My country is going to commit economic suicide ...

[tggzzz]

The arguments you're making about coal and mercury are sound, and you'll find that I also make them. I just don't think more nuclear fission is the answer to this problem. I think a sound policy would attempt to reduce usage while increasing the number of energy options available, focusing on renewable sources as much as was possible.

You put it far more strongly than that.

Your statements have been equivalent to saying we should jump out of the frying pan because it is hot, without having a workable alternative to being in the fire.

[cdev]

No, I'm saying we should not jump any further into the frying pan, until we address some major issues of concern, you are saying we should, while leaving too much unsaid.

Not one of you has addressed the risk we face from the loss of the grid for cooling of spent fuel and active reactors.

The loss of the ultimate heat sink which is a known problem of boiling water reactors.

Which organizations responsible for safety of nations have acknowledged - when pressed, to be of major concern.

Its not an impossible problem to solve, it just requires a will to solve it.

Which people like you (I am gathering you're a nuclear engineer, is this your area of expertise, or not?) If so you have a responsibility to try to address the problem head on, by solving it.

We also should be thinking about different grid architectures which are not as vulnerable to the induced EMP from a solar CME event (or nuclear terrorism)


Please read:

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Rockville, Maryland
In the Matter of a Proposed Rulemaking
Regarding Amendment of 10 CFR Part 50,
"DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES"
Docket No. PRM-50-96
PETITION FOR RULEMAKING
This Petition for Rulemaking is submitted pursuant to 10 CFR 2.802, "Petition for Rulemaking,"
by the Foundation for Resilient Societies. The Petitioner requests that the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC), following public notice, opportunity for comment, and public
hearing, adopt regulations that would require facilities licensed by the NRC under 10 CFR Part
50 to assure long-term cooling and unattended water makeup of spent fuel pools."

---------------------------------------------------
also see "High-Impact, Low-Frequency Event Risk to the North American
Bulk Power System" and the January 2009 Report by National Academy of Sciences ― "Severe Space Weather Events—Understanding Societal and Economic Impacts Workshop Report" (downloadable at nap.edu both if you sign up, or as a guest)

We really don't want to find out about this problem by it happening. It could become a total nightmare. The cost will be many orders of magnitude lower if we tackle it now.

Thank you.

[Kilrah]

Not one of you has addressed the risk we face from the loss of the grid for cooling of spent fuel and active reactors.

Because that ought not to be a problem. Every reactor out there should have sufficiently redundant totally independent cooling systems with endurance of twice the worst case time to cold shutdown and months of SFP cooling (and immune to natural disasters, don't put its components in a friggin submersible zone like at Fukushima  ). The fact it isn't so is so ridiculous to even mention.

If it means 500 generators, 10 power supply distribution yards and an airport-sized fuel storage facility then install 500 generators, 10 power supply distribution yards and an airport-sized fuel storage facility. It's still almost negligible compared to the rest.

[Mr. Scram]

Because that ought not to be a problem. Every reactor out there should have sufficiently redundant totally independent cooling systems with endurance of twice the worst case time to cold shutdown and months of SFP cooling (and immune to natural disasters, don't put its components in a friggin submersible zone like at Fukushima  ). The fact it isn't so is so ridiculous to even mention.

If it means 500 generators, 10 power supply distribution yards and an airport-sized fuel storage facility then install 500 generators, 10 power supply distribution yards and an airport-sized fuel storage facility. It's still almost negligible compared to the rest.

The Fukushima plant is located where it is because that location mitigates or removes other risks. Having a large body of water to cool decreases the risk of having overheating issues, but comes with the risk of flooding. It's not as straightforward as it may seem.

[Kilrah]

Not talking about the whole plant, but putting the emergency generators and critical electrical distribution and safety components below sea level instead of atop the nice hill behind is absolutely ridiculous.
Even having the "normally operating" stuff submersible can be OK, as long as the emergency stuff isn't.

[Mr. Scram]

Not talking about the whole plant, but putting the emergency generators and critical electrical distribution and safety components below sea level instead of atop the nice hill behind is absolutely ridiculous.
Even having the "normally operating" stuff submersible can be OK, as long as the emergency stuff isn't.

Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing? You get a 1000 things right and the 1001st bites you.

[Kilrah]

Oh as things go I'm sure it's nothing to do with hindsight, someone will have thought of it and mentioned it, but will have been told to shut up cause it would increase costs and delay delivery (and since others hadn't mentioned it before they would look stupid and absolutely don't want that).

[Mr. Scram]

Oh as things go I'm sure it's nothing to do with hindsight, someone will have thought of it and mentioned it, but will have been told to shut up cause it would increase costs and delay delivery (and since others hadn't mentioned it before they would look stupid and absolutely don't want that).

Is there any evidence for that assumption?

[tggzzz]

No, I'm saying we should not jump any further into the frying pan, until we address some major issues of concern, you are saying we should, while leaving too much unsaid.

Not one of you has addressed the risk we face from the loss of the grid for cooling of spent fuel and active reactors.
<Snipped monomanic rant>

Q.E.D.

[cdev]

I'm happy to endure a little criticism if it leads to common sense.

We should never do anything important without a lot of information gathering and public input.

Not one of you has addressed the risk we face from the loss of the grid for cooling of spent fuel and active reactors.

Because that ought not to be a problem. Every reactor out there should have sufficiently redundant totally independent cooling systems with endurance of twice the worst case time to cold shutdown and months of SFP cooling (and immune to natural disasters, don't put its components in a friggin submersible zone like at Fukushima  ). The fact it isn't so is so ridiculous to even mention.

If it means 500 generators, 10 power supply distribution yards and an airport-sized fuel storage facility then install 500 generators, 10 power supply distribution yards and an airport-sized fuel storage facility. It's still almost negligible compared to the rest.

Exactly!

The US has similar nuclear power plants on beaches. Several of them.  I'm pretty sure some are quite like the four at Fukushima. That design is extremely common.

Unfortunately.

And there have been tsunamis in unusual places before. They leave telltale 'chevrons' of debris, visible from space.

That said, I think the risk of a 1859 level solar storm is likely to be a lot higher, statistically. We just narrowly missed one in 2012.

See http://www.ornl.gov/sci/ees/etsd/pes/ferc_emp_gic.shtml to see how a solar storm would impact the grid and why.

See also
On the probability of occurrence of extreme space weather events - Riley - 2012
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011SW000734/full  (pub Feb 2012)

As if to give us a further warning, on July 23, 2012 a space probe recorded the largest CME in over 150 years.

Another interesting document for which I have no URL is a paper entitled
SOLAR STORMS EFFECTS ON NUCLEAR AND ELECTRICAL INSTALLATIONS

published Feb 2018

Check it out!

----------

Since you mentioned Fukushima- this Frontline video is worth watching.

A US public TV news explores how a scientist in Japan had warned Tepco about the tsunami risk - but they didn't listen. You’ve probably never heard of the Jogan event. But according to Japanese paleontologist Koji Minoura, it was an ancient tsunami that devastated northeast Japan in 869 AD, killing more than 1,000 people.

He was tipped off to Jogan from a most unlikely place: a poem.

Minoura researched this event and ones like it for more than 20 years, publishing his findings in major scientific journals. Giant tsunamis occurred in northeast Japan about every thousand years, he warned — meaning the area was overdue for another one prior to the devastating March 2011 wave.


(Yes, I KNOW random probability doesn't work like that)

http://www.theworld.org/2012/01/tsunami-minoura/  (The World)

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/did-this-man-predict-the-tsunami-at-fukushima/  (PBS- WGBH Boston)

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/nuclear-aftershocks/  (Frontline - Video)

-------------

Also, read

Severe Space Weather Events: Understanding Societal and Economic Impacts: A Workshop Report | The National Academies Press

https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12507/severe-space-weather-events-understanding-societal-and-economic-impacts-a

[apis]

No, I'm saying we should not jump any further into the frying pan, until we address some major issues of concern, you are saying we should, while leaving too much unsaid.

You are saying nuclear is dangerous, no one denies that, that is obvious. Everything is dangerous. Life is dangerous, you can die! The relevant question is: how dangerous is it compared to the alternatives.

As shown, nuclear is safer by a fair margin compared to coal (and even water), and coal is in many cases the only alternative right now.

Not one of you has addressed the risk we face from the loss of the grid for cooling of spent fuel and active reactors.

Yes we have, several times. We've also pointed out that there are many nuclear reactor types that doesn't have this problem. One example being the pebble bed reactor.

We also should be thinking about different grid architectures which are not as vulnerable to the induced EMP from a solar CME event (or nuclear terrorism)

People are thinking about that and dealing with it. The only reason you know about it, despite not being an engineer, is because people are thinking, talking and dealing with it. It's also irrelevant to this discussion.

[f4eru]

As shown, nuclear is safer by a fair margin compared to coal (and even water)

Nope.
Nuclear has an approx ~1% chance of blowing up during it's lifetime, rendering many thousands of km² unhabitable in the process.
Also it has a 100% of chance to poison the same ~1000km² during the next 10 000 Years.
Coal doesn't do any of that, it only poisons a few km² around more reliably, and only for the few decades it runs(still bad)

and coal is in many cases the only alternative right now.

Nope.
Today, the most financially credible alternative is utility scale PV.

[apis]

Nope.
Nuclear has an approx ~1% chance of blowing up during it's lifetime, rendering many thousands of km² unhabitable in the process.
Also it has a 100% of chance to poison the same ~1000km² during the next 10 000 Years.

That sounds really bad but what does it mean? What do you mean with "nuclear's lifetime", and how did you come up with 1%? What is the significance of "blowing up"?

The Chernobyl exclusion zone is 2600 km². Today it is basically a nature reserve with a flourishing wild life. It's not uninhabitable. It is preferable to not live there if you have the option since the increased radiation gives a (barely measurable) increase in cancer risk, mainly for children. Despite that, there are people living in the exclusion zone today who never left and they are doing just fine. The Chernobyl power plant continued to operate a long time after the accident, people went to work at "ground zero" every day for fourteen years. It's bad, but it's not nearly as bad as people make it seem.

It does not matter how often something blows up, the relevant question is how much damage per unit energy nuclear causes compared to coal (or water). The effects of the Chernobyl accident have been studied extensively so we know very well what the effects are. We also have a rough idea of how often they happen*. If you compare the numbers, coal is worse by a large margin.

* It's likely that accidents will be less frequent in the future since new reactor designs are inherently much safer. We learn from previous accidents which mean we can prevent the same thing happening again in the future. Nuclear isn't just safer than coal and water power, it will keep getting even more safe with time. On top of that, the medical science is moving forward and we are able to cure more and more types of cancer.

Coal doesn't do any of that, it only poisons a few km² around more reliably, and only for the few decades it runs(still bad)

Wrong.

Coal plants pollute the air and the air is spread around globally (or at least over the same hemisphere). The mercury in tuna comes from coal plants because the fallout from coal plants have poisoned the oceans. Ocean acidification is caused by sulphur dioxide from coal plants, it's what's killing the great barrier reef for example.

It's not possible to create a coal exclusion zone because it would mean that the entire planet would be made "uninhabitable". You are probably completely unaffected by any nuclear accident, but right now while you are reading this you are breathing in pollutants from coal power plants with every breath you take. You swallow it with every bite of tuna sandwich. The air pollution from coal is practically guaranteed to shorten your lifespan and lower your life quality. Conversely the negative effects from nuclear is zero as long as there is no accident, and if there is its effects are limited geographically and can often be mitigated.

If you check the data you see that we can have a nuclear accident of the Chernobyl magnitude every year and the health and environmental effects would still be less severe than those caused by coal power plants. (That takes into account that the radiation remains for a long time).

And we haven't even considered CO², the greenhouse effect and global warming yet...

and coal is in many cases the only alternative right now.

Nope.
Today, the most financially credible alternative is utility scale PV.

Except when it's cloudy, night or winter? Or what do you mean? What do you base that claim on?

Don't get me wrong, I love solar, we should use it as much as possible but it can't completely replace coal/nuclear yet. That is why the anti nuclear crowd don't say we can solve the climate change problem by using renewable only, instead anti nuclear people say we need to reduce our power consumption a lot as well. Unfortunately they doesn't explain what we should do when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining. Sure we can survive without television but should we also just shut down the hospitals, the food production and the medicine factories? Do you believe the effects of doing that will be less serious than Chernobyl?

And sure, if they can make that happen, fine, but until then we should use nuclear to replace coal, gas and oil as quickly as possible.

[Kleinstein]

As shown, nuclear is safer by a fair margin compared to coal (and even water)

Nope.
Nuclear has an approx ~1% chance of blowing up during it's lifetime, rendering many thousands of km² unhabitable in the process.
Also it has a 100% of chance to poison the same ~1000km² during the next 10 000 Years.
Coal doesn't do any of that, it only poisons a few km² around more reliably, and only for the few decades it runs(still bad)

and coal is in many cases the only alternative right now.

Nope.
Today, the most financially credible alternative is utility scale PV.

The safety of nuclear a difficult topic. Because of the rather low probability of an accident it is very difficult, if not impossible to really calculate the chances for an accident. So there is a rather high uncertainty on how probable an accident really is. Form experience so far there is certain chance for an accident and an accident can have quite severe consequences. With Fukushima the weather was very favorable, sending most if the radiation out to see. With the the Chernobyl accident the weather was rather unusual sending the the weaker radiation part out to quite populated areas. The really bad part was still more on the favorable side. So it could also be much worse for the acute damage.

AFAIK the officially assumes frequency for a big accident is something like 1 in 100K years per plant. So with some 500 active power plants, one can expect an accident every 200 years. However once in a while they find design faults and the safety estimates are never accurate and could easily be off quite a bit. I don't think it would be as high as 1% chance - but 0.1% seems plausible.

Much of the radiation will only be really bad for a few 100 years. They expect much of the zone around Chernobyl to be relatively clean again in some 200 - 300 years. Hg from Coal plants will stay out in the environment also for quite some time, before it is buried in sediments. For the CO2 currently 27000 years are assumed and this number may go up somewhat (e.g. proportional to CO2 content) if the level is higher (less positive effect of CO2 on plant growth, when already high).

The danger with coal is less with accidents, but more due to the pollution, especially Hg and CO2 and in old plants it was SO2.

The alternatives to coal depend a lot on the location - alone the fact that nuclear take so long to build and the high price usually puts it rather far back on the list of possible alternatives. One could continue with a controversial discussion about nuclear, if we would need power in 100-200 years. However we need an alternative fast - e.g. in something like 20 year, better earlier. So even if we finally want to go nuclear in 200 years, we need to have something else. For an intermediate time natural gas could be a good idea.

Most alternatives (including nuclear) are expected to be more expensive than the current price paid for coal. If the external costs are includes coal would also be a lot more expensive. So we kind of have to accept that energy prices will go up and it would thus make sense to use less of it. So far at a good location PV is cheap, but PV + storage however is relatively expensive, but it could still be the best solution, as the price for storage is expected to go down.

If one does not mind the details, one could first use PV to cover 50% of our needs and than reduce the demand by 50% and everything is fine.

[f4eru]

What do you mean with "nuclear's lifetime"

The working time of the nuclear reactors.
As for now, none have blown up before comissionning or after decomissionning, except in the Krystym disaster where waste in a tank blew up.

how did you come up with 1%

There are about 450 reactors at the GW electricity output scale. 5 of those blew up until today. That's approx 1%. Which is a very bad safety record, considering the devastation each event brings to the whole region.

What is the significance of "blowing up"?

"Uncontrolled release of core material" Could be a better definition, usually associated with a core meltdown as in Fukushima(3x) and TMI  or straight explosion (Tchernobyl)

[apis]

AFAIK the officially assumes frequency for a big accident is something like 1 in 100K years per plant. So with some 500 active power plants, one can expect an accident every 200 years. However once in a while they find design faults and the safety estimates are never accurate and could easily be off quite a bit. I don't think it would be as high as 1% chance - but 0.1% seems plausible.

Nuclear reactor accidents is only a public health issue if they cause pollution, not all accidents do, like the one at three mile iland. It does affect the cost though.

The metric that is relevant is the long term average harm/watt. You can define harm differently but as long as you come up with something reasonable and treat both nuclear and coal the same it is useful for comparison. If we are interested in the frequency of accidents, and the average harm caused, it doesn't matter that it could have been worse, it could also have been better. One might consider a higher variance as a disadvantage but I'm not sure of that. Still, only considering the air pollution from coal, it is many orders of magnitude worse than nuclear.

Most alternatives (including nuclear) are expected to be more expensive than the current price paid for coal. If the external costs are includes coal would also be a lot more expensive. So we kind of have to accept that energy prices will go up and it would thus make sense to use less of it. So far at a good location PV is cheap, but PV + storage however is relatively expensive, but it could still be the best solution, as the price for storage is expected to go down.

If one does not mind the details, one could first use PV to cover 50% of our needs and than reduce the demand by 50% and everything is fine.

As far as I can tell the best option is to use PV when possible, if it's not then nuclear, then water, etc, and as a last temporary option gas (since it's better than coal, but not by much).

[Kilrah]

Except that's probably not a proper way to count it - at TMI containment did its job and release of material was minimal and somewhat insignificant, so probably can't count as one of the "bad ones". And at Fukushima whether it was one or 3 doesn't change much, so it's more the whole event that counts for one than one per reactor...

so goes from 5 to 2 when looking at impact rather than kinda meaningless theoretical numbers.

[apis]

What do you mean with "nuclear's lifetime"

The working time of the nuclear reactors.
As for now, none have blown up before comissionning or after decomissionning, except in the Krystym disaster where waste in a tank blew up.

Krystym was a plutonium production facility for nuclear weapons. It's not comparable to civilian nuclear power stations. I'm against using nuclear for military purposes.

[f4eru]

It's not comparable to civilian nuclear power stations. I'm against using nuclear for military purposes.

That's a bummer, because all Nuclear Power stations produce plutonium which is "recycled" into weapons.

[apis]

It's not comparable to civilian nuclear power stations. I'm against using nuclear for military purposes.

That's a bummer, because all Nuclear Power stations produce plutonium which is "recycled" into weapons.

Nope, not all. Some do though. That is a big reason why some countries choose less safe types of reactors (Chernobyl being a good example). So your concern should be directed towards nuclear weapons and proliferation, not civilian nuclear power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Proliferation_concerns

[Kleinstein]

It is more like civilian reactor could use plutonium originally made for weapons. Still civilian nuclear power is connected with some proliferation risks. Some of the civilian (e.g. the Russian RMBK or the Canadian CANDU) reactors can be be used reasonably well too as a step towards weapons. Though it would still need reprocessing. If one would really want to use nuclear on a large scale, one might have to include breeding reactors and thus reprocessing in some form.  For the few currently existing and the few new build one there is enough uranium, but the supplies are still limited.    So with if one would really choose a massive extension on nuclear, the proliferation risk would likely gets important again.
The breeding reactors are also considered more critical with respect to safety and at least up to now were mostly relatively expensive failures.

[apis]

It's also true that Chernobyl was a disaster avoided. A few men prevented what used to be the core melting through the floor and reaching a reservoir of water. It's accepted that would have caused a much more massive steam explosion which would have wiped out the entire plant and led to much of Europe being heavily contaminated. "By most estimates, such a blast may have wiped out half of Europe, leaving it riskier to live in for 500,000 years." I can imagine that being unaware of both facts makes one much more cavalier in regards to the risks of nuclear power. It's hard to fear what you don't know. We danced with the devil and he threw us a bone.

It's these kind of exaggerations and scaremongering that is the real problem.

I just found this when reading up on this alleged "disaster avoided":

The bubbler pool could be drained by opening its sluice gates. However, the valves controlling it were underwater, located in a flooded corridor in the basement. So volunteers in wetsuits and respirators (for protection against radioactive aerosols) and equipped with dosimeters, entered the knee-deep radioactive water and managed to open the valves.[84][85] These were the engineers Alexei Ananenko and Valeri Bezpalov (who knew where the valves were), accompanied by the shift supervisor Boris Baranov.[86][87][88] Upon succeeding and emerging from the water, according to many English language news articles, books and the prominent BBC docudrama Surviving Disaster – Chernobyl Nuclear, the three knew it was a suicide-mission and began suffering from radiation sickness and died soon after.[89] Some sources also incorrectly claimed that they died there in the plant.[88] However, research by Andrew Leatherbarrow, author of the 2016 book Chernobyl 01:23:40,[84] determined that the frequently recounted story is a gross exaggeration. Alexei Ananenko continues to work in the nuclear energy industry, and rebuffs the growth of the Chernobyl media sensationalism surrounding him.[90] While Valeri Bezpalov was found to still be alive by Leatherbarrow, the 65-year-old Baranov had lived until 2005 and had died of heart failure.[91]

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Steam_explosion_risk

As I wrote before, those estimates were pulled out of someones behind. I'd laugh but it's really doubly tragic: first the accident, and now all the scaremongering and alternative facts which makes us use something much worse (coal).

[Mr. Scram]

I just found this when reading up on this alleged "disaster avoided":

The bubbler pool could be drained by opening its sluice gates. However, the valves controlling it were underwater, located in a flooded corridor in the basement. So volunteers in wetsuits and respirators (for protection against radioactive aerosols) and equipped with dosimeters, entered the knee-deep radioactive water and managed to open the valves.[84][85] These were the engineers Alexei Ananenko and Valeri Bezpalov (who knew where the valves were), accompanied by the shift supervisor Boris Baranov.[86][87][88] Upon succeeding and emerging from the water, according to many English language news articles, books and the prominent BBC docudrama Surviving Disaster – Chernobyl Nuclear, the three knew it was a suicide-mission and began suffering from radiation sickness and died soon after.[89] Some sources also incorrectly claimed that they died there in the plant.[88] However, research by Andrew Leatherbarrow, author of the 2016 book Chernobyl 01:23:40,[84] determined that the frequently recounted story is a gross exaggeration. Alexei Ananenko continues to work in the nuclear energy industry, and rebuffs the growth of the Chernobyl media sensationalism surrounding him.[90] While Valeri Bezpalov was found to still be alive by Leatherbarrow, the 65-year-old Baranov had lived until 2005 and had died of heart failure.[91]

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Steam_explosion_risk

As I wrote before, those estimates were pulled out of someones behind. I'd laugh but it's really doubly tragic: first the accident, and now all the scaremongering and alternative facts which makes us use something much worse (coal).

I'm not sure what you're arguing. I've used the paragraph you quote in our discussion before. It doesn't mention the steam explosion estimates being incorrect. It does mention the three men preventing the disaster not dying, as others had previously reported not too long after the disaster happened. I never claimed these men died. The men not dying is information borrowed from the research of Andrew Leatherbarrow, who did a fair bit of research on the Chernobyl disaster and also wrote a book about it. Estimates what would have happened if the steam explosion had occurred can be found in this same book. It's not "pulled out of someones behind". It's the result of research and experts weighing in, coming from amongst others the same source you've quoted to make your point.

It really does seem you're trying to cast doubt on something that is well documented and researched, simply because it doesn't fit your narrative. And I cannot help but notice, but you really only now bothered to read through the Wikipedia page of the event we discussed over many posts? You didn't even do that before this whole discussion? There seems to be a serious lacking of knowledge of the history of nuclear power and extremely minimal effort to change it.

[apis]

I'm not sure what you're arguing. I've used the paragraph you quote in our discussion before. It doesn't mention the steam explosion estimates being incorrect. It does mention the three men preventing the disaster not dying, as others had previously reported not too long after the disaster happened. I never claimed these men died. The men not dying is information borrowed from the research of Andrew Leatherbarrow, who did a fair bit of research on the Chernobyl disaster and also wrote a book about it. Estimates what would have happened if the steam explosion had occurred can be found in this same book. It's not "pulled out of someones behind". It's the result of research and experts weighing in, coming from amongst others the same source you've quoted to make your point.

If the people spreading this idea is making up that people died, then they are not very credible (or maybe you think so?). It's a perfect example of the scaremongering I'm talking about. It's dishonest and a great disservice to humanity, making people so irrationally afraid of nuclear power that they stick with something familiar but far worse.

What qualifications does this Andrew Leatherbarrow have that makes you think he is able to correctly assess what could have happened? As far as I can tell he's just another journalist who's trying to make a few bucks on the tragedy by inventing another doomsday scenario.

It probably could have been a bit worse, it could also have been a bit better. That is a pretty useless statement though. What is relevant when comparing methods of electricity generation is how much harm the different methods cause per watt generated. Roughly speaking for nuclear that would be the average number of accidents per watt times the average damage done by an accident. We can get an estimate of that number today by looking at what has actually happened since the first reactors was built in the 1940s. If we compare that to what has actually happened to water power dams, and coal power plants (which is happening continuously) it becomes clear nuclear is safer by a fair margin.

If you want us to speculate about what every journalist thinks might have happened we should also speculate about what would happen if the hoover dam breaks, or what if the west antarctic ice sheet collapses, and have you heard about the clathrate gun hypothesis? That are scenarios that have been studied by actual scientists. If the clathrate gun goes of it could possibly wipe out humanity. The west antarctic ice sheet collapse would only lead to a rapid sea level rise of about 7 m. And go ahead and google what would happen if the hoover dam breaks (or the three gorges dam).

It really does seem you're trying to cast doubt on something that is well documented and researched, simply because it doesn't fit your narrative. And I cannot help but notice, but you really only now bothered to read through the Wikipedia page of the event we discussed over many posts? You didn't even do that before this whole discussion? There seems to be a serious lacking of knowledge of the history of nuclear power and extremely minimal effort to change it.

I'm trying to expose anti-nuclear bs.

Again with the ad-hominem, for some reason it's typical characteristic of those arguing against nuclear power. Ignore the facts and say whoever you're arguing with is stupid, ignorant, etc. That is not so surprising though, it's what some people resort to when they have no factual arguments.

You keep claiming it's well documented and researched but you don't provide any credible references, your source for this seems to be mr. Leatherbarrows and that is just plain ridiculous. The one basing his understanding on what happened on a Wikipedia page or what a random journalist wrote is the one who should question if they have enough knowledge about the subject. Perpetuating such myths isn't helping anyone.

Here is a german analysis of what happened that I would say is more credible than mr. Leatherbarrows' https://www.grs.de/sites/default/files/pdf/GRS_121_eng_0.pdf

However, It's not all that relevant anymore, unless you are a nuclear engineer, since no one wants to build more RBMK reactors and the remaining ones in Russia have been modified to prevent a similar accident to happen. I.e. current  and future nuclear will be even safer than it already is today.

[Mr. Scram]

There is no scaremongering. There were old Western reports from right after the disaster which turned out to be inaccurate. This is in no small part due to the Iron Curtain being in full force at that point, which made fact finding difficult.

The qualifications of Andrew Leatherbarrow are that he later did this fact finding. He travelled the region, did interviews with those involved, indexed existing official reports and consulted experts. You think he's qualified, as the point of your previous post was made based on information researched and provided by him. It's quite remarkable to now do a 180 because his information suddenly doesn't suit you. More importantly, he isn't the first to report on the stream explosion that was prevented. How things expired came to light after the Iron Curtain fell and is commonly accepted and not contended. Except by you, apparently.

It's not an ad hominem. I'm not attacking you. I'm attacking the foundation of your arguments and the thoroughness of your research, which are evidently lacking or non-existent. Poorly or unresearched arguments are unlikely to be sound. Labelling events showing the danger of nuclear power as "anti-nuclear bs" isn't a viable approach, especially when this claim is poorly researched.