That's exactly why it's dangerous to anyone near the plant, as opposed to a Chernobyl-style or Fukushima-style disaster, where radioactive material is disseminated.
Excuse me? As far as I know the damage to the containment was very limited in Fukushima. And they were very worried about maintaining the cooling in the damaged buildings.
In a plane crash scenario we might be talking about no containment and no cooling at all. Instead we might be left with a pile of radioactive rubble and a kerosine fire.
After all you could be right that the scale would not be comparable...
In any case, may I remind you we're discussing a very hypothetical scenario?
Well, 9/11 did happen, and reactor walls are not built to resist a plane crash. So what exactly is hypothetical about the scenario?
As far as I know the damage to the containment was very limited in Fukushima
Right. Except water from the ocean was going in and out through the few tiny holes, and maybe that was the main problem.
See, uranium doesn't fly away when the reactor is open, but of course, if irradiated water goes right back in the ocean, there's dissemination on a bigger scale than Chernobyl.
« 9/11 did happen »
A huge scale terrorist attack like this is statistically
less likely than an earthquake in Japan.
Right. Except water from the ocean was going in and out through the few tiny holes, and maybe that was the main problem.
Where are you getting that from? Afaik they flooded the buildings with seawater on purpose, as a means of cooling. They did that because it appeared to be the lesser of two evils.
See, uranium doesn't fly away when the reactor is open
It does seem to fly pretty well when you add fire. At least that's what the 2600 squaremile no-go zone in chernobyl would suggest.
statistically less likely than an earthquake
That may be true, yet it's bound to happen eventually, right?
How would you rate the socio-economic impact of a single such event in contrast to, say, 9/11?
Chernobyl had no core containment, it used graphite as a moderator, and it wasn't merely fire that disseminated radioactive material, it was a big explosion.
Also, the director was incompetent.
Note that the impact of Chernobyl remained rather localised. 2600 square miles may sound big, but on a European scale, it's not much, and Europe is the smallest continent.
If you're telling me poor design and incompetence are bad and especially dangerous in security-sensitive contexts, I agree. So ?
Flooding the reactors was indeed the lesser of two evils.
« That may be true, yet it's bound to happen eventually, right? »
Can we agree that any given reactor will likely have no core containment either, after a passenger jet crashed into it?
No. A broken core containment still provides some protection.
I take my optimism from the fact that I'm not too impressed by things that have little chance from happening, which prevents me from being scared of meteor rains, terrorist attacks, or whatever disaster you can think of.
To put things in perspective, again :
There are much less nuclear power plants than there are dangerous pesticide or fertiliser factories. It is also more likely that a pesticide or fertiliser factory will be poorly maintained.
And yet, people who want to shut down nuclear plants are much more numerous and listened to than people who want to shut down chemical plants.
The only reason people are afraid of nuclear power is that it is associated with those bombs so powerful nobody ever dared to use them in a war since 1945.
There is no rational reason to shut down nuclear plants, and get rid of an energy source that's more efficient and cleaner than any other we know of.
A broken core containment still provides some protection.
Have you seen what a plane crash does to a structure?
As far as I know most reactor walls are not hardened to withstand a plane-crash.
That means you wouldn't end up with a "broken core containment". You'd end up with a pile of rubble.
not too impressed by things that have little chance from happening
That's a valid opinion. But I think it's an equally valid opinion that terrorist attacks are not
as rare as meteor rains. And that terrorists will specifically target these facilities.
The only reason people are afraid of nuclear power is that it is associated with those bombs
Personally my concerns are not related to the bombs.
I merely think the economic equation that makes nuclear plants appear cost-effective
will collapse over the first such event.
Your average nuclear plant is said to be profitable to the tune of $500mio USD/yr.
The total cost of the chernobyl disaster is estimated at around $235 billion dollars, and counting.
That means all US nuclear plants combined (circa 100) have to run for 10 years
in order to break even with a single disaster. And that's under the assumption that
a meltdown in the middle of the USA wouldn't be quite a bit more expensive than
a disaster in the middle of Ukrainian nowhere.
Thus my conclusion is that the facilities will be shutdown rather quickly
when and if such an event occurs.
Compared to the WTC, it's quite small, and easy to miss from above.
It's quite telling that most people identify a nuclear plant by its cooling towers, something that isn't a specific part of their design.
Weeks after Fukushima alleged terrorists were found making their way towards Sellafield in the UK. The obvious viability of this hypothetical attack became apparent after March 11th.
