The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development looks back on the aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster of 1986 and subsequent efforts to make the site safe.
Securing Chernobyl with a New Safe Confinement
Visit the UK’s dedicated jobsite for engineering professionals. Each month, we’ll bring you hundreds of the latest roles from across the industry.
View jobs
should that not be paid by Russia ?
Yes, of course it should: on the principle that ‘polluters pay’ but ….at the time of the accident the USSR was coming to pieces and had no money. Well actually, yes they did, but choose to spend such on creating the next generation of weapons: which was great for ‘us’ and our conflict groups (vicars, lawyers, military) because we too had to do the same. [Or was it the other way round?] Answers on a post-card please.
Anyhow, as we (being the rest of Europe) had received quite a bit of the effluent from Chernobyl in the earliest days….we must have thought that it was in our interests to help them bury the whole thing…..sort of insurance premium?
I can only repeat a previous post: this (and Three Mile Island and all right the Japanese event as well) were at least accidents. Whilst I accept that there has been some progress in reducing the number of nuclear war-heads ranged against each other -is it only 2,000+ verses 1500+ now… two/three accidental episodes have surely demonstrated -even to the military and politicians- that such is definitely a no-go area. August 8th 1945 apparently did not concentrate all the minds of those in power.
Mike B
UK Sellafield /Windscale £88 billion to £218 billion and rising nuclear clean up bill. Why invest in this old tech when EDF/Areva cannot even control the costs of their first two EPR reactors ?
Fraunhofer Institute energy and economic modelling indicate 80% CO2 reduction by 2050 without nuclear is affordable :
https://workspace.imperial.ac.uk/climatechange/Public/pdfs/presentations/solar%202050/Solar-2050_2014-01_Henning.pdf