Radiation level increase in northern Europe may ‘indicate damage’ to nuclear power plant in Russia

[Cutlass]

Wind power may be enough for household consumption, but when you add industry to the equation, replacing non-renewable power sources can be problematic.
I read wiki about Alaska wind energy - it actually has generators with about 64MW power capacity in total. Supplies households and saves quite a lot of diesel fuel.

But the power of Kola nuclear plant mentioned in OP (the one near Murmansk) alone is ~25 times more than all wind power capacity of Alaska generators.
Replacing it with alternative sources can be difficult. And it is not very big plant, less than 2GW power.

Viable alternative in many places can be tidal and geothermal plants instead of solar/wind. For example, Penzhin Bay in Sea of Okhotsk has 9 meter high tides. The energy resources there are virtually unlimited. There are projects of building monstrous power plant there, up to 90GW (Three Gorges Dam is 22.5 GW), but the problem is nobody lives there and there is no obvious way to put all this energy in use. Would be a shame to waste it on bitcoin mining or something like that.

Tidal is actually a more difficult engineering problem than most people realize on first glance. The Bay of Fundy can have 15m tides. But that kind of force breaks the machines you build to try to harvest it.

 

[Gorbles]

What your article fails to say is that that land is not single use. While it is true that you won't be building any windmills in a city, it is also true that that land can still be used for farming and pasture. So it's not like you're just taking land from other uses.

I would not assume that the land by default isn't single use, either. But that's not my point. My point is that the vast majority of, say, the UK, is the opposite of an open, flat plane (among other factors).

I'm not opposed to renewables at all. But they're not a counterargument to (or replacement for) nuclear either. Opposition to nuclear is often driven by fear, or by politics (or both). You're going to struggle to replace traditional fossil fuels with just renewables alone.

 

[Cutlass]

I would not assume that the land by default isn't single use, either. But that's not my point. My point is that the vast majority of, say, the UK, is the opposite of an open, flat plane (among other factors).

I'm not opposed to renewables at all. But they're not a counterargument to (or replacement for) nuclear either. Opposition to nuclear is often driven by fear, or by politics (or both).

While it is true that nuclear has opposition because of political reasons. It is also true that the private sector isn't going to build nuclear without massive taxpayer subsidies and guarantees. The cost is just too high. So if it's not going to be entirely government built, owned, and operated, then it cannot be financially justified.

 

[Zkribbler]

Viable alternative in many places can be tidal and geothermal plants instead of solar/wind. For example, Penzhin Bay in Sea of Okhotsk has 9 meter high tides. The energy resources there are virtually unlimited. There are projects of building monstrous power plant there, up to 90GW (Three Gorges Dam is 22.5 GW), but the problem is nobody lives there and there is no obvious way to put all this energy in use. Would be a shame to waste it on bitcoin mining or something like that.

Tidal-created energy can be converted into hydrogen.

 

[red_elk]

Not since the invention of the battery.

Accumulators only help to reduce dependence on weather, at additional cost. And can't reduce dependence on climate at all.
If there is no wind or no sun for long period of time, battery won't save you.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Here we go again. And we should build more nuclear power plants why?

Because they're not very damaging compared to most other common forms of energy generation, particularly the burning of fossil fuels.

 

[Zelig]

Tidal is actually a more difficult engineering problem than most people realize on first glance. The Bay of Fundy can have 15m tides. But that kind of force breaks the machines you build to try to harvest it.

The Bay of Fundy has a tidal power plant, it just isn't very big.

 

[The_J]

This seems to not have yet hit the German news... which... I don't know...is this good or bad?
Is there a cover up, or is it not worth a story?

 

[Gorbles]

While it is true that nuclear has opposition because of political reasons. It is also true that the private sector isn't going to build nuclear without massive taxpayer subsidies and guarantees. The cost is just too high. So if it's not going to be entirely government built, owned, and operated, then it cannot be financially justified.

I don't deny there are logistical problems, but these can be overcome with proper support and opposition to fearmongering around nuclear power itself. It's going to take time. I believe it is necessary. Renewables are also moderately tied up in capitalistic business and funding issues as well - the core pains affecting all of these newer power sources replacing traditional fossil fuels are both a lack of public education, and political / lobbyist pressure in favour of fossil fuels.

 

[Commodore]

Uh, no?

Chernoblyl? Fukushima?

A quick Google search says there are 440 nuclear power plants in the world. Two failures is a 0.45% failure rate. That seems pretty safe to me.

Also, nuclear power plants have existed since 1951. The fact that we've had so few nuclear disasters over the course of 69 years is also a testament to their safety.

 

[Arwon]

Nuclear is here for the foreseeable future. It won't be just closed down. But nuclear is far too expensive for anyone but a power-desperate government to build. It's just not going to happen in the private sector. So the same private sector which is building wind and solar as fast as it can will not invest in nuclear. Which makes nuclear's days numbered, no matter what advantages it may offer. The existing plants in the US are all, or nearly so, over 40 years old. When those plants do exceed their lifespans and get shut down, they will not be replaced with more nuclear. It's just a waste of money to do so.

Yes nuclear power just is not going to break much past the current ~10% of global electricity generation. New build nuclear power is not a fit for purpose technology for de-carbonisation of the grid and there's not much to be gained building it for any other reason.

 

[Hrothbern]

This seems to not have yet hit the German news... which... I don't know...is this good or bad?
Is there a cover up, or is it not worth a story?

Sounds real enough to me based on article below in Dutch news.
Our public health and environmental authority the RIVM has analysed the data of Norwegian, Swedish and Finnish measure stations and has, supports so far the conclusion that this indicates likely a leaking reactor (plant or submarine) in West-Russia.
Here a draft map of the radio-active cloud and some indication where it could leak. The map from CTBTO https://www.ctbto.org/
The integrity of the RIVM is beyond reasonable doubt for me and ofc scientists need always more data to get better and stronger conclusuions. This is first indication only.

In early June, elevated concentrations of iodine-131 were measured at two monitoring stations in the north of Norway. Stations in Sweden and Finland included cesium-134 and ruthenium-103. "These are typical isotopes for nuclear fuel," says Herman Schreurs of RIVM.

Google translated article from Dutch newspaper NRC:

Increased concentrations of radioactive materials measured above Scandinavia According to the RIVM, a slightly radioactive cloud floating above Norway, Sweden and Finland could indicate a leak in a nuclear reactor. Although it is not clear which.

Slightly increased concentrations of radioactive substances have been measured above Scandinavia. According to the RIVM, which analyzed the data from Norwegian, Swedish and Finnish monitoring stations, the radioactive particles indicate a leak from a reactor core and probably originate from the direction of Western Russia. The concentrations are not a danger to public health or the environment. No increased radioactivity has been measured in the Netherlands.

The Russian nuclear agency says that no increased radiation was measured at the two nuclear power plants in the northwest of the country - near Saint Petersburg and Murmansk. Also, no accidents are known, the agency told Russian news agency Tass. "Both nuclear power plants are working normally. No disturbances have been reported. ”


In early June, elevated concentrations of iodine-131 were measured at two monitoring stations in the north of Norway. Stations in Sweden and Finland included cesium-134 and ruthenium-103. "These are typical isotopes for nuclear fuel," says Herman Schreurs of RIVM.

No precise source
Using an analysis of the wind directions, RIVM concluded that the cloud must have come from the direction of Western Russia. "But," emphasizes Schreurs, "we cannot now pinpoint its exact source or location." The source can be a nuclear power plant, but also a submarine reactor.

Finding out where the radioactive cloud comes from is complicated by the low air concentrations, so that there are relatively few measuring points. Sometimes the values are just above the detection limit. Schreurs: "If the source continues to cause problems, we may measure it again in the coming days."

Last year, a cloud of radioactive material was released after an explosion with a Russian rocket engine on a sea platform, a few kilometers above the village of Njonoksa. On the shores of the White Sea, northwestern Russia, the Russian Navy has a missile testing area. Five employees were also killed.

https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2020/06/2...re-stoffen-gemeten-boven-scandinavie-a4004381

 

[red_elk]

Somebody polluted the air...
Judging by the map, it's Estonia!

 

[Hrothbern]

Somebody polluted the air...
Judging by the map, it's Estonia!

Could also be a NATO submarine in the Baltic Sea

 

[Zardnaar]

Damn Estonians.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

A quick Google search says there are 440 nuclear power plants in the world. Two failures is a 0.45% failure rate.

OMG, that’s higher than the Covid death rate! Everyone must wear a hazmat suit!

 

[Seon]

I mean with nuclear power the thing is that the critical failure condition tends to make the surrounding environment unlivable. I suppose that’s still better than coal whose success state slowly makes the planet unlivable.

 

[red_elk]

Could also be a NATO submarine in the Baltic Sea

Of course NATO... whose else could it be?

 

[Samez]

This seems to not have yet hit the German news... which... I don't know...is this good or bad?
Is there a cover up, or is it not worth a story?

Therehas been a short article at faz.net yesterday, but without any additional news.

 

[El_Machinae]

I mean with nuclear power the thing is that the critical failure condition tends to make the surrounding environment unlivable. I suppose that’s still better than coal whose success state slowly makes the planet unlivable.

It's not a conundrum, though. We argue against nuclear compared to other renewable alternatives. But compared to heavy oil or coal, it's incredibly better. Every coal plant that doesn't get closed because we slow-walked nuclear causes massive damage.