The accident was just one of the reasons why it is difficult to mobilize people to fight climate change / Frank von Hippel
Thirty years ago, at 01:24 on April 26, 1986, several explosions occurred in Unit 4 of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor in Ukraine, which was then part of the Soviet Union. They dislodged the reactor dome and the roof and released radioactive material into the atmosphere. Due to the fire that raged inside the reactor, pollutants continued to be emitted from it in all directions during the following week as well. In the end, an area of 3,110 square kilometers was contaminated with cesium 137 at a level that required the evacuation of its inhabitants.
It is likely that the fear caused by the Chernobyl disaster turned public opinion against the use of nuclear energy. It seems that the fear is so great that even today, 30 years after the disaster, the possibility that nuclear energy will become a major alternative to the use of fossil fuels is highly doubtful, despite being a climate threat. In the 15 years before the Chernobyl accident, an average of 20 new nuclear reactors were connected to the electricity grid each year. Five years after the accident, their average number dropped to four a year.
But the real story is more than that. The event in Chernobyl did have serious consequences for humans, but it cannot be said that it was an impact on a large scale. Outside the area evacuated from humans, it is estimated that the radiation will cause tens of thousands of cases of cancer throughout Europe over the course of 80 years. This may sound like a large number, but it is actually such a small addition to the overall morbidity rate that it is almost impossible to measure. An exceptional case that can be measured is the incidence rate of thyroid cancer following exposure to radioactive iodine ions in food and drink: there have been clear outbreaks (with mortality rates of only 1% to 2%, fortunately) recorded in the areas exposed to the highest amounts of radiation, mainly in Belarus, Russia and in Ukraine.
Despite the expected death rates from cancer as a result of the Chernobyl accident and the Fukushima Daiichi disaster in Japan in 2011, if you check the average number of deaths per unit of energy produced from different sources, it is found that nuclear energy is still safer than coal. According to a study by the American National Research Council, if in 2005 the 104 nuclear reactors then operating in the US were replaced by coal-fired power plants, the resulting increased air pollution would cause thousands more cases of premature death every year.
(Illustration: Ross McDonald)
People also tend to worry about the long-term effects of radiation more than they worry about the effects of air pollution. A survey that examined the state of mental health in the population of Ukraine 20 years after the Chernobyl disaster found a correlation between exposure to an additional dose of radiation equivalent to a one-year exposure to the natural background radiation and between a lower level of satisfaction with the quality of life, a higher rate of diagnoses of mental disorders and a decrease in life expectancy, which the respondents They expected to reach her.
Such concerns indeed led to a decrease in the number of new nuclear power plants built in the post-Chernobyl period, but this decrease had other reasons. One of them was that the rate of increase in electricity consumption in developed countries slowed considerably around the same time because electricity prices stopped falling. In 1974, the US Atomic Energy Commission estimated that by 2016, the US would need electricity generation capacity equivalent to 3,000 large nuclear reactors. To generate the average amount of electricity consumed today in the US, only 500 such reactors are needed, although in times of peak consumption, greater production capacity is needed.
Another factor is that, contrary to the claims of nuclear energy advocates in the 50s that this energy was going to be "too cheap to bother measuring its consumption", the actual production of nuclear energy is quite expensive. Although the price of nuclear fuel is low, the cost of building the power plants is huge, especially in North America and Europe: 6 billion to 12 billion dollars for a single reactor. Stricter safety regulations are responsible for part of this price, but another reason for the high price is that since the number of reactors being built is small, there is not much skilled manpower necessary to build nuclear reactors. As a result, construction processes suffer from costly delays when mistakes need to be corrected.
The future of nuclear energy is currently mainly in China's hands. About half of the nuclear reactors that have been built since 2008 are located there, and China's nuclear energy industry is starting to propose projects in other countries. But the rate of construction in China is still much lower than it was in the US and Europe in the 70s, and since then global electricity consumption has tripled. The International Energy Agency estimates that the contribution rate of nuclear reactors to the total electricity production in China will reach only 20% in 2040.
So, on the scale required for humanity to switch to energy sources that are not fossil fuels, nuclear energy is indeed a useful player, but on the whole relatively marginal. The Chernobyl disaster damaged the status of nuclear energy but was not the only reason for the decline of this technology.
9 תגובות
I don't understand nuclear energy, but I ask an important question: what do we do with all the photovoltaic "panels" after 20 years? They are made of rare metals.
A beautiful question, a source question, so I found this table:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_production_from_renewable_sources
First, it should be noted that this is only about the production of electrical energy. That is, even in countries that produce 100% of renewable energy there are still huge black holes in the form of fuel for land, air and sea vehicles that probably still use fossil fuels. In addition, there are all the factories that work on natural gas, fuel oil and similar horrors and also... the households, which also use gas for ovens, heating fuel with logs for the home fireplace, and let's not forget the barbecue...
Looking at the table, it appears that in all the countries with close to 100% electricity production from renewable energy there is an overwhelming majority for hydroelectric sources (except Iceland). That is, countries that are blessed with rivers and the possibility to dam them have probably already taken advantage of the possibility quite a long time ago. All other sources of renewable energy make up a tiny percentage of the total electricity production of the other countries (except Iceland).
So what is the difference between hydroelectric sources and all the rest (wind, solar, biomass and geothermal)? Probably the concentration of energy sources. After all, you have to spread solar collectors on every available surface (and eliminate some open and vacant areas for the same purpose), build wind turbines on every windswept (and vacant) hill, grow biomass plants (instead of other crops), collect all the electricity and then distribute it, Sometimes at a great distance from the place of production (and find a way to pay all the producers). It's not very efficient, and you can see it in the table.
That's why I claim that there is no escape from centralized power plants, with a significant production capacity of energy and its supply in the area where it is located, without destroying open areas in the prairie on solar collectors, and without interfering with the migration of birds in the skies of the country (as far as the country is concerned). Nuclear power plants of the new type may be the right answer to all this. There is enough unenriched uranium and thorium to supply the human race for quite a few thousand years.
So here's a little more about these miners:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY
And much more, with an emphasis on exploitation in space:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BybPPIMuQQ
Great response to Rom Epsom.
We all hope that the technology will continue to improve, and of course all the innovations and breakthroughs will come from Israel 🙂
It is definitely worth investing more in research in the field.
It's a shame that knowledge is being lost! The question is, is there enough uranium on our planet? Or will they bring uranium from the moon? We need to build nuclear reactors (also in Israel) to diversify energy sources, and to preserve knowledge.
What's wrong with all the other alternatives? Solar electricity, geothermal, waves, wind... There are already several countries in the world that have replaced all their power plants with renewable and non-polluting energy.
There are serious problems with the nuclear reactors as they are currently built. Which makes the construction, operation and handling of the nuclear fuel and waste products very expensive, which must be stored under safe conditions for tens of thousands of years.
These reactors are usually based on the fission of uranium 235, which naturally forms less than one percent of all uranium, and must be isolated using very complex and expensive methods.
The fuel appears in solid rods. After only a small part of it is used, the rods wear out and must be replaced.
The reactors are based on light water. In the event of a malfunction and overheating, they may turn into steam, or break down the water molecules and cause the accumulation of hydrogen. What happened in Chernobyl and Fukushima.
The reactors are based on an unstable equilibrium and therefore active SCADA control systems are necessary as described earlier to detect and overcome any such situation. Failures in the control system is what contributed to the explosion of the reactor in Chernobyl, in addition to the general lawlessness that prevailed there when conducting a dangerous experiment.
A new approach to nuclear fission reactors turns the concept upside down. In this approach thorium and uranium 238 can be used as nuclear fuel, the fuel is dissolved in molten fluoride salt and the fission can only take place under special conditions.
There is no shortage of nuclear fuel in these reactors. There is 4 times more thorium than uranium, and there is no need to enrich them at huge costs.
In these systems the equilibrium is stable and it compensates for disturbances.
The safety systems are passive. In case of overheating, the reactor will turn itself off by emptying the liquid fuel into an alternative tank where fission is not possible, and nothing an idiot operator can do will allow it to be restarted.
There is no use of water that can heat up and turn into steam, or break down and accumulate hydrogen. Two situations that have already harmed ordinary reactors.
Radioactive waste is generated in a very small amount, and must be stored for hundreds of years (instead of tens of thousands).
It is impossible to create nuclear bombs from the nuclear fuel and fission products - this is a huge advantage at a time when the fears of terrorist acts are justified.
Today they are working on plans to manufacture such reactors using modular methods, which must be assembled on site (in a small number of units) instead of being built from scratch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfsOYzOpYRw
https://www.youtube.com/user/gordonmcdowell
Solar panels for every roof, this is the only solution.
Humanity traveling in space may have no choice but to use nuclear energy for long journeys.
Earth renewable energy is fine.
Chain reaction prevention systems have since been developed in the West. As an example, the systems of the Modicon company, which is the inventor of Modbus. Communication protocol for SCADA systems. Today tens to hundreds of sensors are monitored and an anomaly is detected. Artificial intelligence is used in neural networks to detect deviations from a normal state by identifying what a normal state is. In the west there is redundancy for critical systems in the cold. For example the core cooling system. If one breaks there is another one. It is clear that a failure can always happen and therefore probabilistically it does happen.