[ad_1]
<div _ngcontent-c14 = "" innerhtml = "
This photo taken Wednesday, April 5, 2017 shows a central place in the deserted city of Pripyat, less than three kilometers from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine. Pripyat, which once housed some 50,000 residents of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, was hastily evacuated one day after a reactor explosion on April 26, 1986. The explosion and subsequent fire spat a radioactive plume over much of Europe . (AP Photo / Efrem Lukatsky)
ASSOCIATED PRESS
When nuclear power was first marketed in the mid-1950s, many people saw it as an ideal solution to meet the electricity needs of a growing world population. A pound of uranium-235 can produce two to three million times more electricity than a pound of coal or oil – but without producing direct atmospheric emissions under normal conditions. # 39; s operating.
But a few accidents in the 1970s and 1980s seriously undermined the enthusiasm for nuclear power. The Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania in 1979 & nbsp; remains the most serious nuclear accident in the history of the United States. This accident did not hurt, but a small rejection of & nbsp; radioactive material during the incident.
Thus, growing opposition to nuclear energy began to appear in the United States as a result of the & nbsp;Accident of Three Mile Island.
Fear of radiation
One thing I've seen over the years is that people are very scared of radiation. You can explain to a person that a banana (like our own body) is naturally radioactive and that it will eat it anyway. "radioactive releases from a nuclear power plant" strikes & nbsp; terror in a lot.
By the way, I explained the cancer risk by radiation with an analogy. It is technically possible to develop cancer after exposure to a single dose of radiation. Radiation can interact with our body's DNA and cause dysfunction and possibly cancer.
But the analogy I use is that it's like trying to pull a power line (which represents DNA in this analogy) a mile away with a high-powered rifle. The chances of hitting him are minimal, but the more you shoot, the more likely you are to hit him. Increase the number of people shooting and their rate of fire, and the overall chances of being hit become much greater.
In any case, many people have an irrational fear of radiation. They can not see it, but they know it could eventually cause cancer. We are simply not very good at evaluating these probabilities against all kinds of much riskier activities that we engage in every day.
Chernobyl changes everything
The Three Mile Island accident was a minor event compared to what would follow.
Last week, HBO & nbsp; launched a new miniseries & nbsp; covering the events surrounding the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1986. Based on the first episode, it will provide a captivating and dramatic insight into what happened. Nothing like this has ever been seen in the nuclear industry and many would have claimed that an accident of this magnitude was impossible.
As an engineer in the energy sector, the mine has always focused on safety during all phases of design, construction and operation. For example, I spent a lot of time analyzing what was wrong with major disasters such as Chernobyl, the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, or the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. 2011 in Japan.
Inevitably, in every disaster, we find design flaws and warning signs that should have been obvious. I do not know how far the HBO series will analyze the events that led to the accident, but it's actually the result of a safety test that should have been completed as soon as things started to go wrong. & Nbsp; The series shows that while it was becoming clear what had happened, many were in absolute denial that the result (an explosion of the nuclear reactor itself) was even possible.
From an engineer's point of view, it is important to recognize both the risk and the consequences of the risk. In the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear accidents, the risks were not recognized and the consequences were not correctly estimated. That's why a bigger part of the public has developed a & nbsp; great fear of nuclear power.
It will not be easy to overcome this fear and change attitudes towards nuclear energy. The growth of nuclear energy slowed down considerably after Chernobyl and actually decreased during a period after Fukushima:
Growth of nuclear energy 1965-2017
Robert Rapier
I think that nuclear has an important role to play as a reliable source of solid energy and low carbon. This is important to help supplement intermittent renewable energies such as wind and solar power. But two major problems must be solved: ensuring public safety and adequately treating nuclear waste. Here I will only talk about the old.
Nuclear power plants & nbsp; must be designed to be protected from failures or failures. Being out of trouble means that if an accident occurs, the system goes to a safe state. A simple example is an electric fuse. If too much current tries to cross the fuse, it melts and stops the electric current. Neither Chernobyl nor Fukushima were intrinsically safe designs. Future nuclear power plants must be designed to give the public absolute certainty as to the safety of the designs.
The public may be waiting for nuclear designs to be irreproachable, but there are many reasons why this metric will never be met. The most fundamental reason is that we simply can not protect ourselves against all possible outcomes. Thus, we try to mitigate the possible consequences and implement unfailing designs.
conclusions
If the intrinsic safety criterion can be met, it will remain a difficult sell to a skeptical audience. The reality is that nuclear energy is a very low-risk way of producing energy. But the potential consequences of an accident can be extremely heavy, as we saw when entire cities were permanently evacuated as a result of Chernobyl and Fukushima. These images & nbsp; will be difficult to overcome, but if the nuclear energy sector is to regain momentum, it will be necessary to convince the public that there is no chance that the nuclear power station will be able to release again.
">
This photo taken Wednesday, April 5, 2017 shows a central place in the deserted city of Pripyat, less than three kilometers from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine. Pripyat, which once housed some 50,000 residents of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, was hastily evacuated one day after a reactor explosion on April 26, 1986. The explosion and subsequent fire spat a radioactive plume over much of Europe . (AP Photo / Efrem Lukatsky)
ASSOCIATED PRESS
When nuclear power was first marketed in the mid-1950s, many saw it as an ideal solution to meet the electricity needs of a growing world population. A pound of uranium-235 can produce two to three million times more electricity than a pound of coal or oil – but without producing direct atmospheric emissions under normal conditions. # 39; s operating.
But a few accidents in the 1970s and 1980s seriously undermined the enthusiasm for nuclear power. The Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania in 1979 remains the most serious nuclear accident in US history. This accident did not result in injury, but a slight release of radioactive material occurred during the incident.
Thus, growing opposition to nuclear power began to appear in the United States as a result of the Accident of Three Mile Island.
Fear of radiation
One thing I've seen over the years is that people are very scared of radiation. You can explain to someone that a banana (like our own body) is naturally radioactive and that she will always eat it, but the "radioactive release of a nuclear power plant" is a terror for many.
By the way, I explained the cancer risk by radiation with an analogy. It is technically possible to develop cancer after exposure to a single dose of radiation. Radiation can interact with our body's DNA and cause dysfunction and possibly cancer.
But the analogy I use is that it's like trying to pull a power line (which represents DNA in this analogy) a mile away with a high-powered rifle. The chances of hitting him are minimal, but the more you shoot, the more likely you are to hit him. Increase the number of people shooting and their rate of fire, and the overall chances of being hit become much greater.
In any case, many people have an irrational fear of radiation. They can not see it, but they know it could eventually cause cancer. We are simply not very good at evaluating these probabilities against all kinds of much riskier activities that we engage in every day.
Chernobyl changes everything
The Three Mile Island accident was a minor event compared to what would follow.
Last week, HBO launched a new miniseries covering the events surrounding the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1986. Based on the first episode, it will provide a captivating and dramatic insight into what has happened. Nothing like this has ever been seen in the nuclear industry and many would have claimed that an accident of this magnitude was impossible.
As an engineer in the energy sector, the mine has always focused on safety during all phases of design, construction and operation. For example, I spent a lot of time analyzing what was wrong with major disasters such as Chernobyl, the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, or the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. 2011 in Japan.
Inevitably, in every disaster, we find design flaws and warning signs that should have been obvious. I do not know how far the HBO series will analyze the events that led to the accident, but it's actually the result of a safety test that should have been completed as soon as the problems have started. The series shows that by the time it became clear what had happened, many absolutely denied that the result (an explosion of the nuclear reactor itself) was even possible.
From an engineer's point of view, it is important to recognize both the risk and the consequences of the risk. In the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear accidents, the risks were not recognized and the consequences were not correctly estimated. As a result, more of the public has developed a great fear of nuclear power.
It will not be easy to overcome this fear and change attitudes towards nuclear energy. The growth of nuclear energy slowed down considerably after Chernobyl and actually decreased during a period after Fukushima:
Growth of nuclear energy 1965-2017
Robert Rapier
I think that nuclear has an important role to play as a reliable source of solid energy and low carbon. This is important to help supplement intermittent renewable energies such as wind and solar power. But two major problems must be solved: ensuring public safety and adequately treating nuclear waste. Here, I will only send to the first one.
Nuclear power plants must be designed to be fault-free or even out of trouble. Being out of trouble means that if an accident occurs, the system goes to a safe state. A simple example is an electric fuse. If too much current tries to cross the fuse, it melts and stops the electric current. Neither Chernobyl nor Fukushima were intrinsically safe designs. Future nuclear power plants must be designed to give the public absolute certainty as to the safety of the designs.
The public may be waiting for nuclear designs to be irreproachable, but there are many reasons why this metric will never be met. The most fundamental reason is that we simply can not protect ourselves against all possible outcomes. Thus, we try to mitigate the possible consequences and implement unfailing designs.
conclusions
If the intrinsic safety criterion can be met, it will remain a difficult sell to a skeptical audience. The reality is that nuclear energy is a very low-risk way of producing energy. But the potential consequences of an accident can be extremely heavy, as we saw when entire cities were permanently evacuated as a result of Chernobyl and Fukushima. These images will be difficult to overcome, but if the nuclear industry is to regain momentum, it will be necessary to convince the public that there is no chance that the plant will produce another major rejection.