Chernobyl

[Regs]

Originally posted by: feralkid
Thanks for the post Sea Moose, however I hope you realize this will lead to the eleventy seventh debate over reactors.

Let's see..."This just shows the folly of "Safe Nuclear Energy"

Followed by..." But, but the Russians built no containment...the French had no Chernobyls," etc.


Ad freaking nauseam.



Oh wait, am I too late?

You have any better ideas?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
And people want to replace hydro electric dams with nuclear.

Absolutely.

Chernobyl was done wrong from the beginning and could never happen at a US plant. Nuclear is the best option for power we have, and we should be building plants now.

 

[TotalLamer]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
And people want to replace hydro electric dams with nuclear.

Absolutely.

Chernobyl was done wrong from the beginning and could never happen at a US plant. Nuclear is the best option for power we have, and we should be building plants now.

Plus the Soviets used a completely different style of reactor than US plants...

 

[paulney]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
And people want to replace hydro electric dams with nuclear.

Absolutely.

Chernobyl was done wrong from the beginning and could never happen at a US plant. Nuclear is the best option for power we have, and we should be building plants now.

Google Three Mile Island accident. It was extremely close to what happened in Chernobyl, but the hydrogen and oxygen did not go into reaction. Hence no Chernobyl in the US. Think before you post.

 

[KLin]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
And people want to replace hydro electric dams with nuclear.

Absolutely.

Chernobyl was done wrong from the beginning and could never happen at a US plant. Nuclear is the best option for power we have, and we should be building plants now.

Never say never.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: paulney

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
And people want to replace hydro electric dams with nuclear.

Absolutely.

Chernobyl was done wrong from the beginning and could never happen at a US plant. Nuclear is the best option for power we have, and we should be building plants now.

Google Three Mile Island accident. It was extremely close to what happened in Chernobyl, but the hydrogen and oxygen did not go into reaction. Hence no Chernobyl in the US. Think before you post.

I did think. TMI would not have ended up as Chernobyl did.

And think about this: How many people die a year in the US due to diseases brought on by the pollution of coal and gas fired power plants?

 

[Rastus]

Originally posted by: Batti
Wow, Sea Moose. That is weird stuff. I wonder what (if any) kind of wildlife exists in that region now...

There are people that live there. People that didn't want to leave their homes and hermits that have move in. I'm not sure how healthy they are as it wasn't mentioned in the report I read beyond the reporter expressing concern.

Also, wildlife is thriving there. Probably because they can reproduce faster than the radiation can kill them.

 

[paulney]

Originally posted by: TotalLamer

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
And people want to replace hydro electric dams with nuclear.

Absolutely.

Chernobyl was done wrong from the beginning and could never happen at a US plant. Nuclear is the best option for power we have, and we should be building plants now.

Plus the Soviets used a completely different style of reactor than US plants...

Yes, the RBMK reactor at Chernobyl has a design flaw that eventually was exposed and triggered the explosion. The LWR reactor type (PWR, BWR) does not have a positive void coefficient, but on the other hand cannot be refueled without shutting down the whole thing, which is quite expensive. Each system has its pros and cons.

 

[paulney]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: paulney

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
And people want to replace hydro electric dams with nuclear.

Absolutely.

Chernobyl was done wrong from the beginning and could never happen at a US plant. Nuclear is the best option for power we have, and we should be building plants now.

Google Three Mile Island accident. It was extremely close to what happened in Chernobyl, but the hydrogen and oxygen did not go into reaction. Hence no Chernobyl in the US. Think before you post.

I did think. TMI would not have ended up as Chernobyl did.

And think about this: How many people die a year in the US due to diseases brought on by the pollution of coal and gas fired power plants?

The only reason TMI did not end in a massive explosion was just pure luck. The mixture of H and O dissipated, and did not turn into water, incidentally destroying everything around it. You can't call this: 'oh, would have never happened'. It practically happened, but sheer luck saved people's lives.

I am not arguing against nuclear power. I'm just pointing out that US was this close to having a major nuclear accident of its own.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: paulney


I am not arguing against nuclear power.

"pollution from power plants in the U.S. leads to over 30,000 deaths each year"

http://www.sierraclub.org/cleanair/factsheets/power.asp

I would hope not.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
And people want to replace hydro electric dams with nuclear.

Absolutely.

Chernobyl was done wrong from the beginning and could never happen at a US plant. Nuclear is the best option for power we have, and we should be building plants now.

Yeah was just messing around, and I think it's mostly coal they want to replace, not hydro electric. Hydro electric is one of the most efficient and less impacting sources of energy. The only impact it has is with fish, but I'm sure there must be ways to help that, and some may even already have things in place.

The problem with nuclear though is the toxic waste at the end which gets dumped in the sea or in old mines. It will catch up with us eventually.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
And people want to replace hydro electric dams with nuclear.

Absolutely.

Chernobyl was done wrong from the beginning and could never happen at a US plant. Nuclear is the best option for power we have, and we should be building plants now.

Yeah was just messing around, and I think it's mostly coal they want to replace, not hydro electric. Hydro electric is one of the most efficient and less impacting sources of energy. The only impact it has is with fish, but I'm sure there must be ways to help that, and some may even already have things in place.

The problem with nuclear though is the toxic waste at the end which gets dumped in the sea or in old mines. It will catch up with us eventually.

Bah, Yucca Mt was a good start and a good idea. It's sad the hysteria that surrounds nuclear power, yet tens of thousands die from coal fire pollution every year. :roll:

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: Sea Moose
From wikipedia

Sarcophagus replacement
Main article: New Safe Confinement

On 17 September 2007 it was announced that a new steel containment structure would be built to replace the aging and hastily built sarcophagus that currently protects reactor core #4. The project, financed by an international fund managed by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, will be designed and built by the French-led consortium Novarka, which includes the companies Bouygues and Vinci. Novarka will build a giant arch-shaped structure out of steel, 190 m wide and 200 m long to cover the old crumbling concrete dome that is currently in use.

It is expected to take a year to design the new building and another two years to build it. The steel casing project is expected to cost $1.4 bn (£700 m, ?1bn). A separate deal has also been made with the U.S. firm Holtec to build a storage facility within the exclusion zone for nuclear waste which has been produced by Chernobyl.




Fucking, what an epic fail Chernobyl was

Yeah, a catastrophic string of extremely unlikely events, leaving behind generations of birth defects, even by new mothers who weren't alive during the event.

Not just a catastrophic string of unlikely events. A catastrophic string of unlikely events that happened when a team of basically untrained coal plant operators were told to do a dangerous experiment using a reactor so poorly designed that it could never, ever have been commissioned in a free country.

 

[paulney]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: paulney


I am not arguing against nuclear power.

"pollution from power plants in the U.S. leads to over 30,000 deaths each year"

http://www.sierraclub.org/cleanair/factsheets/power.asp

I would hope not.

And cars kill 43,313 in 2008 in US. Ban cars. :roll:

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
Yeah was just messing around, and I think it's mostly coal they want to replace, not hydro electric. Hydro electric is one of the most efficient and less impacting sources of energy. The only impact it has is with fish, but I'm sure there must be ways to help that, and some may even already have things in place.

The problem with nuclear though is the toxic waste at the end which gets dumped in the sea or in old mines. It will catch up with us eventually.

And the fact that you have politicians standing in the way.
1) Yucca Mountain - "Sure, we're all in favor of it....but wait, you're going to have to truck that nuclear waste through MY state? Rabble Rabble!!!"
Everyone wants the waste to go to the exact same place: Somewhere else.

2) Reprocessing ban. Weapons proliferation concerns? Guess what, if the government wants to make weapons, they will, official ban or not. It would greatly cut down on the amount of waste generated.


I'd also love to see more get done with the pebble-bed reactor design. As I understand it, it can't melt down, even if every last safety system fails at the same time.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: KLin

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
And people want to replace hydro electric dams with nuclear.

Absolutely.

Chernobyl was done wrong from the beginning and could never happen at a US plant. Nuclear is the best option for power we have, and we should be building plants now.

Never say never.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident

You mean the accident where the pressure vessels survived and there was no uncontrolled release of radiation? The one where the town is still populated and safe and where no deaths have been linked to radiation release?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: paulney

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: paulney


I am not arguing against nuclear power.

"pollution from power plants in the U.S. leads to over 30,000 deaths each year"

http://www.sierraclub.org/cleanair/factsheets/power.asp

I would hope not.

And cars kill 43,313 in 2008 in US. Ban cars. :roll:

There is no viable safer alternative to cars. But there is a viable safer alternative to coal fired plants.

 

[paulney]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: paulney

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: paulney


I am not arguing against nuclear power.

"pollution from power plants in the U.S. leads to over 30,000 deaths each year"

http://www.sierraclub.org/cleanair/factsheets/power.asp

I would hope not.

And cars kill 43,313 in 2008 in US. Ban cars. :roll:

There is no viable safer alternative to cars. But there is a viable safer alternative to coal fired plants.

Dude, you are so out of touch.

First of all, if we even want to continue this discussion, please familiarize yourself with the amount of nuclear fuel that's available on planet Earth. If we were to switch all existing coal power plants to nuclear, we would run out in years.

Second of all, please call me when you have a solid strategy to deal with all the spent nuclear fuel. And I mean long term solution, not the 'let's ship it to some other country and fill up their storage until it is full'. Do you even know how long is the halflife of the shit that comes out of the spent fuel rods?

Thanks.

 

[MotionMan]

Now, where did I leave that map to P&N?

MotionMan

 

[Ruptga]

Originally posted by: Nik

Yeah, a catastrophic string of extremely unlikely events, leaving behind generations of birth defects, even by new mothers who weren't alive during the event.

Soviet #1: Hey, let's test the safety of our reactor.
Soviet #2: Sure, I'll just turn off all the safeties and we'll fire it up!
Soviet #1: Yeah, that's a great idea!
...
...
Soviets #1 & 2: OH SHI-

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: paulney

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: paulney

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: paulney


I am not arguing against nuclear power.

"pollution from power plants in the U.S. leads to over 30,000 deaths each year"

http://www.sierraclub.org/cleanair/factsheets/power.asp

I would hope not.

And cars kill 43,313 in 2008 in US. Ban cars. :roll:

There is no viable safer alternative to cars. But there is a viable safer alternative to coal fired plants.

Dude, you are so out of touch.

First of all, if we even want to continue this discussion, please familiarize yourself with the amount of nuclear fuel that's available on planet Earth. If we were to switch all existing coal power plants to nuclear, we would run out in years.

Second of all, please call me when you have a solid strategy to deal with all the spent nuclear fuel. And I mean long term solution, not the 'let's ship it to some other country and fill up their storage until it is full'. Do you even know how long is the halflife of the shit that comes out of the spent fuel rods?

Thanks.

Oh yeah... you're not anti-nuke at all. :roll:

 

[paulney]

Originally posted by: Amused

Oh yeah... you're not anti-nuke at all. :roll:

I'm all for moderation. Is nuclear power a great source of energy? Absolutely. Should we immediately discard all coal plants and move to nuclear? Absolutely not. Each has its own uses, pros and cons.

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: ADDAvenger

Originally posted by: Nik

Yeah, a catastrophic string of extremely unlikely events, leaving behind generations of birth defects, even by new mothers who weren't alive during the event.

Soviet #1: Hey, let's test the safety of our reactor.
Soviet #2: Sure, I'll just turn off all the safeties and we'll fire it up!
Soviet #1: Yeah, that's a great idea!
...
...
Soviets #1 & 2: OH SHI-

You left out Soviet #3 who said: That does not seem like a great idea.

But, since Soviets #1 & 2 significantly outranked Soviet #3, they told him to shut up and do what he was told.

Soviets #2 & 3 died soon thereafter. Soviet #1 lived a long government paid life.

MotionMan

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: paulney

Originally posted by: Amused

Oh yeah... you're not anti-nuke at all. :roll:

I'm all for moderation. Is nuclear power a great source of energy? Absolutely. Should we immediately discard all coal plants and move to nuclear? Absolutely not. Each has its own uses, pros and cons.

Did I say all or none?

Nope.

But replacing a signifigant amount of coal fired plants with nuclear would save thousands of lives a year.

Stop trying to trump everything I say by jumping to conclusions, okay?

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Regs

Originally posted by: feralkid
Thanks for the post Sea Moose, however I hope you realize this will lead to the eleventy seventh debate over reactors.

Let's see..."This just shows the folly of "Safe Nuclear Energy"

Followed by..." But, but the Russians built no containment...the French had no Chernobyls," etc.


Ad freaking nauseam.



Oh wait, am I too late?

You have any better ideas?

What say you now?