Area Around Chernobyl Plant To Become a Nuclear Dump (japantimes.co.jp) 178
mdsolar quotes a report from The Japan Times: A heavily contaminated area within a 10-kilometer radius of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine will be used to store nuclear waste materials, the chief of a state agency managing the wider exclusion zone said in an interview. "People cannot live in the land seriously contaminated for another 500 years, so we are planning to make it into an industrial complex," said Vitalii Petruk, the head of the State Agency of Ukraine on Exclusion Zone Management. The zone is 30-km radius from the site of the 1986 nuclear accident -- the world's worst nuclear disaster. "We are thinking of making land that is less contaminated a buffer zone to protect a residential area from radioactive materials," he said.
Petruk added, "We are considering building a facility for alternative energy such as solar panels" so as to utilize the remaining electricity infrastructure including power grids for the Chernobyl nuclear power plant there.
From the 'making a virtue of necessity' department (Score:5, Interesting)
One thing I'd be curious about, though: I assume that the exclusion zone is because of a combination of nasty isotopes in the soil that make subsistence activities, kids eating dirt, and various other aspects of human habitation problematic, along with the generally low tolerance of radiation risks for civilians not working in nuclear energy/related industries; but are there any areas(outside of the interior and immediate vicinity of the Chernobyl sarcophagus) where the radiation exposure you would receive just by standing around is still intense enough to be an occupational safety issue?
Isotope contamination can mostly be dealt with as though it were a mere chemical hazard, since you won't take much exposure unless you ingest/inhale/whatever the stuff and end up with it in your body somewhere; but your options are a lot more limited if you are being bathed in ionizing radiation just standing there. Chemical protective gear isn't a pleasure to wear; but it's doable. Radiation shielding tends to be mass prohibitive unless you are going full power armor or something.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hopefully the new facilities will not inherit the legacy of...competent and safety oriented...nuclear engineering that caused the trouble originally.
And not just originally. Remember when the first containment building was falling apart and dropping big chunks of concrete that were raising clouds of radioactive dust, and they had to build another one over the top of it? Yeah. They've already got a history of mismanaging the site. Now we're supposed to believe that they're going to do it right in the future? Nofuckingway.
One thing I'd be curious about, though: I assume that the exclusion zone is because of a combination of nasty isotopes in the soil that make subsistence activities, kids eating dirt, and various other aspects of human habitation problematic,
No, just walking around, just the wind blowing... you don't have do actually do much.
I think the truly telling thing here is that when
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the first containment was built immediately after the accident, by Communists that were only there because they'd be shot in the face if they didn't. Doesn't exactly endear them to the work, and motivate for doing it right.
The new containment structure that is (was?) built was being done by contractors from a different country, being paid quite nicely to get the job done. It's possible that they could do this properly because they aren't under the specter of worldwide attention, and I'm pretty sure
Re: (Score:2)
In fairness to the Ukrainians and their Soviet colleagues, the first containment building was built around what amounted to a highly ac
Re: (Score:2)
So ... doing nothing is an option?
And when the levees around the cooling water ponds finally fail, you'll do nothing.
And when the relatively radioactive silt at the bottom of the ponds starts to blow around and blow off-site as the ponds finally dry out ... do nothing?
Your argument about the management history is actually one for having competent people involve
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
As a longer-term issue, is the declining performance of PV panels over time. This, too, is slowly being overcome, but in the long te
Re:From the 'making a virtue of necessity' departm (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree: ***selling price*** of PV panels is coming down. However, the energy cost of creating solar panels isn't.
What? Who told you that? It most certainly is. For example, we can make thin-film ones now, they don't all have to be PC. Their energy cost continues to decline.
As a longer-term issue, is the declining performance of PV panels over time. This, too, is slowly being overcome, but in the long term, will require PV panels to be recycled and re-manufactured as they drop below viable generation levels.
Yep. Decades from now, when you're having to deal with the decommissioning problems of your nuclear plant... A far greater problem. As well, as we move to microinverters, the cost of upgrading your power plant drops rapidly. Since panels are always improving, a plant based on microinverters (which are desirable anyway as they reduce transmission loss) can either be built to improve over time (by installing heavier-gauge cable than you need initially, to account for improving output of panels in the same form factor) or to become smaller over time, and simply replace the panels with less panels as the efficiency improves. The cost of this maintenance actually decreases as time passes.
There isn't much data at all on these costs, simply because the vast majority of installed PV panels have yet to reach that state.
You don't need the vast majority to do that. You can extrapolate from the ones that have. As it is, no solar panels commonly deployed will produce less than 80% of their power after 25 years. Even in the 1970s solar panels would pay back the energy cost of their production in seven years, and that's the old PC kind. The TF ones can do it in two or three.
Re:From the 'making a virtue of necessity' departm (Score:4, Interesting)
Yep. Decades from now, when you're having to deal with the decommissioning problems of your nuclear plant... A far greater problem.
Well played. Kind of an argument stopper in fact.
Since panels are always improving, a plant based on microinverters (which are desirable anyway as they reduce transmission loss)
And less strategically vulnerable as well. Imagine the strategic advantages of that - I guess the best non military example of that is when we have a local power failure, and my house is still lit up, furnace working, while the neighbors shiver in the dark - disclaimer, my neighbors are all welcome to come over and enjoy a blackout party. We have plenty of beer and wine as well.
But I digress
You don't need the vast majority to do that. You can extrapolate from the ones that have. As it is, no solar panels commonly deployed will produce less than 80% of their power after 25 years. Even in the 1970s solar panels would pay back the energy cost of their production in seven years, and that's the old PC kind. The TF ones can do it in two or three.
This! For some odd reason, solar skeptics often post about how EV panels will just kinda fall apart right after the warranty period. I've got some old-school cells that are still going strong.
And the doubters care free to doubt, but the panels keep going up. Yesterday I had my motorcycle out for an early spring ride, and saw an old Victorian mansion with the roof covered in panels. It was, oddly enough, awesome.
Re: (Score:3)
Im going to venture capital a project to take geothermal energy from the earths core but just the bits that warm merkin land,
Warming merkin land is one of my favorite hobbies.
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree: ***selling price*** of PV panels is coming down. However, the energy cost of creating solar panels isn't.
Of course it is. They wouldn't be cheap if it wasn't. Silicon manufacture is getting much more efficient than it was.
The rare earths are, not surprisingly, rare, and both mining and refining them have not changed much.
Silicon solar panels-- the ones that are cheap-- don't use rare earths. You're thinking of the thin films. But the rare materials used in thin film solar cells are literally micron thick layers (which is why they'r cheap)-- and in any case, the panels that have become extremely low in price lately are silicon, not thin films.
(Also, rare earths aren't actually rare).
...As a longer-term issue, is the declining performance of PV panels over time.
You mean degradation?
Rare earths (Score:2)
Silicon solar panels-- the ones that are cheap-- don't use rare earths.
But the electronics that control the panels do use rare earth minerals. So there is some amount of rare earths required even if it isn't as much as it once was.
rare earths aren't actually rare
They aren't especially rare but they are relatively challenging to separate and they tend to be dispersed. The scarcity of economically exploitable ore deposits is how they got their name, not because the elements themselves are especially rare.
Re: (Score:2)
Fucking magnets.
They're everywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
How do they work?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] (in case you don't know the source)
Re: (Score:2)
Thin film PV panels use Indium and Tellurium.
As such, there's an environmental impact in the mining of said materials.
Rare earth uses (Score:2)
What are you talking about ?
Spend 20 seconds on wikipedia [wikipedia.org] to find out. Rare earth elements are used in capacitors, electrodes, microchips, stainless steel, fiber optics, magnets and quite a lot more. Virtually every modern bit of electronics has some amount of rare earth elements in it.
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree: ***selling price*** of PV panels is coming down. However, the energy cost of creating solar panels isn't.
That makes no sense. The energy cost of the solar panels is part of the selling cost. The bulk of the materials for PV panels is silicon, and the major cost of production is getting the silicon to be extremely pure. Most of the other materials are common, like glass, aluminum and silver, and the rarer elements are only used in small quantities.
PV may work for many residential applications, but lacks both the energy density and constant load delivered that many industrial applications require.
The energy density can be fixed by deploying more solar panels. There's still plenty of room in most countries. The constant load can be solved by batteries and smar
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree: ***selling price*** of PV panels is coming down. However, the energy cost of creating solar panels isn't.
That makes no sense. The energy cost of the solar panels is part of the selling cost.
They lose money on every sale, but make up for it in volume.
Solar production (Score:2)
I disagree: ***selling price*** of PV panels is coming down. However, the energy cost of creating solar panels isn't.
Ok, first off you'll need to provide some evidence to support your assertion regarding energy costs not falling. All the evidence I've ever seen indicates that we are slowly but steadily learning how to make them more efficiently both economically and thermodynamically. Solar panels really are still a fairly new technology and they are progressing fast with no indication of that changing soon. Second, you seem to be forgetting about a positive feedback loop with solar panels. Solar panels provide energy
Re: (Score:2)
Mining of rare earth minerals is a substantial factor but its by no means the only one or even the dominant cost.
No it is not.
Silicon based PV panels don't use rare earths at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Solar panels do not need rare earths, they can be made without them, same goes for wind turbines.
"the energy cost of creating solar panels isn't" [falling]: Flat out wrong, see: Whatâ(TM)s the EROI of Solar? | Ramez Naam [rameznaam.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Solar panels do not need rare earths, they can be made without them, same goes for wind turbines.
Doing so means the solar panels and wind turbines are less efficient than if they used rare earths. Rare earth magnets are used in windmills to make generators that are lighter and more efficient than ones made without.
"the energy cost of creating solar panels isn't" [falling]: Flat out wrong, see: WhatÃ(TM)s the EROI of Solar? | Ramez Naam
Solar with an EROEI of 25 is still 1/3 of nuclear, 1/2 of hydro, and still not better than coal. Solar still cannot compete, even after decades of government backed R&D.
Rare earths are sourced from China because they sell them cheap.
That's because they don't have this irrational fear of thorium. Thorium is a mildly radioactive element with numerous
Re: (Score:2)
The rare earths are, not surprisingly, rare, and both mining and refining them have not changed much. No they are not rare. That is a missnamer given to them when they where discovered.
Silicon based solar cells don't even contain rare earths.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps surprisingly, rare earths are not at all rare. Good sites for profitable mining of rare earths at current prices are rare.
As for the energy cost to produce PV panels, perhaps they should consider solar power :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm with you fuzzy..when life serves you corium you have to make coriumade.
Re:From the 'making a virtue of necessity' departm (Score:5, Interesting)
but are there any areas(outside of the interior and immediate vicinity of the Chernobyl sarcophagus) where the radiation exposure you would receive just by standing around is still intense enough to be an occupational safety issue?
Well, "enough to be an occupational safety issue" is not very much. You don't have to get enough radiation to get acutely sick for it to be an "issue". Still it's reasonably safe to work in the exclusion zone as long as you take precautions and monitor your exposure. In fact people do continue work there, even at the plant itself. It's a little-known fact that the three other Chernobyl reactors were operated 14 years after the 1986 catastrophe in Number 4, but in part this reflects a much more cavalier attitude towards worker safety than would be acceptable in the West. It's also little-known that the 1986 catastrophe was neither the first nor the last serious mishap at the plant. And then of course when you shut down a nuclear reactor you can't just walk away from it even in the best of circumstances. As of today people are still working in the exclusion zone to maintain the site and build the New Safe Confinement [wikipedia.org] structure.
I have mixed feelings about the idea of using Chernobyl as a nuclear waste site. On one hand it makes sense to concentrate your nuclear hazard operations where you're forced to do it anyway. On the other hand it'd be a bad thing to simply abandon the area, because it's not really that contaminated -- not so contaminated that people can't work there at least. And people will have to continue working there. For how long? Possibly for as along as our species continues to exist, because whenever the decision comes up whether to stabilize the site permanently or build another confinement structure that'll last for a few more decades, it'll always be more cost effective to go with the temporary fix. So it's a very good thing that people will be able to move into the exclusion zone in 500 years -- if we don't mess up in the meantime.
What you really need is a crystal ball that can show you the future. If you see a well-managed operation then this is a site which is solving problems for the rest of the world. If you see a half-assed operation then this may become site where the problems are so concentrated you can't work on them there. Everything boils down to how much you trust people to do the right thing even when it's expensive and difficult and doing the wrong thing won't cause any problems unless you're unlucky.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand it'd be a bad thing to simply abandon the area, because it's not really that contaminated -- not so contaminated that people can't work there at least.
The original exclusion zone is roughly 100km in diameter, about 80miles east to west and about 60 miles north to south wide.
We are talking about the 6miles area around the disaster places, 10km.
While wildlife might flourish (considering a buck lives only 6 years) in many parts of the zone, it is no way safe for people to live there. Most cer
Re: (Score:2)
Living and working in the exclusion zones are two different matters altogether. Nobody can maintain the kinds of precautions you'd need 7x24.
As for workers in the immediate vicinity of the plant, those working on the New Safe Containment structure don't seem to be using masks or hazmat suits. Images from the years following the disaster show workers in the control room or turbine hall wearing clean room style jumpsuits with surgical caps and masks, but clearly not continually worn. This might indicate a
Re: (Score:3)
I suspect they're trying to make lemonade out of lemons.
The exclusion zone could probably be repopulated to some degree, but its never going to be popular. You'll get a lot more bang for your buck if you throw more waste there and have the added benefit that most people will shrug and say that it was already a death zone anyway, so why not?
Of course, most of it is not a death zone, certainly not after almost 30 years, but with the nuclear fears out there, you're more likely to see people erring on the side
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, most of it is not a death zone, certainly not after almost 30 years, but with the nuclear fears out there, you're more likely to see people erring on the side of fear.
So when did you check last time with a geiger counter?
Ah, you are still sitting on your couch. Wow ... how insightful.
I suggest to google a bit and watch some youtube videos. There are plenty.
Build Nuclear Plants there! (Score:3, Funny)
Really, build some modern reactors there and run them from a remote central station. Also use it for storage, solar panels, etc...
The worst that could happen already has. May as well make some decent power for the effort.
"It can't get any worse..." -cliche (Score:2)
Haven't you seen any movies? As soon as a major player says those words, construction workers at Chernobyl 2 will start to die in horrific ways...
Seriously, it could be a money pit with most typical technology breaking down or producing errors when exposed to radiation. It could be extremely costly to support even a solar plant. The waste could be improperly stored (possibly due to the same sort of systematic incompetence) resulting in a bigger mess -- but that is why they are thinking that would be a goo
Re: (Score:3)
Um ... you don't need a remote station. There are 4 reactors, and only the one failed. The other three units were operated into the 90s.
People keep forgetting the 7/10 rule. . . (Score:5, Interesting)
So the question becomes: what's the better risk: let it self-decontaminate via decay, or dump waste there. And if so, how will it be stored ? Surface Storage of hazardous waste materials, be they radioactive or chemically active/poisonous (or, like plutonium, both. . .) is FAR less than optimal. Ideally, storage of waste should be in engineered long-duration containers stored out of the weather in a geologically stable area, well insulated from both the atmosphere and the local water table.
Re:People keep forgetting the 7/10 rule. . . (Score:4, Interesting)
But typical dose rates in the area are well under a millisievert per hour. While several thousand times higher than the average dose received by the average resident of the planet, it's still well below the dose required to cause even mild radiation sickness
You're mixing dose rates (Sv/h) and doses (Sv) in your argument, so I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. Some googling tells me that the dose rates around Chernobyl are typically 1 micro-Sv/h [chernobylgallery.com] (indeed, well below 1 mSv/h), or 8 mSv per year, which is only a factor 3 higher than the global average human exposure. I think those numbers sound nicer than they really are, since the Chernobyl dose rates are for people just being present and breathing air, but not actually ingesting contaminated water and food or inhaling dust.
In Soviet Russia (Score:3)
Lemons turn YOU to lemonade
Consider CdTe (Score:2, Informative)
CdTe cheap (Score:2)
Working In Hell (Score:2)
Wrong flag? (Score:2)
Is Japan conquering again?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Even if you think nuclear power doesnt kill pe (Score:2, Interesting)
As opposed to coal which fucks up areas thousands of miles away with acid rain, carbon, strip mining and land destruction, and if you believe greenhouse gases which contributes to global warming!
Some environmentalists are so stupid! Clearly we are not going to stop using energy and I'd say nuclear is a far cleaner option than coal/oil
So until solar is at a point where it can support millions of homes, nuclear is our best option.
Re: Even if you think nuclear power doesnt kill pe (Score:4, Informative)
As opposed to coal which fucks up areas thousands of miles away with acid rain, carbon, strip mining and land destruction, and if you believe greenhouse gases which contributes to global warming!
Uranium mining is really bad as well. It uses acid leach mining which pollutes water tables. Mega litres of sulfuric acid pumped underground and stored above ground containing radio active isotopes. It's such a destructive form of mining it is illegal in Russia and The United States.
Switch to traditional uranium mining methods and that process creates massive amounts mine tailing that realease huge amount of highly water soluable radon gas that also pollutes water tables. Sure it's in peoples basements, that doesn't mean you should breate it or drink it.
Moving on to enrichment that process releases huge amount of CFC114 which is an extremely potent greenhouse gas. So you are looking at land destruction proportional to the amount of plants you are fueling. Both coal and nuclear are destructive to the land in different ways. Both are really bad options that come from a time when we didn't know as much.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, coal mining and uranium mining both move a lot of earth about. What of mining for silicon? That doesn't disturb the soil? What of mining for aluminum?
Mining does disturb the soil. Doing it poorly can do damage to the water supply. What uranium mining does do is provide massive amounts of energy compared to the amount of soil moved.
Oh, and radioactive isotopes are everywhere. When you dig up the dirt for silicon, aluminum, copper, or whatever you are going to get some radioactive stuff. Once the
Re: (Score:2)
Once the stuff that is wanted from the mine is carried away the stuff left over is now more radioactive than the original dirt.
It's an interesting point.
I find it difficult to believe that uranium mining would leave the soil more radioactive than it was to begin with.
It brings elements that have been in place in the earth for millions of years. Once you disturb them and put them on the surface of the earth is where the problem begins..
Uranium is radioactive and removed from the soil. What is left behind should be LESS radioactive that what was there before.
Indeed, but Uranium is not the only radio-isotope there, radon gas comes with it which is a heavy water soluble gas, as I mentioned.
Uranium mining does not create more radioactive material since nothing has yet undergone fission.
I know, it was in place in the earth and now it is dug up as a by-product of the Uranium mining. Radon gas, now leaking out of the mine tailings, flows over the land to the lowest poi
Re: (Score:2)
Coal mining also disrupts the water table and does far more damage over all. Nuclear has far less waste also. A waste that can be managed where coal waste is dispersed around the planet.
Yep, totally agree, coal is extremly damaging. What has that got to do with permanently polluting an entire water table with radioactive isotopes?
As for managing nuclear waste perhaps this article from the science section of National Geographic Magazine [nationalgeographic.com] will help put it into perspective for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Think about environmental damage vs energy output. How many megawatts comes from how much destruction when considering coal vs nuclear? Carbon sequestration coal? Breeder reactor nuclear?
or the EROEI of nuclear and it's *net* energy output compared to the damage.
I think the P and GP both have points, and the debate is going to be won based on quantitative merits on specific system configurations rather than qualitative statements about general power architectures.
Thank you. I think it's important to talk about the social aspects because they are too often ignored. Nuclear power has long been sustained via the Price-Anderson act which, if repealed, would collapse the nuclear industry overnight from the sheer weight of liabilty. Nuclear power is the only industry that needs legislative constructs to survive and these were supposed to be temporary measures when they were introduced.
Nuclear po
Re: (Score:2)
Some environmentalists are so stupid!
You nutty nukkers always point to some other tragedy and ignore the ongoing tragedy that the people that used to live around Chernobyl and Fukushima cannot go home. The Tsunami was a horrible tragedy made worse by the fact that the people that used to live there can't rebuild because a nuclear reactor spilled radioactive isotopes everywhere. Those fortunate enough not to have their homes destroyed also can't go home.
How many hundreds of thousands of people are affected? You guys carry on as if those people
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and people are happily moving back that were evacuated from Fukushima now. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/f... [www.cbc.ca]
Wow, 7000 return and 100,000 still can't - gee you really got me there. For the people around Chernobyl though? Perhaps they don't deserve our empathy because, well, they were soviet's back then.
I don't have to explain shit.
Perhaps you don't know? So here is a explanation of the global danger that Fukushima reactor 4 still poses to all of us e.v.e.r.y.d.a.y. [globalresearch.ca] and the nature of a plutonium fire. It really shows the regard the Japanese government has for the residents of Fukushima.
Re: (Score:2)
In what country do you live that coal plant still do that?
I like to avoid it in my travels.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Some environmentalists are so stupid! ... nuclear is our best option.
Yep, if your kind were in charge we'd have nuke plants everywhere and if some accident happened making 90% of the earth uninhabitable, we could send your kind to Mars or the moon.
Ahem. Given that water comprises 70% of our earth, and water is extremely good at defusing and containing radiation, the chance of 90% of our planet becoming uninhabitable is quiet unlikely, to say the least. Furthermore, the grandparent has a really valid point - solar cells contain toxic heavy metals that aren't commonly recycled, coal releases far more radiation and the explosion from one is actually a lot more destructive than an explosion at a nuclear power plant, hydroelectric dams murder the wildlif
Re: (Score:2)
Again with the bird thing. The fact that birds die because of windmills isn't a design flaw of the mill. It's because these birds are dumber than a bag of hammers. These are the same animals that die from flying face first into windows on buildings. So we don't build them on nature preserves or around endangered species, that is a perfectly reasonable stance to take and it still leaves plenty of places on this planet where they could go. Meanwhile we can either work on making the blades more visible to bird
Re: (Score:2)
That's a great plan, but it has two flaws: 1. Clouds move, so you'd have to be continually repainting the top blade. 2. The sky's only blue and white in daytime, so it would still confuse owls.
Re: (Score:2)
That's complete bollocks quite frankly.
Re: (Score:2)
Check with the walrus and the carpenter (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the chance of 90% of our planet becoming uninhabitable is quiet unlikely, to say the least.
You already pointed out that 70% of the planet is water.
So only 30% are left. Regardless how much you make of that uninhabitable, in addition to high altitudes, deserts, the arctics etc. we are already very close to "90% uninhabitable"
solar cells contain toxic heavy metals
Usually they don't. And if they did: who cares? As long as they are in the cell, they can not get out.
that aren't commonly recycled
If one recycle
Re: (Score:2)
solar cells contain toxic heavy metals that aren't commonly recycled
Toxic materials in solar cells are used in very small quantities. The bulk of the solar cell is just silicon. Typical every day appliances have just as much toxic materials in them.
Nuclear is the only form of energy that can deal with our need for electricity.
Solar and wind can too, and are much more appealing to the average investor.
Uh, you're aware many newer solar panels are made of lead, in order to boost efficiency? I'm pretty certain my toaster is not made out of an extremely toxic heavy metal. And guess what, manufacturing them isn't as clean as you believe either. [ieee.org] And we haven't even talked about any of the other downsides of solar power - they can be disrupted by the weather, they're not that efficient, and most climates simply can't support them. Sunny Hawaii and California, maybe, but up north in Washington or Oregon they'd
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, you're aware many newer solar panels are made of lead, in order to boost efficiency?
They are not "made out of lead" they contain lead as conductor at the points where the cables are connected. So why do you care? Are you scratching on the panels and licking your fingernails afterwards?
they're not that efficient :D
They are efficient. The point is that you don't grasp what "efficiency" in the context of ordinary solar panels means
and most climates simply can't support them
Why? All energy a solar panel pr
Re: (Score:3)
Uh, you're aware many newer solar panels are made of lead,
You're aware that these are brand new, and already people are working on lead-free alternatives ? And manufacturing is as clean as you want it to be. The problem is China doesn't really want to be that clean (but that is changing too).
I'm pretty certain my toaster is not made out of an extremely toxic heavy metal.
No, but it probably has some of these metals inside, just like your phone. And people are more likely to throw a toaster in the garbage than big solar installations.
Sunny Hawaii and California, maybe, but up north in Washington or Oregon they'd only work during the Summer
Germany is even further up North, and they're breaking solar records every year. Add wind power, and combine low-loss grids to cover most of the needs, and work on storage, such as new types of liquid calcium batteries. Add smart grids, so you can use home batteries for storage.
Having actually lived in Germany and being half German, yes, we have a large amount of energy come from these. What you probably don't know is that this is only possible because we buy tons of energy from France and other neighbors to make up the loss (lots of that isn't renewabley generated), and ever since our brilliant chancellor decided to close our nuclear reactors, we've compensated by building more coal and natural gas plants to replace them. If anything, Germany should be an example of how not to d
Re: (Score:2)
What you probably don't know is that this is only possible because we buy tons of energy from France and other neighbors to make up the loss (lots of that isn't renewabley generated) ... to all over europe.
That is again: wrong
Like basically all your posts. Germany is a net exporter, usually also to France. The months in the last ten years where we imported more energy from France than we exported is perhaps 5 to 10.
Germany exports about 30% its power produced
You can dig around here: https://www.fraunhofer. [fraunhofer.de]
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is 'his kind' aren't ignorant about how nuclear power works like you are, and they are fully aware that 'the worst nuclear disasters' to ever take place on the planet ... weren't really that bad.
Chernobyl isn't all that dangerous of a place to live unless you're inside the new containment building. You don't know people still work at the plant right? And that it was an operating power plant until well into the last decade, right?
Japan has had at least 3 major nuclear events in the last 100 ye
Re: (Score:2)
You cannot produce enough RTGs without producing LOTS of radioactive waste in reactors. The plutonium RTGs used in space research, for instance, are reasonably safe since the plutonium produces only the alpha particles. But together with it there are lots of more serious isotopes radiating high energy gamma. If you use these isotopes the cost of shielding would be enormous - much more per watt than the reactor itself. It's the reason why the RTGs are used in extreme circumstances only.
Re: (Score:2)
Anther puppet for environmentalists...
Radiation levels are higher on the beaches of Rio than at the Chernobyl site itself.
From the sun or from fallout from a nuclear reactor? Radio-isotopes can be absorbed into the body - you should learn the difference between internal and external radiation exposure. External radiation from the sun causes tans and skin cancer, internal exposure from organically bound radio-isotopes causes tumors.
You are aware that many people have refused to leave Chernobyl and have been living there since 1986 right?
Ghosts in a zombie city, very sad that you would cite their suffering as an argument to why it isn't occurring. Do many children live there?
The 70s are gone and so with it the flower children.
Flares, I wore them once, I didn't get laid, I'm not wearin
Re: (Score:2)
Btw, fun fact.. Guess who's putting in most money lobbying against nuclear and pushing for solar?... Oil-companies..
Because they get a taxation benefit even if they *don't* build it. 2005 Energy Act SEC 600 onwards. IIRC SEC 625-638 lays out exactly how the oil and coal industry can help themselves to the nuclear industry's milkshake. That's why it's hilarious watching you guy point fingers at hick and hippies in combi vans and yell "NIMBYs" as if they can affect the placement of a multi billion reactor facility. You nutty nutty nukkers and your silly silly sayings!!!
And for your further information funds exist in the s
Re: (Score:3)
As opposed to the incumbent 18th century technology (coal / oil) which obliterates all coastal zones on the planet as a matter of normal operation.
No, nuclear power isn't perfect, but we don't have a generation technology that is. So pick a mix that does the least damage as a matter of normal operation, and keep working towards things that are better.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As opposed to the incumbent 18th century technology (coal / oil) which obliterates all coastal zones on the planet as a matter of normal operation.
As part of normal operation Nuclear power plants are authorized by the NRC to release radioactive gasses, produced in the reactor core, into the environment. In abnormal operation people are evacuated from the area.
No, nuclear power isn't perfect, but we don't have a generation technology that is.
So we agree that coal and nuclear produce the same levels of damage in different ways.
So pick a mix that does the least damage as a matter of normal operation, and keep working towards things that are better.
Then let's invest heavily in solar, wind and geothermal.
I have no objection to the continual development of nuclear technology but the reality is our management systems, where people are involved, are simply no
A nuclear power fail obliterates communities (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Coal power kills more people per YEAR than Nuclear power has ever killed, total.
Radio-isotope contamination causes transgenic disease and genetic aborations in many species including human beings. Deaths from nuclear power can also be looked at statistical reductions in the rate of pregnancies that fail to come to full term, produce fatal mutations when they do. These elements in the food chain will be causing problems for many generations. Perhaps you should look into understanding how these isotopes interact with metabolisms to get an understanding of how nuclear *will* continue to k
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear does kill a lot of people.
Thank you for another great posting. Perhaps you have seen this status of Fukushima No4 spent fuel cooling pool [globalresearch.ca]. This is the thing that has made me crap my pants about Fukushima from day one. Hope you find it interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I agree. US plant are twice the storage density of Japanese plants, SONGS across the pacific was a massive concerns. That's the main reason I see construction of geological spent fuel facilities as a priority.
I thought you might be interested in the allegations of illegal fuel rod storage going on at Fukushima and the claims from civil engineers that the No4 cooling pool should have had adequate structural integrity to survive the ground acceleration from a 9 earthquake.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think of nuclear energy as borrowed energy.
From future generations - completely agree.
I think we'll have to repay it in transmuting the waste into stable isotopes. Fortunately, it looks as though renewable energy will be up to the job.
Do you mean using renewables to transmute transuranics?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's an appealing, if energy intensive method. Why not a proper waste storage facility and allow time to do the work? Work around uranites look like a promising method to lock these materials up so they don't leech into the water table. Second best there is granite and bentonite clays, IIUC.
Would you mind explaining your rationale?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
As someone who's worked in construction, I wouldn't go near this place as a construction worker. Construction firms have a very bad habit of not providing suitable masks, they tend to provide 'comfort' masks which have no protective value.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if the masks are suitable, they might prevent you from inhaling radioactive particulates, but if you end up in the wrong place in the hot zone, you're still cooked.
I'd imagine that the "construction" for something like this will consist of prefab bunkers brought in on trucks and hauled off with a crane. That's really the only sane way to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
As I understand it, they limit where you can go, because some spots still are reasonably hot. That's why they don't allow tourists in there without a guide, unless that has changed recently.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do they have spiders in the Ukraine?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it makes sense. No, it doesn't make that much sense.
If you store waste on a contaminated area, you cannot really measure if there are small leaks.
Also, an area like this will only be habitable again if there are no leaks. if there are leaks, it will never recover. And there will be leaks. There's no known working containment system as of today.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
There's no known working containment system as of today.
What? WHAT? Are you serious?
Currently in the US, we keep the spent rods in pools of water on site. This works pretty good, and keeps the radiation from getting out. Other places use a process called Vitrification which is encasing the material in glass, then the items are put into canisters and sealed up. This containment system works effectively and keeps the radiation and particles from escaping into the environment.
We have working containment, we don't have political will.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, vitrification. With no venting of the gasses generated from isotopic decay. And with material fatigue from the radiation.
The question is not if this containment will fail, but when.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as it is past the point when the truly harmful things break down, does it matter?
Re: (Score:2)
Helium manages to escape from the middle of zircon grains. It will get out of artificial vitrified glass, eventually. It will actually be helped to escape by radiation damage from the entrained radioactive material. For example, first-year geology students who are learning microscopic petrography (description of rocks) will see what we call "pleochroic halos" of radiation damage around zircon crystals in rocks. (Sometimes you can even make an educa
Re: (Score:2)
Ummm, why not? You do know that not only are there three different major types of "radiation" (alpha, beta and gamma), but that each one has it's own wide range of possible particle energies, each one characteristic of particular decays from particular nuclides (though the energy does get degraded by collision with atmospheric particles). If you design the monitoring system sanely, then even quite small leaks will
Re:conflicted (Score:5, Interesting)
No, all we need is the senior Senator from the Great State of Nevada to go write his book and get out of the Senate. And a good dash of physics and common sense. We have a $90B facility already constructed and ready to go - it may not be suitable for millions of years of storage, but it's quite suitable for several hundred years of the really high-level stuff if we separate it through fuel reprocessing and vitrify it.
Funny how Harry Reid didn't have any problem with Yucca Mountain while it was in planning and construction, and then threw himself on the tracks when it came to actually using the place.
Re: (Score:2)
Throwing a standing Senator on the tracks seems to be more of an invitation rather than a deterrent, if you ask me...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Building things creates jobs. Using them doesn't. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I've heard those stories about solar being so great that companies will install the panels for free and then sell the electricity back to you cheaper than the power company. But every time I look into them, I find that either the company is a scam or it's only available in California (where the government heavily subsidizes solar installations, I gather).