According to Wikipedia electricity to Hydrogen conversion can be up to 95%. Modern fuel cells are in the 50% to 60% ballpark. When the waste heat it used a fuel cell can reach 85% efficiency.
IMHO you are seriously underestimating the cost of thousands of kilometers of electricity grid.
Maybe this snipped from an old documentary will convince you. Note the quote by Vassili Nesterenko, a top nuclear physicist who was present at the site. "Our experts studied the possibility and concluded that the explosion would have had a force of 3-5 megatonnes. Minsk, which is 320km from Chernobyl, would have been razed, and Europe rendered uninhabitable." This is seconded by Mikhail Gorbachev. I assume you know who he is and how well informed he would have been.
It really surprises me how many people feel they know better, based on I'm not sure what exactly.
I talked to a nuclear physicist here in Sweden who's an expert on nuclear weapons and who has studied the Chernobyl disaster. He explained that an explosion in the megaton class was completely impossible. The biggest fission bomb humans have designed or detonated was 500 kiloton, to get more you need a fusion bomb and there isn't even the right elements in a nuclear reactor for that. A bomb also need very special configurations in order for it to detonate and it would be impossible for that to happen by chance. That documentary makes no sense what so ever, it's a perfect example of the scaremongering I've been talking about.
A steam-explosion is just what it sounds like, the heat from the molten core might have created more steam, which if confined could cause a pressure buildup and a sudden rupture could then potentially have spread some more debris locally around the reactor. The initial explosion was much more powerful though, possibly powered by a nuclear chain reaction (although not an explosion like in a bomb). The fuel was located in vertical tubes and the roof of the building was made of wood and tar-paper (it was supposed to be concrete). The result was that the initial explosion shot radioactive material high up into the atmosphere like a gigant nuclear cannon. A second explosion caused by built up steam pressure then further destroyed the reactor. If there had been a third steam explosion in the basement it could perhaps have made things a little worse but not by much.
I'll attach a report with an analysis of what risk the molten core poses after the accident. The main danger is that if it comes in contact with too much water the nuclear reaction can restart, increasing the radioactivity and heat output, however it will only last until the water is boiled away again (there is zero risk of a nuclear explosion). That could cause more problems locally so it's undesirable and why they have built a new cover over the accident site.
Interestingly there was a naturally ocuring nuclear reactor in central Africa where this occurred.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor
As for what politicians think: Hans Blix was the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency at the time of the Chernobyl disaster. As such, Blix was the first Western representative to inspect the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster in the Soviet Union on site.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Blix
Here is a opinion piece by him from 2007 where he argues for more nuclear power:
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=sv&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fokus.se%2F2007%2F05%2Fhans-blix-karnkraft-ja-tack%2F
If any politician was well informed about what was going on at the time it would have been him.
A quick Google turned up there is a yield limit on fission bombs which is well below the 1Mton range. Perhaps it is better to do some fact checking yourself before deciding something isn't true based on... what exactly?
The largest pure-fission bomb ever constructed, Ivy King, had a 500 kiloton yield,[2] which is probably in the range of the upper limit on such designs.[citation needed] Fusion boosting could likely raise the efficiency of such a weapon significantly, but eventually all fission-based weapons have an upper yield limit due to the difficulties of dealing with large critical masses. (The UK's Orange Herald was a very large boosted fission bomb, with a yield of 750 kilotons.) However, there is no known upper yield limit for a fusion bomb.
From:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_yield
Maybe it's time to concede you may have overlooked some historical facts. There's really no shame in that.
A quick Google turned up there is a yield limit on fission bombs which is well below the 1Mton range. Perhaps it is better to do some fact checking yourself before deciding something isn't true based on... what exactly?
The largest pure-fission bomb ever constructed, Ivy King, had a 500 kiloton yield,[2] which is probably in the range of the upper limit on such designs.[citation needed] Fusion boosting could likely raise the efficiency of such a weapon significantly, but eventually all fission-based weapons have an upper yield limit due to the difficulties of dealing with large critical masses. (The UK's Orange Herald was a very large boosted fission bomb, with a yield of 750 kilotons.) However, there is no known upper yield limit for a fusion bomb.
From:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_yieldBased on the video recorded testimony of a nuclear expert who has been part of the investigation on site. I'm not sure you're entirely aware of the nature of the explosion which was prevented.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/renewable-energy/my-country-is-going-to-commit-economic-suicide/msg2071906/#msg2071906
Maybe you will one day realise the irony of what you just wrote.
No one is going to write anything official or take the trouble of going on record just to refute what that guy said, because a silly documentary isn't taken serious by professionals. But as ntcnico said, you can Google and see for yourself that what he said can not possibly be true.
Again some Googling can easely debunk that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermonuclear_weapon A nuclear fusion bomb has a very special construction and uses all kind of materials likely not present in the right shape & amount in a molten nuclear reactor. All in all it is very likely there is an error in the translation from Russian to English. 0.2 to 0.3 Megatonnes would be a number within the realm of possibilities given the reaction would be fission only.
Perhaps someone fluent in Russian could listen and transcribe what the expert is saying.
Edit: I hope I'm not flagged for looking up information on nuclear bombs...
Maybe you will one day realise the irony of what you just wrote.
No one is going to write anything official or take the trouble of going on record just to refute what that guy said, because a silly documentary isn't taken serious by professionals. But as ntcnico said, you can Google and see for yourself that what he said can not possibly be true.It literally doesn't get much better than video expert testimony. Flat out denying its relevance isn't going to cut it. Please understand that the explosion prevented was dangerous due to the interaction with the water.
I've been looking for a rapport which may have been the source of this specific claim, but I haven't been able to dig it up so far.
If you think it doesn't get better than a heavily edited and translated interview in a TV "documentary" then you have a pretty scary attitude to facts. At most such a clip could serve as inspiration for further investigations. Maybe you should look up what a peer reviewed scientific journal is.
Of course it was about interaction with water, steam is water in the gas-phase, that is why they talk about a steam-explosion. That is very different from a nuclear fusion bomb.
I really don't understand why such a big deal is made out of it either.
But people have to keep in mind that nuclear power plants which are constructed nowadays are build with the 'lessons learned' from dissasters and near-dissasters in the past. This doesn't guarantee nothing will ever go wrong again but the risk is extremely low.
Because it is a lie. It is important that we base our decisions on facts or else we will make incorrect and even harmful decisions (like many have already by choosing coal instead of nuclear). If nuclear power reactors could blow up like nuclear bombs then no one in their right mind would use them or work in them or live near them. What happened at Chernobyl is pretty much the worst that could happen.
I really don't understand why such a big deal is made out of it either.Because it is a lie. It is important that we base our decisions on facts or else we will make incorrect and even harmful decisions (like many have already by choosing coal instead of nuclear).
The fuel in most reactor is considered not suitable to create a nuclear explosion, without an extraordinary effort. This criterion is used by the IAEO if material to be safe to be handled by non weapons states.
So it is essentially impossible that this would happen by accident. If there is an obscure TV report claiming such things - the logical thing it to have a good laugh and ignore those "experts", not matter why they claim they are experts. Jut put them in the same box as those claiming martians are coming next week.
When the initial explosion happened the fuel elements where still essentially intact. So while it was a significant explosion, that could have also damaged a heavy concrete roof, there was not that much radioactivity coming out. The isotopes found in much of Europe also showed that this where mainly the rather mobile elements, essentially no uranium or plutonium.
With the molten fuel reaching water, there was a danger (not sure for it to happen) to get another smaller steam-explosion, but now with heavily damaged fuel and thus possibly more radioactive material (especially also the heavy metals). Even if the nuclear reaction would restart, this would be slow and usually limited by the water boiling off, or super hot fuel pushed away. The nice thing about a water moderated reactor is that formation of steam kind of stabilizes the reaction.
The biggest nuclear explosion that North Korea has been able to create after several decades is estimated to be 10 kiloton. To say you can create a 2-3 megaton explosion (or kiloton for that matter) by simply dropping some fuel-waste mixed with concrete into water is just plain ridiculous.
At most there could have been a steam buildup in the basement which could possibly have spread more heavily contaminated material around the accident site. But it would not have affected areas far away from Chernobyl. I would guess it might have made the exclusion zone a little more contaminated and made the cleanup around the reactor building more difficult. It was also quite possibly a direct threat to the personnel working at the site after the accident. So of course it would have been important to prevent that from happening. But it wouldn't have made the overall outcome much worse.
Now can be please be done with this senseless discussion over what's essentially a footnote? It doesn't change the fact that nuclear power has the potential to cause massive disasters one way or another.