The Generation Professionals Group is for utility professionals who work in biomass, coal, gas/oil, hydro, natural gas, or nuclear power generation fields. 

14,430 Members


You need to be a member of Energy Central to access some features and content. Please or register to continue.



ID 19464870 © Arman Zhenikeyev |

On Monday, I started the much acclaimed HBO mini-series Chernobyl on my flight back from Texas to my childhood home in New Jersey. The show didn’t disappoint. Between a couple cat naps, I got two one hour episodes in before having to leave the plane—I would have gladly extended the flight if it meant one more episode. Luckily, soon after arriving, I discovered my parents had traded in their Netflix subscription for a couple months of HBO now and I was able to finish the season last night. 

I can’t recommend Chernobyl enough. It’s gripping in the same way all great disaster flicks are, but it goes much deeper. It exposes the wretchedness of the Soviet regime: Total indifference to human life when the system is at risk. 

Yet part of me couldn’t help but fearing that the show’s quality, and consequent popularity, would only further damage nuclear power’s reputation. Despite research showing that only a combination of nuclear and renewables can effectively mitigate climate change, progressives around the world continue to demand nuclear be phased out—and they’re often successful. Tragically, nuclear plant closings are almost always followed by an uptick in greenhouse gas emissions. We’ve seen it in Germany and around the U.S. 

The reality is nuclear has proven safer than fossil fuels over the course of history, and it’s only getting better. I recently came across an article detailing a new, low-cost safety mechanism that could have supposedly stopped Chernobyl: “In a recent paper, published in the open-access peer-reviewed journal Nuclear Energy and Technology and the result of 30-40 years of collaboration, they propose a new safety barrier to be implemented in large Light Water Reactors around the world. Coming at a fraction of the cost of the already obsolete one that it is about to replace, this barrier is expected to reduce the probability of core melt to that of a large meteorite hitting the site.”

Hopefully HBO releases a follow up series on the wonders of the atom and why it should be embraced.


Henry Craver's picture

Thank Henry for the Post!

Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.


Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Nov 30, 2019 4:14 am GMT

Henry, it's not hard to appreciate that the most useful, powerful sources of energy can also be the most dangerous. Like guns, their ability to empower individuals (and societies) can, if wielded irresponsibly, be catastrophic.

Chernobyl was a case in point. As you note, there was a top-down failure of responsibility - from policymakers, to the plant's designers, to its operators. The RBMK reactor design itself was an accident waiting to happen.

Here's why Chernobyl should be viewed in context:

Safety standards for U.S. nuclear plants are the most rigorous in the world. There are many reasons why there hasn't been a single casualty of U.S. nuclear power; housing reactors within 6 feet of reinforced concrete, and not a Home-Depot-style warehouse structure, is only one (it prevented casualties at Three Mile Island).

Extremely encouraging that you, Rakesh, and Matt Chester "get it" - that unless we take substantial and immediate steps to prevent them, the effects of climate change will make 10 Chernobyls look like a walk in the park. It's all about putting things in perspective.


Audra Drazga's picture
Audra Drazga on Dec 2, 2019 11:59 am GMT


Curious if the earthquake near Diablo Canyon had stuck closer do you think the result would have been the same.  Also, the US safety standards are rigorous, how do we ensure other countries are the same? 

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Dec 5, 2019 10:13 pm GMT

Audra, the seismicity and tectonics of the sites on which Diablo Canyon and San Onofre were built have been studied more than any parcels of land in the world. Both were built to withstand stresses well in excess of any potential earthquakes in the region, so yes - the result would have been the same.

Several probablistic risk assessments have been undertaken for each; they put the possibility of human harm from accident or malfunction at one every 22,000 reactor years (one every 11,000 years, for each plant). Sure, there's a chance they could be wrong - an asteroid could strike either one tomorrow. But without immediate action on climate change the outcome won't matter.

onedit: the containment vessels around Diablo Canyon's reactors are designed to withstand the very explosion which tore apart Fukushima #2 - hydrogen escaping from the melted core of the reactor. Like Three Mile Island, they're designed to contain even a reactor meltdown.

Audra Drazga's picture
Audra Drazga on Dec 2, 2019 11:57 am GMT


I just recently viewed this show as well and found it very compelling.  I think the overall issue with nuclear power is that man can still make mistakes and when money and power are involved you add another level of issues. In addition, one accident is not like a common fire - it takes 100's of years to recover.   I am personally torn on the issue of Nuclear power.  However, I think this incident as well as the one in Japan have taught us a lot.   

David Svarrer's picture
David Svarrer on Dec 3, 2019 5:47 pm GMT

Dear Henry,

Which professional, scientific research are you referring to, when you say that research has said that only combinations of Nuclear Power and renewables can work? 

We have other options. Let us say that solar / wind energy cannot cater enough for the energy need of Earth ? 

Then we can - dammit - cut own our energy consumption. We are riding on a hot air balloon - this one of the perpetual growth. 

Truly - the world economy would collapse without this growth. But economy as such would not. Currencies would not. We would see a new economy rise from the old one. 

The chaos from such a collapse would be of magnitudes smaller than a total climate change collapse due to our lemming-like heading for the CO2 and overheating abyss.


Rational Intuitive

David Svarrer

David Svarrer's picture
David Svarrer on Dec 3, 2019 5:51 pm GMT

Dear Bob Meinetz, 

Can you explain to me why we would ever run a risk of implementing systems which need huge security systems and which would cause disaster if the security systems fails? 

There is no legit argument for installing anything (radioactive) which has a potential of causing such serious disasters - when we in fact have innocent energy resources which are constantly there - such as solar, wind, thermal and others.

From where comes this infatuation of nuclear systems? They are both dangerous and potentially lethally dangerous. There is no need.

We must get away from this notion that governments are there to get what the population wants. So, if the population demands 24/7 energy supply and that would require seriously dangerous means - then the answer is plain simply: NO.


David Svarrer

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Dec 5, 2019 6:10 pm GMT

David, your irrational fear of nuclear energy is common but misplaced, and the "serious disasters" you envision are apparently derived from horror films (in over half a century there hasn't been a single U.S. casualty from nuclear energy).

In contrast, innocent solar and wind depend on guilty fossil fuel for backup - responsible for 13,000 deaths/yr from emphysema, cancer, and other pulmonary diseases - not to mention climate change.

"So, if the population demands 24/7 energy supply and that would require seriously dangerous means - then the answer is plain simply: NO."

I agree.

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »