?
That, I do not know, Hopefully a navy nuke can comment on
Very strict safety protocols. Hopefully every Navy nuke remembers their training and DOES NOT comment on it.
I was a Navy nuke, but it was 25 years ago. All I really remember is drinking beer and playing basketball. And meeting my wife. I should probably remember that.
Not just carriers, but some other surface ships have reactors, also (unless they've been decommissioned by now, which is a real possibility), and every single submarine we own has one. I spent ~5 years on a fast attack, living and working within 150 feet of a critical reactor.
The Navy has been so successful with them because it's built in safety from day one. Adm Rickover made sure as hell that only competence would be allowed around them; they've been over designed for reliability; and standards and procedures are not allowed to be deviated from. At their heart, Navy reactors are nearly identical to their civilian counterparts, but they have some technical differences allowing for quicker startups/shutdowns and steeper power curves, to better suit the needs of a warship. They would not make good commercial power generation reactors.
But safety relies on procedures, standards, and reliability. The Navy beats these into your head by forcing you to qualify for each watch station (regardless of what you did elsewhere), and drilling the living shit out of the crew. There is a reason that the Director of Naval Reactors (essentially, the nuclear engineering arm of Naval ship design) was tapped to investigate the 6th Fleet collisions a couple of years ago - because Naval Reactors has never had an incident anywhere close to a collision.
Is it also true the amount of waste is incredibly small? Am i correct that the used rods for the last 30 years or so can all fit in one of those 20x10 (roughly) cylinders you described?
Good discussion and thanks for the info
The US produces over 2000 tons of spent waste per year, so probably not.
https://www.fairewinds.org/waste-and-spent-fuel
It is very small amount of waste when compared to any other fuel source. Our site has the very first bundle fuel rods still in one of the dry casts (since 1975) and still have plenty of room for way more.
Compared to any other fuel source? I’d definitely want to see some data to back up that assertion. I could easily buy coal, but most other electric power sources don’t have much direct waste.
Lifecycle impact might make for an interesting argument but I doubt even then it is nearly as cut and dry as you suggest.
To your part 2, that is not entirely correct, we can actually recycle spent Uranium and in fact, the French do this with their waste - link. There are also new reactor designs that can use spent fuel (<95% U) for small power sources (e.g. a house) that would help with the disposal. The major reasons we don't are because of Government restrictions dating back to the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island accidents.
Nuclear technology has come a long way from the scary accidents (rightfully so) and should be looked into more, but it is still quite an uphill battle with the regulations that exist.
Not only was Chernobyl 60s design and technology but it was incredibly poorly designed and constructed for that period. Then add in completely incompetent training and management and the result is no surprise. It bears no real resemblance to today's operations. By the way, Fukashima was also 60s technology.
Can someone please copy and paste this and send it to all the politicians to the country?
Seriously.
If we're ever going to get serious about cutting down greenhouse emissions and becoming energy independent, then nuclear is the only practical solution!!!
Only 1/3 of US greenhouse gas emissions come from electric power generation so even if we significantly electrify, it is unlikely to be the “only” solution.
Further, despite billions in federal subsidiaries, the last two US nuclear plants in the US were cancelled because they were significantly overbudget. Nuclear may ultimately be part of the solution, but even if cost concerns can be addressed, it is still only likely to be one of many parts of a broader solution. In the electric power sector that will absolutely include, wind, solar, hydro, energy storage and then include some mix of fossil with carbon capture, biomass and nuclear. What becomes most viable in that second bucket is going to depend in both economic and political viability. At this point, nuclear is probably struggling the most of those three options.
A sobering report for anyone who thinks that nuclear is an important part of the solution. Aging reactors are closing much more quickly than new ones are being built. Just to maintain current levels of nuclear generation will take significant effort.
Insightful post. As you pointed out there are many reasons to not like nuclear energy, but Chernobyl’s failures are not it. This miniseries is very good.
I distinctly remember it being on the nightly news maybe a few days after it happened. It was definitely a news event. And you knew it was serious because most Americans remembered Three Mile Island, which was roughly 10 years prior, and understood the dangerous issues behind reactor meltdowns. But, IMO two things kept it from being a bigger story: 1) nobody really knew what the hell had happened for a long time because it was in the Soviet Union, and 2) it was in Europe and had little chance of having any major effects on the United States.
It was a big deal worldwide and got a lot of press, though we were never sure how much of the true information was actually getting out, as nobody completely trusted the Soviet government. A friend's mom postponed a long-awaited trip to Poland because they weren't sure how far the fallout zone was and didn't believe what they were being told.
We knew it was bad, but we didn't know the details.
And there lies the problem. You are letting a "based on true events" movie make you decide on something that isn't giving you all the facts and distorts, like Hollywood always does, to make you think a certain way.
Nuclear power is the safest, most economical and cleanest means of producing power. The lesson to be learned is always to take a documentary/movie with a grain of salt when it comes to truthiness.
It is pretty funny that you start your post talking about facts. You would be hard pressed to find anyone knowledgable about the economics of electricity who would suggest that nuclear is currently the most economical means of producing power. I’ve linked on e pretty reputable source. Directionally these numbers are consistent with what you’d find many other places.
https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-and-levelized-cost-of-storage-2018/
The lesson to be learned is to always take a random web comment with a grain of salt when it comes to truthiness, especially when they make absolute statements with no underlying data.
https://noqreport.com/2019/05/28/michael-shellenberger-environmentalist-opposes-green-new-deal/
I’ll give you an A for effort.
i’m still going with the financial analysis firm that has been putting out numbers annually for many years over the guy with no numbers who says environmentalists oppose nuclear power because “nuclear energy isn’t expensive enough”, but then provides no numbers to back up his claim.
I’m also going with the fact that the only two new plants in the US to start construction in years have had significant cost overruns https://www.powermag.com/how-the-vogtle-nuclear-expansions-costs-escalated/?pagenum=3 - original estimated cost $14 Billion. Current estimate at least $23 Billion and second plant, original estimate $9 billion, canceled but estimated to cost over $20 billion if completed https://www.chooseenergy.com/news/article/failed-v-c-summer-nuclear-project-timeline/.
I never said I "decided" anything, I'm still very pro nuclear. Just seeing a realistic representation of an accident that really happened makes me a little less enthused. Yeah nuclear plants are extremely safe with a billion safety redundancies, but when the fuckups happen they can be huge. I think its arrogant to say there will never be another nuclear disaster.
For instance, Fukushima
To clarify, the Fukushima accident was attributable to a tsunami, and the loss of off- and on-site power to run coolant through the reactor cores, which shut down properly when the disaster occurred. No one at the plant messed up, nor were the nuclear aspects of the plant flawed in design. If there was a mistake, it was not planning for the potential loss of on-site backup (generator) power due to a catastrophic flooding event. You can bet all operating nuclear plants learned that lesson, in the aftermath.
There have been no deaths attributable to radiation exposure from the accident, and the WHO anticipates no cancer increase.
Yes, it was an accident involving a nuclear plant. Yes, it was unfortunate. However, it was not catastrophic (to life and land) in the same way that Chernobyl was.
Chernobyl on HBO. Cannot say enough about how I love this show. Being in the radiology field has really helped me fully understand the magnitude of what happened to those people. Absolutely horrifying.
It is certainly an eye opener. Amazing how naive the first responders were (not to mention those in authority). I think this miniseries really shows the shortcomings of communism at a time when younger generations have a romanticized utopian view of communism/socialism. The scene where the physicist goes to party headquarters to make recommendations, but the guy in charge is former shoe salesman or something and is to dimwitted to realize to there is a serious problem. Speaks volumes.
Choosing the "motherland" over the innocents did nothing short of boil my blood.
Cause the guy in charge of our department of energy is reaallll qualified.
Perry has a little more experience in running a government bureaucracy then a shoe salesman. Governor of Texas is a pretty big job, but point well taken in that he is a moron too.
Even the chief engineer (or whatever his position was) telling people that they didn’t see the graphite on the ground and that they didn’t see the exposed core...mind boggling. I mean, one guy says it you go “are you sure? That shouldn’t be possible” a second one says it and you gotta be like “oh shit”
It seemed to me workers were more scared of The State, then they were nuclear meltdown right in front of them.
Which tells you everything you need to know about the Soviet Union.
Keep in mind that recognizing the graphite on the ground and a wide open reactor core also meant recognizing that they were all totally irradiated and as good as dead. I can imagine someone going into complete denial.
perhaps younger generations have a very realistic grasp on the current reality capitalism has given us
Wow. Either you were in the sun too long or kicked off of the season with too many Summer Shandy's. If anything, this is failure of socialism / communism.
Millions of people have died under the umbrella of Americas benevolent capitalism. Spare us your remedial knowledge of socialism
Socialism and Communism are not the same thing, at all, and should never be used in a sentence together separated by a "/". You and I both live in a semi-socialist country right now. Here. In America. It's okay.
Regardless, both systems suck ! Only example of socialism that ever worked is the NFL. Socialism driven by pure capitalism.
The NFL isn't really based on socialism. It's a normal run of the mill business in a capitalist economic system. I know the owners share profits, but they are not financial competitors with each other. Their competitors are the NHL, college sports, NBA, Nascar, MLB and soccer leagues.
They are competing with those other entities for the disposable income of the fans.
You might consider giving Fox a rest, and look around at the world we live in dude.
"I think this miniseries really shows the shortcomings of communism at a time when younger generations have a romanticized utopian view of communism/socialism."
You wait long enough, anything and everything gets rehabilitated to some extent.
And while I am no advocate of communism, put that into the context of life in early 20th century Russia under the czar. They outlawed feudalism about 200 to 300 years after Western Europe and had just fought and lost a war and that made the Western Front look like a Sun Tzu clinic. What wasn't better than that shitshow?
Of course then you have a civil war, Stalin's purges, a brutal famine in Ukraine, and then the remarkable loss of life in WWII. So who knows.