Chernobyl Mk2?

galraen · Post by **galraen** » Sat Mar 12, 2011 6:43 am

Or should that be Three Mile Island Mk3, or Winscale* Mk 4?

Maybe the Japanese will get away with the stupidity of building nuclear reactors right next to a major tectonic fault; I hope they do, but this sort of statement

The government of Fukushima prefecture said radiation levels at the plant over one hour were equivalent to the annual allowable exposure.

makes one fear the worst.

Will they learn and get rid of them all? Not likely, not as long as like all plutocracies they continue to worship the great god Profit. After all despite being shown the idiocy of building nuclear plants time and again successive British governments have been hell bent on building more of them. The rich only care about one thing, making themselves richer, and they don't care if Tokyo turns into a living hell, they'll be on the first plane out; if they haven't already left.

Stworca · Post by **Stworca** » Sat Mar 12, 2011 7:46 am

Chernobyl.. I wonder how much you really now about how many lives were lost and how many more will if the consctuction around it won't be maintained properly..

I recommend this song while reading my post

Only Russia could afford to sacrifice hundrets of thousands of workers to solve the problem. And even though each one was exposed to the ungodly radiation on top of the plant (when clearing ruble) for 2-3 minutes (some were sent there five times). But the radiation there was 10 to 12 THOUSAND R/h Not uR, not mR. R. And that's just the radiation, there was also chemical poisoning.
Out of 500 000 people send there to solve the problem, 200 000 are cripples, 20 000 died. These are just the workers send there. The radioactive cloud was hovering all over eastern and central europe. The biggest tragedy is that all these sacrifices were necessary, otherwise millions would've died.

The info "57 people died cause of the catastrophe in Chernobyl" is the biggest non-religious piece of monkey crap in mankind history. Aside from the workers that i've partialy covered above Eight milion people live on areas radiated by the catastrophe at this day. Eating radiated food, stepping on irradiated ground. 300 000 children in Belarus are suffering from deformations caused by radiation.

Yet there are Nuclear Plants that are still active post Chernobyl? And MORE beign build!? What an idiot still thinks they're a good idea?! So i agree with you. But my point was that Chernobyl was much worse than many people can even imagine, and how media described it

This is probably the problem. If people KNEW how ****ed up Chernobyl REALY was, they would riot on the slightest mention of Nuclear Plants. But they don't, so it's cool. At least Russia haven't build more nuclear plants afterwards.

Edit : While this is mentioned, i can also give a quick note on nuclear power. Russian SS-18 rockets had the power of 100 (one hundred) Chernobyl's, and the Rus had 2700 of these at the time of the catastrophe. That's in 1986. US probably had more, and now have for sure, despite the agreement to get rid of them.

NUCLEAR POWER FOR EVERYONE! SO THAT EVERYBODY WINS!

Edit 2 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv3a4LXi_qc For those interested

galraen · Post by **galraen** » Sat Mar 12, 2011 10:11 am

Chernobyl was much worse than many people can even imagine, and how media described it

I'm aware of the truth about Chernobyl Stworca, no need to be patronising, now look at the population of Tokyo, which is close, and currently down wind of the power station that exploded.

Stworca · Post by **Stworca** » Sat Mar 12, 2011 10:16 am

galraen wrote:I'm aware of the truth about Chernobyl Stworca, no need to be patronising, now look at the population of Tokyo, which is close, and currently down wind of the power station that exploded.

I wasn't patronising, good Galraen, if you feel that way - excuse me.
I wrote the above for those who might not know about Chernobyl. Trust me when i say that i know many such people

And from what i'm reading in TEPCO statements. Japan had no reactor melting. No Chernobyl MkII, for now. But it's a great proof that the technology can still fail, and we've learned nothing

Edit : What the .. (censored) [url="http://m.onet.pl/_m/4d147f8bf56164be4e009fa52f19284e,21,1.jpg"]Japan has over FIFTY nuclear plants?!?![/url]

galraen · Post by **galraen** » Sun Mar 13, 2011 9:38 am

The Earthquake, Tsunami and subsequent nuclear scare in Japan couldn't have come at a better time for Gadaffi and others using brute force to suppress opposition could it. All of a sudden the world's press has something else to spread across its front pages! So not nearly as much coverage of events in Bahrain as there would have been a few days ago.

Or of course had Fomula 1's first grand prix of the season taken place there today as scheduled!

sesobebo · Post by **sesobebo** » Sun Mar 13, 2011 6:13 pm

I don't think it's valid to dismiss all use of nuclear power because of what has happened three to five decades ago, and because of what is at the moment unfolding in an extremely unfortunate* Japan.
The technology has changed (and learned from the disasters) and I'd be more worried about 40 years old power plants** being granted life extensions than any new reactors being built.
Nuclear power is still (aside from infantile solar power and highly situational wind power) the least intrusive and destructive form of power to date.

*Unfortunate due to earthquake and consequential tidal wave. If I've read the timetables correctly the reactor crisis could have been significantly lessened if they'd have started cooling the cooling systems immediately instead of waiting for a day, trying to save the reactor.
**All solid fuel based plants included.

galraen · Post by **galraen** » Sun Mar 13, 2011 8:18 pm

Nuclear power is still (aside from infantile solar power and highly situational wind power) the least intrusive and destructive form of power to date.

Until it's time to get rid of the waste, with it's 1,000 year half life, and the decommission them when their life is finished. Of course the companies that profit from them don't have to worry about decommissioning, just wind up the business and let the government foot the bill, because you can bet your life they won't foot the bill themselves. Least intrusive and destructive? Less intrusive than coal or gas perhaps, although that is very debatable long term. the other aspect which pro nuke people like to ignore is that stocks of uranium will run out before coal, and probably before oil. Yet another dirty short term fix, with worse long term effects and problems than any other way of creating energy. Not sure how you can call it less destructive that's for sure, again less than open cast coal mining true, but definitely not less destructive than other forms of energy production.

Stworca · Post by **Stworca** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 5:06 am

sesobebo wrote: The technology has changed (and learned from the disasters)

Japan has shown us that we've learned nothing, and the technology can still fail.

*Unfortunate due to earthquake and consequential tidal wave. If I've read the timetables correctly the reactor crisis could have been significantly lessened if they'd have started cooling the cooling systems immediately instead of waiting for a day, trying to save the reactor.

More earthquakes will happen, with consequential tidal waves, and people will wait for a day, trying to save the reactor.

I don't think it's valid to dismiss all use of nuclear power because of what has happened three to five decades ago

Ofcourse, millions of people irradiated even now, after "three to five decades" (25 years..) will gladly agree with your statement.

Sure nuclear power would be a good energy resource, because oil and coal ain't infinite.. But until it's fault-proof, the risks are too great.

galraen · Post by **galraen** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 5:37 am

oil and coal ain't infinite

...but less infinite (if that's grammatically correct) than coal actually. I'd still much rather go for sustainable energy production and a massive reduction in energy waste. People who complain about the cost of energy, and moan about the adverse impact of energy production etc. and then go and load their dishwasher make me, well not laugh, snort with derision more like!

Stworca · Post by **Stworca** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 5:42 am

Well i still have hopes for Wind and Water as large scale power sources, in the future.. Who knows..

For the 5th year in a row, China has doubled its installed wind power capacity. Wind power capacity in the world grew 31% in 2009.

In total, 37.5 GW of wind power were added in 2009, bringing total worldwide installations up to 157.9 GW. One third of these new installations were in China.

1) US: 35.2 GW of installed capacity (up from 25.2 GW in 2008)

2) Germany: 25.8 GW of installed capacity (up from 23.9 GW in 2008)

3) China: 25.1 GW of installed capacity (up from 12.1 GW in 2008)

4) Spain: 19.1 GW of installed capacity (up from 16.7 GW in 2008)

5) India: 10.9 GW of installed capacity (up from 9.7 GW in 2008)

This is without listing Norway, and these are reports from 2009.

Sure the numbers are still low, but it twenty five years (three to five decades)..

Norway plans to build the world's most powerful wind turbine, hoping the new technology will increase the profitability of costly offhsore wind farms, partners behind the project said Friday.

With a rotor diametre of 145 metres (475 feet), the 10-megawatt protype will be roughly three times more powerful than ordinary wind turbines currently in place, Enova, a public agency owned by Norway's petroleum and oil industry ministry, said.

A recent study talked about developing sea-based wind parks that would allow access up to 8,000 megawatts of renewable energy, equivalent to about eight nuclear power plants. Exporting green energy would actually help the European Union to attain their goal to get 20-percent of the total energy from renewable sources such as solar, wind, waves or hydro power.

The investment for the wind parks would cost up to $44 billion but if we consider they pump out 2.2 million barrels of oil per day, it will probably take only 6 months to cover it.

Norway has the longest coastline in Europe and using wind power they expect to have “access to up to 40 terrawatt hours of renewable energy in 2020-2025, of which about half would come from offshore wind power.” If the authorities will consider the project and it will be built, it may cut 20 million tonnes of heat-trapping carbon dioxide emissions.

Way to go Norway.

[url="http://www.treehugger.com/norway-offshore-wind-z01.jpg"]And a pic.[/url]

sesobebo · Post by **sesobebo** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 7:08 am

I won't argue politics, as I find it even more locale dependent than wind turbines

- where I'm from all the significant infrastructure is state owned (for the time being - which is a whole other kind of shady business).
From the technical point of view the waste storage facility accommodating several power plants does not have to be bigger than a plant in itself.
As for the less destructive and intrusive alternatives - when You exclude highly situational forms such as geothermal, wind and tidal plants, and yet to be produced en masse solar panels - all You are left with are fossil fuel plants that require transporting literal mountains/lakes of coal/oil half way around the world and hydro plants (still somewhat situational, as they require running rivers with significant amount of drop, but as nuclear reactors also need some sources of water to be nearby they're somewhat comparable) which take far more space for the amount of energy they produce.

@Stworca
What Japan has shown is that the engineers have learned and they've learned it early. The fact that 40 year old power plant at the end of it's life cycle survived the quake and wave, springing no leaks in the process and is at the moment being gradually cooled down just by dumping seawater into it, shows to me a great deal of competence from the technical point of view.

I still don't see, why today's nuclear power technology should be rendered invalid due to Chernobyl - as You put it - an 25 year old disaster on an even then outdated actively cooled reactor of poor construction and abysmal post-disaster handling.
Yes, the people with personal traumas might not gladly agree, but I have yet to meet an engineer or physicist discarding the nuclear power as one of the best power solutions.
Oppose and protest the old power plants, if they are deemed unsafe, no argument from me there, but please, don't invalidate the nuclear power as it is today.

galraen · Post by **galraen** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 7:32 am

Well if you are going to totally ignore the problems of waste disposal and decommissioning there's not much point in continuing the debate is there.

sesobebo · Post by **sesobebo** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 8:36 am

galraen wrote:Well if you are going to totally ignore the problems of waste disposal and decommissioning there's not much point in continuing the debate is there.

sesobebo wrote:...From the technical point of view the waste storage facility accommodating several power plants does not have to be bigger than a plant in itself...

Granted, I've omitted the elaboration that abandoned mines that are filling with water and radioactive radon by themselves, and which litter all the countries using nuclear plants, are just about as perfect storage facilities as one can get for radioactive waste, but don't say that I'm ignoring it.

I am however ignoring the arguments which have nothing to do with nuclear power technology (that is what I barged in here to discuss and had hoped to make clear with first sentence) and are purely consequences of actual politics and economic conducts.
So fair enough.

P.S. But if You ever start a thread about overthrowing Your government/robbing a bank/collectivising an 'insolvent' factory, do send me a PM.

Pekka · Post by **Pekka** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 9:12 am

Before doing away with nucelar powerplants humankind has to find an alternate source of energy to replace the loss. Untill that happens, all arguments against nuclear power is just demagogy.
Oh yeh, and nuclear lobby is like nothing, compared to eg. petroleum lobby.

galraen · Post by **galraen** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 9:47 am

Pekka wrote:Before doing away with nucelar powerplants humankind has to find an alternate source of energy to replace the loss.

Or stop wasting so much of it on dumbass things like dishwashers and air conditioning in places that don't need it.

galraen · Post by **galraen** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 10:10 am

sesobebo wrote:Granted, I've omitted the elaboration that abandoned mines that are filling with water and radioactive radon by themselves, and which litter all the countries using nuclear plants, are just about as perfect storage facilities as one can get for radioactive waste, but don't say that I'm ignoring it.

I am however ignoring the arguments which have nothing to do with nuclear power technology (that is what I barged in here to discuss and had hoped to make clear with first sentence) and are purely consequences of actual politics and economic conducts.
So fair enough.

P.S. But if You ever start a thread about overthrowing Your government/robbing a bank/collectivising an 'insolvent' factory, do send me a PM.

I bet you mean abandoned mines in someone else's back yard though. and who's going to pay for those mines to be capped,and monitored for the next 1,000 years? Who's going to be around to explain to people why those mines have flooded and are pouring radioactive water everywhere? Abandoned mines are a terrible place to dump nuclear waste, maybe if you'd experienced what happens when toxic waste is dumped in an old mine you'd change your tune. And yes your were ignoring it, and still haven't come up with a credible solution, but don't feel bad, because neither has the nuclear power industry.

Trying to limit the discussion to just the technology, and ignoring the long and short term political implications of that technology is ridiculous, and unfortunately is just what the pro nuke lobby have done. What does it matter, we'll all be dead in less than a hundred years, we can leave it to our children and grandchildren to deal with the consequences! Coal is bad, so are petrochemicals but the downside to them is far shorter in duration than nuclear. Yes global warming is a problem, so is pollution, but I'd much rather live next door to a modern coal fired power station than a nuclear one; safe in the knowledge that when they do decide it's served it's purpose they can just bulldoze it.

Pekka · Post by **Pekka** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 10:37 am

That would be like asking a sweet tooth kid to spit out a candy after he has already put it in his mouth

) Don't get me wrong, I am all for energy saving and renewable resources, but it just ain't gonna happen.

Thing is, humankind has long been on a crash-course to its own demise and a bandage here and there wont save you once your head is blown off.

In my opinion, nuclear power is one of the less likely causes of human extinction. If I were to name the likely ones I'd say - overpopulation and the resulting complications - food,water and energy shortages, worldwide conflicts arising from this and so on. Certainly, no one can exclude the possibility of a large-scale natural disaster that'll wipe most of us out. The latest tragedy in Japan has once again proven that the raw forces of nature are still immeasurably more destructive than anything men can muster. In our megalomania we want to be in charge of everything, even if its orchestrating our own end

)

So yeh, we need a lot of luck and wisdom on our side to keep living as a species. Sorry for offtopic, just wanted to share a few thoughts.

galraen · Post by **galraen** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 10:54 am

Sadly I pretty much agree with your last post Pekka. In fact I think somewhere in the future they'll be reading in their history books (if such things exist) that the 'Wolf Age' began when George Bush started the Oil Wars. I wonder which George Bush they'll mean though!

The main thrust of my first post though was the stupidity of building Nuclear reactors on tectonic faults, and even where I to concede on all other points, I'd stand by that one. I did leave the debate open to being widened by bringing my own country into the debate, a mistake in retrospect. However if nuclear plants are going to be built then at least build them a safe distance from areas of dense population; nowhere near a known tectonic fault and not where it can be hit by a Tsunami. That would of course rule out the UK, on at lest two counts and Japan on all three.

I do understand why there was so much pressure on the Japanese government to go the rout they did. History was to the for in both sides of the debate; the memories of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on one side, and memory of the oil blockade that preceded Pearl Harbour on the other. It isn't difficult to understand why Japan wanted to be self sufficient and non dependent on imported fuels, but the potential cost in lives was far too great IMHO.

Tricky · Post by **Tricky** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 10:54 am

Ugh.. enough with the bile already folks. If anything is the problem here it's our own tendency to overpopulate, to consume and create demand. Everyone is at fault there, so nobody gets to throw stones at Japan. Because I say so.

As punishment, you have to turn of your computer for the next hour.

Nenene-HUSH!

galraen · Post by **galraen** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 1:14 pm

Keep taking the meds Tricky!