• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Chernobyl

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: paulney
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
And people want to replace hydro electric dams with nuclear. 😛
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

from the President's Commission report

Part 1

The great concern about a potential hydrogen explosion inside the TMI-2 reactor came with the weekend. That it was a groundless fear, an unfortunate error, never penetrated the public consciousness afterward, partly because the NRC made no effort to inform the public it had erred.
Click to expand...

Quit spreading nonsense.
While the reactor core was melting, the hot zirconium (that held the fuel) was reacting with the water. This chemical reaction produced hydrogen gas, which is combustible. Some of the hydrogen gas escaped from the reactor and into the containment building. The operators were unaware of the presence of hydrogen until something ignited the hydrogen about 2:00 p.m. The burn lasted for six to eight seconds, but did no damage to any systems in the building. However, the reactor vessel still contained hydrogen, but nobody seemed to address this problem in light of other, more serious, problems. When somebody gave it some thought two days later, the great fear was that the hydrogen might explode causing a breach of the reactor vessel and maybe of the containment building. Once the presence of hydrogen was verified, the hydrogen was sent though neutralizers and by the fourth day most of the hydrogen was gone. Actually the fear of an explosion was unfounded. To burn, hydrogen must combine with oxygen, but no oxygen was present in the reactor vessel. However, the fear of an explosion caused many of the public to evacuate the area around TMI.
Click to expand...

What happened at TMI was bad, but not as bad as the exaggerated claims, and no where near, or even remotely close to what happened at Chernobyl.
 
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. 🙁
Click to expand...

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-
Click to expand...

Chernobyl was trying to fix one of the major safety faults of the design. There were several others that led to the accident.

TMI happened because people operating the plant turned off the safeties. They turned off all backup pumps (this is against NRC rules). But since the design didn't suck from the ground up, save for a consistently faulty pressure relief valve, the accident actually was pretty minimal.

And people want scary, look at Mayak. The disaster there was just as bad, if not worse, than Chernobyl, yet most people have never heard of it.
 
RBMK isn't that horrible of a design, if you don't disable everything... Graphite tipped control rods was dumb, but the rest of it isn't that horrid.

It's cheap, uses light water, runs on barely enriched uranium, you can change rods on the fly.. etc. and it's huge. They had 1500MW electrical versions. That's a shit ton of power.
 
I didn't mean to start a P&N debate. <--- and its kinda not even P&N, its more historical and i don't see a history forum.

I was merely observing how evil that tape of the reactor burning looked. I never heard of the three mile island incident, i will read up on this later.
I think that chernobyl is a lesson to be learnt. Nuclear power is clearly the way of the future, as it has no green house effect or global warming potential. And with strict regulations and super modern design, we can harness this great form of energy.

Proper waste disposal is important. There has to be somthing we can do with the waste, apart from making weapons.
 
Originally posted by: paulney
Originally posted by: Amused

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

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.
Click to expand...

I agree, we have a shit load of coal, lets use our coal. I think installing wind power isn't a bad idea, I certainly wouldn't depend on it, but considering our options, it's good to have it around at least as a booster.

Originally posted by: Sea Moose
I didn't mean to start a P&N debate. <--- and its kinda not even P&N, its more historical and i don't see a history forum.

I was merely observing how evil that tape of the reactor burning looked. I never heard of the three mile island incident, i will read up on this later.
I think that chernobyl is a lesson to be learnt. Nuclear power is clearly the way of the future, as it has no green house effect or global warming potential
Click to expand...

Ooh, global warming, there's a scary word. Let's focus all our efforts on eliminating the bogey man while we're at it because both concepts are as real as each other.
 
Originally posted by: TehMac
Originally posted by: paulney
Originally posted by: Amused

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

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.
Click to expand...

I agree, we have a shit load of coal, lets use our coal. I think installing wind power isn't a bad idea, I certainly wouldn't depend on it, but considering our options, it's good to have it around at least as a booster.

Originally posted by: Sea Moose
I didn't mean to start a P&N debate. <--- and its kinda not even P&N, its more historical and i don't see a history forum.

I was merely observing how evil that tape of the reactor burning looked. I never heard of the three mile island incident, i will read up on this later.
I think that chernobyl is a lesson to be learnt. Nuclear power is clearly the way of the future, as it has no green house effect or global warming potential
Click to expand...

Ooh, global warming, there's a scary word. Let's focus all our efforts on eliminating the bogey man while we're at it because both concepts are as real as each other.
Click to expand...

Ok, i will make it simple for you.


Wind+Solar = Clean Energy
Tidal Energy = Clean energy
Nuclear = Clean energy
Coal = Dirty energy
 
Originally posted by: Sea Moose
Originally posted by: TehMac
Originally posted by: paulney
Originally posted by: Amused

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

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.
Click to expand...

I agree, we have a shit load of coal, lets use our coal. I think installing wind power isn't a bad idea, I certainly wouldn't depend on it, but considering our options, it's good to have it around at least as a booster.

Originally posted by: Sea Moose
I didn't mean to start a P&N debate. <--- and its kinda not even P&N, its more historical and i don't see a history forum.

I was merely observing how evil that tape of the reactor burning looked. I never heard of the three mile island incident, i will read up on this later.
I think that chernobyl is a lesson to be learnt. Nuclear power is clearly the way of the future, as it has no green house effect or global warming potential
Click to expand...

Ooh, global warming, there's a scary word. Let's focus all our efforts on eliminating the bogey man while we're at it because both concepts are as real as each other.
Click to expand...

Ok, i will make it simple for you.


Wind+Solar = Clean Energy
Tidal Energy = Clean energy
Nuclear = Clean energy
Coal = Dirty energy
Click to expand...

Oh come on...

more like:

Wind & Solar = No Radioactive Waste
Tidal Energy = No Radioactive Waste
Nuclear = Lots of Radioactive Waste
Coal= Lots of really shitty pollutants that may be even worse than Radioactive Waste
 
Originally posted by: Sea Moose
Thats the flip side, sure.
Click to expand...

It's the honest side.

Calling Nuclear "clean" energy before we have the means to properly deal with the waste is as disingenuous as the term "clean coal".
 
Thanks for the link, every few years or so more info and video from Chernobyl crops up.

I watched the whole 9 part series.....Unbelievable.

A few years back there was a biker chic who used to ride into the site and take pics and radiation readings and post them on her site.



 
Originally posted by: Sea Moose
Originally posted by: feralkid
Originally posted by: Sea Moose
Thats the flip side, sure.
Click to expand...

It's the honest side.

Calling Nuclear "clean" energy before we have the means to properly deal with the waste is as disingenuous as the term "clean coal".
Click to expand...

damn i am getting owned.

But wait, i just asked google: what is the cleanest form of energy

http://answers.yahoo.com/quest...=20080128014249AAxE2Bi
Click to expand...



This is a joke, right?
"Yahoo Answers?"
 
Originally posted by: feralkid
Originally posted by: Sea Moose
Originally posted by: feralkid
Originally posted by: Sea Moose
Thats the flip side, sure.
Click to expand...

It's the honest side.

Calling Nuclear "clean" energy before we have the means to properly deal with the waste is as disingenuous as the term "clean coal".
Click to expand...

damn i am getting owned.

But wait, i just asked google: what is the cleanest form of energy

http://answers.yahoo.com/quest...=20080128014249AAxE2Bi
Click to expand...



This is a joke, right?
"Yahoo Answers?"
Click to expand...

I was desperate
 
Originally posted by: feralkid
Oh come on...

more like:

Wind & Solar = No Radioactive Waste
Tidal Energy = No Radioactive Waste
Nuclear = Lots of Radioactive Waste
Coal= Lots of really shitty pollutants that may be even worse than Radioactive Waste
Click to expand...

There are mines in the world where the ore pulled from them is almost as radioactive as the waste generated by nuke plants. Just stick the waste back in there and it's really a wash.
 
Originally posted by: silverpig
Originally posted by: feralkid
Oh come on...

more like:

Wind & Solar = No Radioactive Waste
Tidal Energy = No Radioactive Waste
Nuclear = Lots of Radioactive Waste
Coal= Lots of really shitty pollutants that may be even worse than Radioactive Waste
Click to expand...

There are mines in the world where the ore pulled from them is almost as radioactive as the waste generated by nuke plants. Just stick the waste back in there and it's really a wash.
Click to expand...

Yep. The only difference is that coal with radioactive material is simply burned and the radioactive dust pumped out of smoke stacks to settle on whatever happens to be around. At least with nuclear plants the radioactive material is contained and can be dealt with.
 
Originally posted by: Colt45
RBMK isn't that horrible of a design, if you don't disable everything... Graphite tipped control rods was dumb, but the rest of it isn't that horrid.

It's cheap, uses light water, runs on barely enriched uranium, you can change rods on the fly.. etc. and it's huge. They had 1500MW electrical versions. That's a shit ton of power.
Click to expand...

There is no excuse for building a reactor with a positive void coefficient, no matter how good it is.
 
Originally posted by: Batti
Wow, Sea Moose. That is weird stuff. I wonder what (if any) kind of wildlife exists in that region now...
Click to expand...

There was a show on Discovery where they investigated this. It showed that nature had VERY quickly reclaimed much of the surrounding urban areas, with a large contigent of deer, wolves and bear in the area.
There were no mutations (at least the ones that we think of...4 eyes, multiple legs and shit like that). Most of the mutations occured in birds and the extent was different colors. Most of the "mutated" strains died out soon after that. Seems the subtle changes that did happen were not desirable traits and nature weeded itself out from them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top