Chernobyl model this

Now, in a strange turn more than three decades after the meltdown, the exclusion area around Chernobyl is gaining a following as a tourism destination, apparently propelled by the popularity of a TV mini-series about the blast that was broadcast in the United States and Britain last month.

The mini-series, HBO’s “Chernobyl,” fictionalizes the events in the aftermath of the explosion and fire at the plant’s Unit 4 nuclear reactor. It has been one of the highest-rated shows on the IMDB charts.

“The number of visitors increases every day, every week, by 30, 40, now almost 50 percent,” said Victor Korol, the head of SoloEast, a company that gives tours of the site. “People watch TV, and they want to go there and see the place, how it looks.”

Here is the full NYT story by Iliana Magra.  Not long ago I predicted, half tongue in cheek, that the Chernobyl show could end up making nuclear power more rather than less popular…

Comments

I am in my mid seventies, in good health, and trained in science. I should be allowed, even employed, to do biological studies in the exclusion zone. I am o.k. with increasing my risk of cancer tenfold thirty years from now.

Your cancer risk increase would be zero-fold. Your trained in sciences, so you can look this up.

Like this?

Your link says nothing about the very low level radiation at Chernobyl.
Try again.

You said "zero."

It's hard to decode from that where you are coming from. You find "low levels of radiation are healthy" claims in comment groups.

Now, apparently you are saying low levels are zero rather than proportionately lower risk.

I don't think thats the way statistical risk of DNA damage works. At best, very low levels (not in "exclusion zones") might fade to "normal" exposure levels on earth.

But, as I say, probably not in identified danger and exclusion zones.

How like the Soviet Union to overreact to a little radioactive contamination. But then the Politburo was well known for being a bunch of hippies.

There is a small solar farm at the Chernobyl nuclear site and another larger one within the exclusion zone. There are apparently plans to build 1 gigawatt of solar capacity in the zone that will make use of existing transmission capacity. I think this idea is great and I give it three thumbs up.

I grew up near Chernobyl and I give it 3 middle fingers! Lol!

In a strictly aesthetic sense, windmills are more beautiful.

Nonsense, in an aesthetic sense, when we're talking about a field of 1000 windmills turning with a constant noise. The small field near Palm Springs very much spoils views from peaks in Joshua Tree National Park.

And the best looking vacuum cleaner is the one hidden in your closet.

Palm Springs did it wrong, Abilene did it right.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Texas

I believe the root cause is that California subsidized early, small, unreliable wind turbines. Those are ugly and crowded. Even removed they leave scarred land.

If Palm Springs only had the newer 1 megawatt plus turbines, the landscape would be much cleaner.

The bigger the better.

Yeah, you can kill more raptors.

Windmill Farms a.k.a. bird cemeteries.

Wake me when you've killed all the cats.

I've learned never to arouse a sleeping infant.

Cats don't kill raptors - windfarms do.

But I get it, a mouse would view cats as the enemy.

He said birds. Are we only saving raptors now? But skyscrapers kill raptors too.

(And there might be some merit to not placing turbines in high density migration paths.)

there are demons from hell on frozen-over lake that even though I find them dead in ill-use, by the grace of technology I offer them my palm.

Are you not aware that there are special protections for eagles? That is is illegal to harm or even be in possession of eagle body parts? That wind turbines disproportionately kill eagles and other raptors? Or that the wind turbine industry has a special exemption to kill eagles for another ~30 years?

You are either ignorant or disingenuous or both. I think you are both, and you are a troll also.

He's a big ol' environmentalist now....at least for the purposes of an anonymous internet gotcha contest.

All good points, I think disaster such as Chernobyl should not make us to ignire the benefits nuclear power offers. For example, President Captain Bolsonaro's Brazil plans to build about ten nuclear plants to slash energy costs and reduce emissions. After failures such as Kyoto, countries like Brazil are leading us in a cleaner, more efficient future.

You're not fooling anyone, Thiago.

I don't know what you are talking abot. I am Milton Morris, from Indiana. I just want a bigger economy and a cleaner Earth for the next generations. Don't you?!

Yeah, from Indiana, on the left bank of the Dnieper river?

'that the Chernobyl show could end up making nuclear power more rather than less popular'

But will have no effect on things like this - 'French energy giant EDF said Wednesday that it had discovered faulty welds at the next-generation nuclear reactor being built in north-western France. It's the latest problem to push the beleaguered project years behind schedule and €400m over budget.

Construction of the new reactor at Flamanville began in 2007 and was initially due for completion in 2012. Already six years late to open, the project is now being pushed back another year to 2019.

A string of development problems has tripped up the project, and France's EDF on Wednesday raised the expected construction costs by 400 million euros, from 10.5 to 10.9 billion euros more than three times the initial budget.' http://en.rfi.fr/france/20180725-new-setbacks-french-nuclear-reactor-amid-400m-cost-overrun-delays

Or this - 'Finnish utility Teollisuuden Voima Oyj (TVO) is to employ liquid absorbers featuring bitumen in order to eliminate vibrations in the pressuriser surge line of the first-of-a-kind EPR at Olkiluoto. Suppressing the vibrations is one of the issues TVO must resolve before the regulator will allow fuel loading to proceed. .... The Areva-Siemens consortium began construction of Olkiluoto 3 in 2005 under a turnkey contract signed with TVO in late 2003. Completion of the reactor was originally scheduled for 2009, but the project has suffered various delays and setbacks. Under the latest schedule, fuel will now be loaded into the reactor core in June this year, with grid connection to take place in October, and the start of regular electricity generation scheduled for January 2020.' https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/TVO-starts-work-to-resolve-Olkiluoto-3-vibration-i

Or this - 'The construction and operation of nuclear power plants is increasingly considered unprofitable since the price of renewable energy has fallen significantly. For Hinkley Point C, the UK government has agreed a price guarantee of more than 90 pounds per megawatt hour of electricity with EDF plus an inflation premium – for 35 years. This selling price, which is well above the current wholesale electricity price, has been criticised by many experts as being too high.' The UK government was unwilling to give such an inflated rate to Toshiba and Hitachi, and both have pulled out (with a solid 2 billion pound loss for Hitachi.) https://www.en-former.com/en/japanese-exit-puts-the-uks-nuclear-policy-under-fresh-scrutiny/

But then, failure and debt seems to be in fashion among the sort of people that brought us the age of Trump, where facts and financial costs are irrelevant, when not simply dismissed as fake.

Yesterday Trump asked government to cut scientific advisory panels by 1/3.

Too much science.

Ever wonder why we see in media reports the word "unexpectedly" so frequently?

Too much science fiction.

Too bad President Trump can't do it (reduce economists by one-third) at the Fed. Maybe then, for once in 106+ years, the Fed would not be blind-sided by events.

Too bad conservatives don't ask for more science, with confidence they can embrace it.

Liberal logic. Don't fire 900+ Fed econ PhD's that keep getting blind-sided by events. Hire 10,000 more.

Ignorance Is Strength.

You guys need to think this through.

You keep *assigning* science to the left. And giving it up yourselves.

Neither party has any use for science. Grow up.

Price controls have no affect on supply or demand.
Carbon does not cause climate change.
Every human born is a blank slate with equal ability.
Incentives are irrelevant in the public sphere.
Wind and solar can replace fossil fuels.
IQ of population has no impact on society or economic growth.
Nuclear power is more dangerous than coal.
There is no marginal tax threshold where revenues decline.
Standardized tests are racist.
Asians at Harvard stole seats due to test preparation classes.

Denial of reality is hard coded in partisans. You are one.

An army of straw men I never argued or supported, proving nothing.

Your specialty.

Whereas here is an actual example of what I'm seeing:

"Lobbyist turned Trump appointee reportedly defended canceling coal study by saying science was for Democrats"

https://www.salon.com/2019/04/10/science-is-a-democrat-thing-mantra-of-the-trump-administration-revealed/

"Trump is directing all agencies to cut their advisory boards by “at least” one third.

Committees that qualify for the chopping block include those that have completed their objective, had their work taken up by other panels or where the subject matter has “become obsolete.”

Another defining factor listed includes whether the agency itself has determined that the cost of operating the agency is “excessive in relation to the benefits to the Federal Government.”"

So you are pro obsolete and excessively expensive advisory boards? Big surprise. Note that his order is for *All* agencies' advisory boards - not *science*

Trump hates science. Plain and simple.

Trump cannot be credited with the start of the irrelevance of facts and costs. The much suaver man who previously occupied his position flipped on the existence of "Shovel Ready Projects." And he was just participating in a long tradition.

Trump's election is better considered as a reaction to this tradition, although it's more a reaction to the ruling class behind it. See Gurri.

That was a bad argument.

"Shovel ready" was a reasonable goal for immediate stimulus.

If you want to fault anyone, look down the chain, to congress and the states, for people who "stuck in" things with a false claim of "shovel ready."

Trouble was that 'shovel ready' turned out to be 'shovel it into your pockets'. Then Obama would just fire the IG investigating it.

This is really interesting - how come people could build the power plants before and cannot do that now? Any explanation?

As for falling price of renewables: yep, great, stop subsidizing, stop requiring the grid to buy it no matter what and let's see. It would be nice if renewables were really cheaper, but I still have strong doubts.

According to the renewable zealots, the price of renewables is dropping exponentially. Of course, if that were true it is best to wait. At some point, the cost will be zero!

Should we start large scale construction of modern, safe thorium fission plants or wait for fusion power to become viable? Fusion experts say a fusion plant prototype is a mere 15 years away but they have been saying this for the past 50 years (to keep those sweet research dollars flowing?). However, we do now have better superconducting magnets that can contain the plasma. Bezos, Gates, and private companies are for the first time beginning to invest money into research that had been exclusively publicly funded so perhaps we are close. Unlimited, cheap fusion power would be a game changer in human history- another industrial revolution.

Cheap fusion power would be nice, but I don't see why current approaches would result in cheap power. It looks like a very capital intensive way to produce energy.

Fingers crossed it does somehow turn out to be cheap.

It's not like it's safe and healthy living next door to an oil refinery either, though. Hydroelectric killed 230,000 people when a single dam failed in China. Wind power has, in practice, translated to brownouts and increased dependence on coal, which carries its own health risks. Certainly, one can cherry-pick scare stories about the nuclear industry, but that's just prioritizing one set of sick or dying people over another, without any particular moral reasoning behind it.

Fair. It's about replacing A with B. It depends a lot on what A and B are. And where they are.

Some regions without coal power still manage to use wind, for instance.

Correct.

They import coal power. The legislatures were not completely idiotic, they knew they couldn’t raise the cost of power by 300%. So they made in state power generation regulation but did not apply it to imported energy.

So they can advertise to their science loving constituents that they have reduced in-state carbon emissions !! Look, we have wind turbines! And new construction is mandated to have solar panels! Meanwhile the coal plant next state is exporting energy across state lines, losing power along the transmission line, and.....

Increasing CO2 emissions. But hey, at least you Democrats shut down nuclear power plants. I wonder how much the wildfire risk increases with massive energy importation from out of state....along lines not designed for it..

Not always, no. The island of Maui burns oil, uses wind and solar, no coal.

Electricity consumption in South Australia used to be 70% gas and 30% coal. Now it's over one-third wind, about 10% solar, about one-third gas and about 20% coal. This represents a large decline in the portion of fossil fuel used for electricity generation.

' Certainly, one can cherry-pick scare stories about the nuclear industry'

So, can you cherry pick stories where any nuclear plant since 2000 has been built on time and on budget anywhere outside of China (assuming you trust the Chinese data, of course)? With a generous allowance for on time and on budget - a slip of 1 year or 25% increase in costs would more than count as on time and on budget (which just might provide a hint how hard it will be to cherry pick the data).

Shut up!

Get a life!

How about Kaiga 3? Tomari? Shika? Chasma 3? Rostov 3?

I mean when you put constraints down to exclude over 3/4ths of the nuclear plants ever built exactly how many counterexamples do we need to show that it can be done? Frankly, all I see is that in the West we got spooked in late 20th century and since that time, it is far too easy to tie up nuclear reactor construction in legal and regulatory limbo. Then the people throwing monkey wrenches into the gears point to the long build times as proof of impossibility.

Kaigi 3 was 220 MW and took 5 years to build. This is about twice the time to build equivalent capacity in a wind farm, but that is not a fair comparison given then need for either storage or peaker plants to complement the wind storage.

All told nuclear is not that hard to build ... as long as it is held to similar safety and regulatory standards of other power construction projects. Lest we think there is something uniquely good about other counries' abilities, let us recall that every boat of the Ohio class was launched in under six years. Somehow there is no appreciable difference in construction times for nuclear powered USN vessels than for conventionally powered vessels.

It is almost like removing the protesters and lawfare suddenly makes nuclear power a much easier prospect.

Another hot destination

In the future

Will be

Miami Florida underwater adventures.

Comments for this post are closed