Discussion on Nuclear Power

Is anyone here interested in a further discussion on the advantages and risks of nuclear reactors.

Today 'Mining Weekly' posted an article calling for the removal of the bans in Australia, for obvious economic and emission reasons - https://www.miningweekly.com/article/australias-minerals-council-calls-for-repeal-of-discriminatory-nuclear-energy-ban-2019-04-23

And last night 'Seconds From Disaster' put to air a highly exaggerated and fear mongering program about Chernobyl. It contained enormous overestimation of the amount of fissionable material lost to atmosphere and/or the water table and the number of lives lost and the adverse effects on the population who was evacuated.

I have direct professional knowledge of nuclear reactors, having worked as a consulting engineer within a very large engineering firm in the field, and specifically to look for solutions to the problems with the AGR (Advanced Gas Cooled Reactor).
I have followed Chernobyl from the very beginning including copying websites which were later taken down, some of which I will not publish. (initially there was a massive tenancy to exaggerate some of the outcomes as a means of embarrassing the Soviet Union - and it is generally accepted that Chernobyl, in part led to Glasnost and shortly afterwards to the adoption of reforms and the eventual collapse of 'The Evil Empire')

Chernobyl 4 was the newest of the Soviet RBMK reactors at the time and (according to my previous understanding) was the only one which had not been used to breed plutonium (poison in nuclear jargon) - that and the known existence of a 'positive void coefficient' in the state characteristics of those reactors, has led to the proposition that the Chernobyl accident might have been sabotage. Done by some highly placed organization either inside or outside the USSR. As the program last night did show well, the relatively inexperienced night shift became hopelessly lost during the so called 'test' - but my understanding has always been that the 'unauthorised test' was to happen in the afternoon when the top engineers were on duty, it would have progressed to completion quite safely with the adequate and extensive pre-planning which was surely in place. The problem for the day shift was a wildcard thrown in by the Dispacher in Kiev who called for a full power up as the test was almost complete. (this is one point which has 'changed' over the years - it is now said that the 'test proper' was not underway when power up was called, but early reports said that the reactor was not supplying electricity to the grid.) Anyway the skilled engineers on duty performed the power up without going into the positive void coefficient region. What ever the reason that put the test in the hands of just two or three inexperienced men on night shift.

A full and complete general understanding of Nuclear power accidents and core melt downs is important for a reasoned study of the advantages of a nuclear power program - Three Mile Island is another one to study.

So far the Three Mile Island core lava has only made about 8 mm in its journey towards China, and is already cooled down by amalgamation with the clay and rock intentionally put in its way by design.