An incident is something that happens at a specific place and time. So a coal burning power plant is a different category of problem. And coal burning as a global phenomenon is yet another category. Lumping such unlike things together (a one-time incident vs normal operation vs accumulative global impact) does not help dispel ignorance.
Whatever the causes, and whether or not the damage is contained, I feel like when your reactor suffers destructive events like power excursions, core meltdowns, etc., that are not supposed to happen, those can accurately be described as (catastrophic) ‘nuclear’ events. E.g. if a bunch of fuel at Fukushima heated up and melted that was a direct result of nuclear reactions. The tsunami indirectly led to it.
So anything that happens all at once is a disaster, regardless of whether any damage occurred or not? Because again, you can’t point to any harm caused by the release of radioactive material at Fukushima, since there was no harm.
Disagree, and I don’t think it’s helpful to think of things this way. Of all the things destroyed by the tsunami, the oil refinery was the one that released the most dangerous substances. Therefore oil facilities are more dangerous than nuclear facilities by this measure, and both are more dangerous than supermarkets. This is a very relevant consideration when approving the siting and construction of these facilities.
Having said all that, I agree with those who are saying that citing the Fukushima disaster as a reason to avoid nuclear power is silly, in much the same way that citing it as a reason to avoid refining oil would be silly.
How many years did they maintain an exclusion zone? That is harm.
There is a ton of salience bias in this thread. I can’t fathom getting worked up over a non-issue like Fukushima when the radiation released was so minor that more NUCLEAR waste is literally released as a byproduct of burning coal.
It seems clear that concern over the incident is not motivated by the actual facts on the ground, but by an emotional response to the idea of nuclear waste. It’s an aesthetic concern, not a practical one - and wasting our time bickering over aesthetics while the world burns seems foolish to me.
IIRC it was not a lack of fuel for the generators but, rather, that the generators were in the basement which got flooded by the tsunami. They don’t work when submerged. There is nothing inherently “bad” or worse about diesel engines for this. They are a tried-and-true technology and very reliable.
The plant also has powerlines that connect it to the grid where it can bring in power to run the pumps but those lines were damaged too (or other power plants were also off line).
How much of the exclusion zone was actually necessary for human safety and how much was designated out of the same overabundance of caution that led to designating this non-event as equal to Chernobyl?
Most of the generators were in basements but there were a few at ground level that weren’t as impacted by the flooding but did run out of power eventually.
You are correct there is nothing inherently bad about diesel back-up generators. They’re actually used all the time all over the world and function quite well. The problem wasn’t the generators, it was the placement of the generators.
As long as any large area needed to be evacuated for any significant time for purposes of human safety, I’m okay with calling the incident a disaster.
I’m somewhat confounded by pushback against calling the Fukushima incident a “nuclear disaster”. It’s quibbling over semantics instead of focusing on the fact that nuclear disasters can be low-impact and manageable.
I think the problem is that the anti-nuclear movement still uses Fukushima as an example of a ‘disaster’ so bad that nuclear power should be eliminated. Germany responded to Fukushima by crippling its energy supply and damaging its economy, so there is good reason to tamp down the hysteria.
To put it in perspective, have a look at this list of industrial disasters:
Concentrated energy and large scale industry will always carry a risk. Solar and wind power kill more people than does nuclear power. Every risk has to be considered against the backdrop of other risks we accept.
The earthquake and tsunami caused two other energy system ‘disasters’ no one talks about. The Fujinuma dam failed in the earthquake, killing eight people and flooding more land. A natural gas tank farm also failed and burned, injuring six people.
I saw a video a couple of weeks ago of a couple of workers trapped on top of a burning offshore wind turbine. They both died. Large scale engineering is dangerous.
Did such a large area NEED to be evacuated, or was it evacuated precisely because of this strange attitude that anything nuclear is uniquely dangerous and destructive despite available evidence? Did it NEED to remain evacuated for as long as it did, or again, are we dealing with an overabundance of caution which while good in theory is leading us to ignore problems that are factually far more serious because of salience bias?
Language is incredibly powerful. Calling a non-issue like Fukushima a “nuclear disaster” helps to perpetuate the myth that nuclear energy is somehow orders of magnitude more deadly and dangerous than fossil fuel energy, at a time when switching to nuclear energy from fossil fuels may be the only way to save the planet.
Not to mention Japan going from 30% nuclear power to 5%.
Fukushima was a disaster - a PR disaster that set the nuclearization of our energy grid back by years or decades at a time when we simply cannot afford to do that.
Every time someone calls the incident a “nuclear disaster” or puts it in the same category as Chernobyl, more damage is being done.
What a disaster. Wind energy is too dangerous - shut it all down!
(I think @Pleonast would agree that this is a class 7 disaster since it was a single incident that caused more damage than Fukushima, yes?)
I think the issue is the danger to the public.
Wind and solar kill more people than nuclear because a hell of a lot more people are involved in their construction and maintenance and shit happens. The danger is not inherent to wind or solar; the danger is inherent to construction and maintenance of big machines.
Joe Blow eating his pizza at home is very unlikely to die from wind power but thinks he is more likely to die from a distant nuclear plant that blows up and sends a radioactive cloud his way.
FTR: I am all for more nuclear power.
The odds of Joe Blow dying due to radioactive fallout are astronomically low. Has this* happened even once since Chernobyl? Has it happened even once before Chernobyl? (Counting radioactive clouds produced by power plants only, obviously it did happen both in Japan and to an extent in the Pacific Islands from bombs or bomb tests).
Joe Blow is far more likely to get lung cancer from all the fossil fuel crud he’s been constantly breathing in for the last 250 years.
*This being the death of any civilian not involved with working at a nuclear power plant or responding to an incident at such a plant due to radiation released from the plant after a disaster. All the nuclear deaths I can find outside of Chernobyl, bomb test, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki come from people working on the nuclear site or responding to a fire, crewing a nuclear sub, getting a medical procedure done with a radiotherapy machine that was miscalibrated, etc
I think this is the relevant danger we want for all power generation. What are the chances I will die if I live 10 miles from a power generating source (so this does not count those who work building or running these places)?
I have no idea (the following is a guess):
- Coal (pollution)
- Hydro (dam fails)
- Nuclear (reactor explosion)
.
.
.
Nothing else really. How will wind or solar or geo-thermal get me? (not sure about natural gas)
Refusing to call an incident that released a large amount of radioactive material a “nuclear disaster” looks like a playing word games instead of addressing people’s actual concerns. Saying “it’s not really nuclear” when nuclear material was released sends a message of disingenuity. Saying “it’s not really a disaster” when people needed to be evacuated (even if only for the few weeks needed to dispense with the short-lived isotopes) sends a message of callousness. Yes, language is powerful, so let’s not undercut ourselves.
If something is low-impact and manageable it is not a disaster by definition. People referring to “the Fukushima disaster” makes it sound much much worse than it was, especially since they don’t use the same wording to refer to far, far more serious incidents.
Quibbling over it is non-productive, because it draws attention away from the facts.