If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Toronto Star)   Chernobyl roof collapses under snow. EVERYONE SHOULD BE ABSOLUTELY CALM   (thestar.com) divider line 130
    More: Scary, Chernobyl, Soviet republics, roof collapses, snow, Maya Rudenko, Chernobyl roof  
•       •       •

19932 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Feb 2013 at 2:24 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



130 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-02-13 10:47:49 AM
Should've had Allstate, mayhem is everywhere
 
2013-02-13 11:16:50 AM
We can only hope they evacuate the area in time. Oh wait.
 
2013-02-13 11:21:56 AM
Those Russians sure know how to build 'em to last.
 
2013-02-13 11:46:34 AM
That place is so farked up now anyway, not even a glitch.
 
2013-02-13 11:49:19 AM

gopher321: Those Russians sure know how to build 'em to last.


Seriously. No maintenance in almost 30 years? On a flat roof? That's kinda impressive.
 
2013-02-13 11:55:43 AM

unlikely: gopher321: Those Russians sure know how to build 'em to last.

Seriously. No maintenance in almost 30 years? On a flat roof? That's kinda impressive.


^^^ that

it's a turbine housing, nothing hazardous in it.
 
2013-02-13 11:57:52 AM
alternativechronicle.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-02-13 12:31:22 PM

Kazan: it's a turbine housing, nothing hazardous in it.


Not much, intentionally anyway.  The RBMK did route water directly from the core to the turbines (like BWRs do) without heat exchangers.  So, like BWRs, you couldn't be in the turbine hall when they were running, but it was mostly just activated nitrogen (from oxygen in the water) you were worried about, so you could go in an hour after shutdown.

With the direct-flow, I'd suspect some other nasty stuff made it to the turbine hall when everything went to hell in 86.  Not a massive amount, though.
 
2013-02-13 01:22:25 PM
motywdrogi.pl
 
2013-02-13 02:18:31 PM
So Ukraine is weak?

encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2013-02-13 02:26:41 PM
The radiation only senses movement. So remain absolutely still.
 
2013-02-13 02:28:10 PM
Kazan:
it's a turbine housing, nothing hazardous in it.

Yeah but you know there was at least one poor bastard near the site who heard that thing collapse and was like "OH SHIAT!"
 
2013-02-13 02:28:29 PM

gopher321: Those Russians sure know how to build 'em to last.


It was never built to last.
 
2013-02-13 02:28:53 PM
KIEV, UKRAINE-Ukrainian officials on Wednesday sought to reassure the public that radiation levels were unaffected at Chornobyl and there was no safety threat after a partial roof collapse at the exploded nuclear power plant.


It's good that they want to learn from their mistakes, but separating a nuclear power plant's major components from each other for ease of viewing doesn't seem like a good decision in this case.
 
2013-02-13 02:29:41 PM
Now they will have to build an even bigger "sarcophagus" over the existing cement cover.

Soon it will be many layers of massive cement covers. Too bad there isn't an apt Russian analogy involving snugly fitting boxes or containers of some kind.
 
2013-02-13 02:30:22 PM
Snowflakes will now all look alike.
 
2013-02-13 02:33:02 PM
I'm not sure what criteria Russian engineers use in structural design but "snow" is a pretty big one in Canuckistan. Top of the list, really.
 
2013-02-13 02:33:37 PM
But today's new and modern nuclear power plant designs, citizens, today's designs, will create a veritable utopia in which nuclear energy is clean, cheap and safe.  So cheap that we may not even need to meter it!
 
2013-02-13 02:33:42 PM
They should just drop a mini-nuke on the place to prevent any future collapses. Fight fire with fire, baby.
 
2013-02-13 02:33:44 PM

Gyrfalcon: gopher321: Those Russians sure know how to build 'em to last.

It was never built to last.


It wasn't built in Russia, either.
 
2013-02-13 02:33:52 PM
Vinci and Bouygues, two French construction companies who are contracted to work on building the new confinement, said they had evacuated about 80 workers as a precaution. They had not returned as of Wednesday.

So they...surrendered?
 
2013-02-13 02:33:54 PM

uncleacid: Snowflakes will now all look alike.


There are many copies and they have a plan.
 
2013-02-13 02:33:59 PM
I  blame global warming.

Just add this to the list of things global warming causes - nuclear power accidents.
 
2013-02-13 02:35:07 PM
Get out of here STALKER.
 
2013-02-13 02:35:12 PM
I first read that as "Chernobyl Roof Party".
 
2013-02-13 02:35:39 PM

Diogenes: [motywdrogi.pl image 500x246]


Nuclear Winter?  I loved that game..
 
2013-02-13 02:35:56 PM

Evil Mackerel: uncleacid: Snowflakes will now all look alike.

There are many copies and they have a plan.


encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
 
2013-02-13 02:36:19 PM

SevenizGud: I  blame global warming.

Just add this to the list of things global warming causes - nuclear power accidents.


The bint on network TV the other day interviewing Bill Nye about the asteroid close pass coming up on Friday asked him if global warming could have caused that, too.
 
2013-02-13 02:36:20 PM
ВСЕ ПАНИКИ!
 
2013-02-13 02:36:55 PM
Chernobyl was getting jealous of all the attention Fukushima has been getting.
 
2013-02-13 02:37:02 PM
www.toplessrobot.com
Chernobyl, Schernobyl...

Do what the McClanes do when you visit an old nuclear station - wear leather jackets and jeans.
 
2013-02-13 02:38:44 PM
What the hell is a "Chornobyl?"
 
2013-02-13 02:38:47 PM
"Even if the radiation level has not changed, it's still an alarming signal," Vladimir Chuprov, head of the energy program at Greenpeace Russia, said, according to the Interfax news agency. "If the panels in the turbine hall have collapsed, then in principle there is no guarantee that the sarcophagus, built in 1986, will not start falling apart in the near future."

This doesn't really follow. These two things were built for completely different purposes, there's no reason to believe that the collapse of a roof in a turbine hall has any relation to the structure of a protective dome over a major nuclear disaster. It could be indicative that other parts of the original Chernobyl plant are in danger of collapse, but the sarcophagus is a completely different structure.
 
2013-02-13 02:39:28 PM
Emairgency.  Emairgency.  Everybody to get from strit.  Emairgency.
img.rp.vhd.me
 
2013-02-13 02:39:42 PM
Inconceivable! Al Gore told me there would be no more infidel snow.  He triple guaranteed it.
 
2013-02-13 02:39:55 PM

brantgoose: Now they will have to build an even bigger "sarcophagus" over the existing cement cover.


A modern containment structure is already being built.
 
2013-02-13 02:40:09 PM
lh3.googleusercontent.com
 
2013-02-13 02:40:29 PM
Also, don't make any sudden moves, and avoid eye contact. Nuclear power plants can sense fear.
 
2013-02-13 02:41:14 PM

Kibbler: But today's new and modern nuclear power plant designs, citizens, today's designs, will create a veritable utopia in which nuclear energy is clean, cheap and safe.  So cheap that we may not even need to meter it!


Without maintenance any structure lasting for 30 years of freezing and thawing isn't half bad. An already weakened structure lasting that long is pretty damn good.

Also:
The building it is in has nothing to do with the reactor design. Your post is pretty much the same as ripping part of the gasket around your sunroof, then parking your car outside in alternating freezing and direct sunlight and then saying, "Internal combustion engines are dangerous!" when it leaks.
 
2013-02-13 02:41:16 PM
"Yes, it is unpleasant, but there is no danger."

If a section of the roof collapsing did not create any risk then what's the point of the roof altogether? Wouldn't it be better to bring it down entirely?
 
2013-02-13 02:41:36 PM
The place is holding up well over the years...
cdn.steampowered.com
Get out of here....
 
2013-02-13 02:42:13 PM

TheOmni: "Even if the radiation level has not changed, it's still an alarming signal," Vladimir Chuprov, head of the energy program at Greenpeace Russia, said, according to the Interfax news agency. "If the panels in the turbine hall have collapsed, then in principle there is no guarantee that the sarcophagus, built in 1986, will not start falling apart in the near future."

This doesn't really follow. These two things were built for completely different purposes, there's no reason to believe that the collapse of a roof in a turbine hall has any relation to the structure of a protective dome over a major nuclear disaster. It could be indicative that other parts of the original Chernobyl plant are in danger of collapse, but the sarcophagus is a completely different structure.


It's greenpeace. They exist to be terrified of absolutely everything nuclear.
 
2013-02-13 02:44:57 PM
fpsunknown.com

"If only you could have seen the things I have seen"
 
2013-02-13 02:45:37 PM

traylor: "Yes, it is unpleasant, but there is no danger."

If a section of the roof collapsing did not create any risk then what's the point of the roof altogether? Wouldn't it be better to bring it down entirely?


Probably because spending time in the area isn't a great idea. Why bother taking the time to do something that will eventually happen on it's own?
 
2013-02-13 02:48:14 PM

GungFu: Chernobyl, Schernobyl...


Harrisburg
Sellafield
Hiroshima

http://youtu.be/QAGCVYDJHss
 
2013-02-13 02:49:00 PM

Voiceofreason01: Kazan:
it's a turbine housing, nothing hazardous in it.

Yeah but you know there was at least one poor bastard near the site who heard that thing collapse and was like "OH SHIAT!"


um.. no... not really. look up the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone

nobody lives there
 
2013-02-13 02:51:48 PM
And the name of the star is called Wormwood: and the third part of the waters became wormwood; and many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter.
 
2013-02-13 02:52:58 PM
FTFA:Vladimir Chuprov, head of the energy program at Greenpeace Russia

Imagine that's a fun place to work.
 
2013-02-13 02:56:04 PM

Pants_Optional: Diogenes: [motywdrogi.pl image 500x246]

Nuclear Winter?  I loved that game..


Me too.  I'm not much of a gamer, but that one rocked.  Loved designing my own heroes.
 
2013-02-13 03:00:42 PM

TheOmni: "Even if the radiation level has not changed, it's still an alarming signal," Vladimir Chuprov, head of the energy program at Greenpeace Russia, said, according to the Interfax news agency. "If the panels in the turbine hall have collapsed, then in principle there is no guarantee that the sarcophagus, built in 1986, will not start falling apart in the near future."

This doesn't really follow. These two things were built for completely different purposes, there's no reason to believe that the collapse of a roof in a turbine hall has any relation to the structure of a protective dome over a major nuclear disaster. It could be indicative that other parts of the original Chernobyl plant are in danger of collapse, but the sarcophagus is a completely different structure.


Agreed, but that's the kind of "thought process" the rabidly anti-anything people use.  Doesn't matter if it's nuclear power, guns, or anything else.  "I don't understand (thing), so I'm going to pretend the risk is the same as (otherthing I don't understand)".

The first instinct of a logical person is to try to counter this sort of thing with logic.  That's the last thing that's going to work on them.  Not  saying I know what WILL work on them, but logic sure as hell isn't working.

Even more puzzling to me are people who pretend to be environmentalists, but who are against building modern nuclear power plant designs.  They fixate on Three Mile Island (a non-event), Chernobyl (a horrible design never used in this country, and being run in an unsafe manner at time of failure, and Fukishima (a reactor design from only a few years after Hiroshima), and pretend they are relevant to current reactor design.
 
2013-02-13 03:02:48 PM

traylor: "Yes, it is unpleasant, but there is no danger."

If a section of the roof collapsing did not create any risk then what's the point of the roof altogether? Wouldn't it be better to bring it down entirely?


You go pull it down. We'll watch. (From a very very long way off)
 
2013-02-13 03:06:50 PM

djh0101010: Even more puzzling to me are people who pretend to be environmentalists, but who are against building modern nuclear power plant designs. They fixate on Three Mile Island (a non-event), Chernobyl (a horrible design never used in this country, and being run in an unsafe manner at time of failure, and Fukishima (a reactor design from only a few years after Hiroshima), and pretend they are relevant to current reactor design.


you forgot to mention that Fukushima was poorly maintained and should have been turned off 10 years ago

/environmentalist
//who understands farking science.
 
2013-02-13 03:07:57 PM

MBooda: Emairgency.  Emairgency.  Everybody to get from strit.  Emairgency.
[img.rp.vhd.me image 720x304]


Kudos!

/you get one (1) internet
 
2013-02-13 03:09:36 PM
Remain calm, ALL wild animals glow in the dark.
 
2013-02-13 03:10:04 PM
A Ukranian man is out on a walk with his grandson. The little boy turns to him and asks, "Grandfather, is it true that there was a nuclear disaster here many years ago?"
"Yes, child," he says, patting his grandson's head.
"But I heard that there were no consequences at all; is this true too?"
"Yes, child," he says, patting his grandson's other head.
And then they strolled off together, wagging their tails.
 
2013-02-13 03:13:12 PM

BigNumber12: KIEV, UKRAINE-Ukrainian officials on Wednesday sought to reassure the public that radiation levels were unaffected at Chornobyl and there was no safety threat after a partial roof collapse at the exploded nuclear power plant.


It's good that they want to learn from their mistakes, but separating a nuclear power plant's major components from each other for ease of viewing doesn't seem like a good decision in this case.


I thought it didn't really explode
 
2013-02-13 03:13:15 PM
Which artifacts did you discover, S.T.A.L.K.E.R.?
 
2013-02-13 03:14:10 PM
I think that's the building they were housing the gigantic mutants in....
 
2013-02-13 03:15:07 PM
Enhance your calm
 
2013-02-13 03:15:12 PM

Kazan: //who understands farking science.


Does that qualify you to work in the porn biz?
 
2013-02-13 03:19:13 PM

Kazan: Voiceofreason01: Kazan:
it's a turbine housing, nothing hazardous in it.

Yeah but you know there was at least one poor bastard near the site who heard that thing collapse and was like "OH SHIAT!"

um.. no... not really. look up the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone

nobody lives there


And yet from TFA there are construction workers on site. That surprised me actually. I imagine they were radiation detector badge thingies constantly and get a shiatload of hazard pay.
 
2013-02-13 03:20:48 PM

Hand Banana: brantgoose: Now they will have to build an even bigger "sarcophagus" over the existing cement cover.

A modern containment structure is already being built.


And unlike the sarcophagus it's not being thrown together in a panic without any planning.
 
2013-02-13 03:21:55 PM

NightOwl2255: Kazan: //who understands farking science.

Does that qualify you to work in the porn biz?


i wondered how long it would take someone to make a joke

Jument: And yet from TFA there are construction workers on site. That surprised me actually. I imagine they were radiation detector badge thingies constantly and get a shiatload of hazard pay.


they'd have to rotate the workers fairly often to keep them under allowable radiation worker exposure limits.
 
2013-02-13 03:23:34 PM

Jument: And yet from TFA there are construction workers on site. That surprised me actually. I imagine they were radiation detector badge thingies constantly and get a shiatload of hazard pay.


There has always been people working there. If I recall correctly, not long after the accident they fired up at least one of the other reactors onsite.
 
2013-02-13 03:25:06 PM

Fark Rye For Many Whores: BigNumber12: KIEV, UKRAINE-Ukrainian officials on Wednesday sought to reassure the public that radiation levels were unaffected at Chornobyl and there was no safety threat after a partial roof collapse at the exploded nuclear power plant.


It's good that they want to learn from their mistakes, but separating a nuclear power plant's major components from each other for ease of viewing doesn't seem like a good decision in this case.

I thought it didn't really explode


There was an initial steam explosion caused by too low water in the reactor. There was also a second explosion from the core overheating (exact mechanism of this explosion is unknown). Then the graphite control rods caught fire and burned until the Soviets dumped enough sand/boron/lead/clay on the core to extinguish the fire.
 
2013-02-13 03:27:45 PM

oldfarthenry: I'm not sure what criteria Russian engineers use in structural design but "snow" is a pretty big one in Canuckistan. Top of the list, really.


I'm betting that they don't have to worry about "radiation embrittlement" of structural steel, however. I'm betting that was a factor, and I am betting that shiatty steel production standards is a bigger one.
 
2013-02-13 03:31:14 PM
TFA: Ukrainian workers at the plant have not been evacuated or ordered to implement any additional safety measures: "We are not wearing face masks, we have not been evacuated, which is what would have happened had there been danger".

Anyone else find this absolutely hilarious?
Because, ya know, the Russians were very transparent and informed all the first and second responders of the dangers after the original incident. LOL.
 
2013-02-13 03:34:18 PM
gopher321

Those Russians sure know how to build 'em to last.


www.aerospaceweb.org

FFS russia learn.
 
2013-02-13 03:37:49 PM
can't wait to vacation there one day
 
2013-02-13 03:37:55 PM

nickerj1: TFA: Ukrainian workers at the plant have not been evacuated or ordered to implement any additional safety measures: "We are not wearing face masks, we have not been evacuated, which is what would have happened had there been danger".

Anyone else find this absolutely hilarious?
Because, ya know, the Russians were very transparent and informed all the first and second responders of the dangers after the original incident. LOL.


Things are a little different now.
Not much, but a little.
 
2013-02-13 03:42:36 PM

p51d007: [lh3.googleusercontent.com image 400x323]


"Push to test; release to detonate"
 
2013-02-13 03:45:29 PM
And us Americans know how to build them so they can't be repaired. (Crystal River in Florida)
 
2013-02-13 03:45:41 PM
I wouldn't think a snow flake could get within 500 yards of the place.
 
2013-02-13 03:46:42 PM
Can't see that shiat from my house.
 
2013-02-13 03:48:51 PM

traylor: "Yes, it is unpleasant, but there is no danger."

If a section of the roof collapsing did not create any risk then what's the point of the roof altogether? Wouldn't it be better to bring it down entirely?


Just guessing the point was to keep snow off the workers in the turbine area but it has not been important for 30 years
 
2013-02-13 03:51:30 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-02-13 03:57:55 PM

Kazan: um.. no... not really. look up the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone

nobody lives there


Kazan: Jument: And yet from TFA there are construction workers on site. That surprised me actually. I imagine they were radiation detector badge thingies constantly and get a shiatload of hazard pay.

they'd have to rotate the workers fairly often to keep them under allowable radiation worker exposure limits.


You pretty clearly don't understand the magnitude of the disaster at all. The Chernobyl plant has four reactors- after the catastrophe in 1986 the remaining three reactors continued to operate normally for substantial periods afterwards, and the last reactor was shut down in 2000. Even then, the process of decommissioning the reactors is expected to take quite some time, and the current plan is to finish in 2022. There have been workers at Chernobyl pretty much constantly since the disaster and there will continue to be regular workers there for some time.

There are some hotspots, but the majority of the exclusion zone is at a safe albeit elevated radiation level. Despite your claim to the contrary, previous inhabitants of the zone have in fact returned to their homes and do live there of their own free will.

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/features/chernobyl-15/cherno-faq.shtm l
 
2013-02-13 04:03:52 PM

djh0101010: Even more puzzling to me are people who pretend to be environmentalists, but who are against building modern nuclear power plant designs.  They fixate on Three Mile Island (a non-event), Chernobyl (a horrible design never used in this country, and being run in an unsafe manner at time of failure, and Fukishima (a reactor design from only a few years after Hiroshima), and pretend they are relevant to current reactor design.


To me Fukishima is an argument for nuclear power. I mean the thing was 40 years old and was hit with a 9.0 magnitude earth quake and then a giant tsunami. And even with that level of disaster, the power plant didn't kill anyone.

As far as Chernobyl, using that as an example for why nuclear power is bad makes not a whole lot of sense either. I mean the thing was built in the 1970's. The Ford Pinto was built in the 70's too and that car was unsafe, yet people weren't calling for cars to be banned because of it.
 
2013-02-13 04:09:43 PM

mechgreg: As far as Chernobyl, using that as an example for why nuclear power is bad makes not a whole lot of sense either. I mean the thing was built in the 1970's. The Ford Pinto was built in the 70's too and that car was unsafe, yet people weren't calling for cars to be banned because of it.


It was also intentionally misused and didn't have any safety protocols.  The firemen who responded weren't even trained for nuclear exposure and didn't have the proper protective gear.   Using that plant for argument is stupid given current standards, construction, and safety protocols.

3 mile isle never killed anyone, and the argument that birth rates declined have never been confirmed or agreed upon.

The only real valid argument that you can't escape is what to do with the waste that has absurd half lifes.
 
2013-02-13 04:16:50 PM

Fubini: inhabitants of the zone have in fact returned to their homes and do live there of their own free will.


Even though their government has told them that they're batshiat insane for doing so.
 
2013-02-13 04:19:29 PM
Get out of here, STALKER.
 
2013-02-13 04:21:14 PM

thecpt: mechgreg: As far as Chernobyl, using that as an example for why nuclear power is bad makes not a whole lot of sense either. I mean the thing was built in the 1970's. The Ford Pinto was built in the 70's too and that car was unsafe, yet people weren't calling for cars to be banned because of it.

It was also intentionally misused and didn't have any safety protocols.  The firemen who responded weren't even trained for nuclear exposure and didn't have the proper protective gear.   Using that plant for argument is stupid given current standards, construction, and safety protocols.

3 mile isle never killed anyone, and the argument that birth rates declined have never been confirmed or agreed upon.

The only real valid argument that you can't escape is what to do with the waste that has absurd half lifes.


The volume of that waste, the really scary highly radioactive waste, is almost trivial. The bulk of the nuclear waste out there is hardly or not at all radioactive, but it's mandated that it be treated as nuclear waste by regulations. This is things like protective clothing, old machinery, and the like that might have been exposed to nuclear material.

And we would have a place for the really scary stuff if it wasn't for the very determined efforts of a misguided anti-nuclear lobby to block progress at every turn. They're just like the current congress: they stonewall every effort that responsible people make to deal with the problem and then jump up and down and cry bloody murder when you start hearing about how our cooling ponds and spent fuel pools are overloaded (the problem that they created).
 
2013-02-13 04:26:39 PM

Red_Fox: Even though their government has told them that they're batshiat insane for doing so.


A lot of the people who have returned are old enough that they'll die of something other than cancer and the hot spots aren't so hot anymore.
 
2013-02-13 04:27:42 PM

Fubini: And we would have a place for the really scary stuff if it wasn't for the very determined efforts of a misguided anti-nuclear lobby to block progress at every turn. They're just like the current congress: they stonewall every effort that responsible people make to deal with the problem and then jump up and down and cry bloody murder when you start hearing about how our cooling ponds and spent fuel pools are overloaded (the problem that they created).


bu bu buuut Yucca Mountain is taking toooo loooonnnng (because a hole in the ground apparently takes over a decade).

Its farking ridiculous, and of course the party that supports it is the GOP which means nothing will happen.
 
2013-02-13 04:28:24 PM

Red_Fox: Fubini: inhabitants of the zone have in fact returned to their homes and do live there of their own free will.

Even though their government has told them that they're batshiat insane for doing so.


Studies have found no ill health effects from living there, and the local authorities have stopped trying to move them. They're not there with the blessing of the government, but nobody thinks that living there is such a risk that it requires forced expulsion.
 
2013-02-13 04:28:50 PM

Red_Fox: Fubini: inhabitants of the zone have in fact returned to their homes and do live there of their own free will.

Even though their government has told them that they're batshiat insane for doing so.


I was going to post some pics of chernobyl mutants because I thought it would be funny. After looking at a few... no, no it would not, not even a little bit.
 
2013-02-13 04:29:30 PM
I wouldn't think a snow flake could get within 500 yards of the place.

Don'tknowifserious.jpg

Something radioactively 'hot' is not thermally 'hot'. Both are referring to the amount of activity/emissions. In the first case we mean radioactive particles decaying and giving off alpha, beta or gamma radiation, and in the second case we mean molecules containing energy vibrating and giving off radiation in the infrared spectrum. We feel the infrared radiation as heat. Despite the damage it does, we can't feel the alpha, beta or gamma radiation, which is why people wear dosimiters.
 
2013-02-13 04:33:33 PM

Fubini: Red_Fox: Fubini: inhabitants of the zone have in fact returned to their homes and do live there of their own free will.

Even though their government has told them that they're batshiat insane for doing so.

Studies have found no ill health effects from living there, and the local authorities have stopped trying to move them. They're not there with the blessing of the government, but nobody thinks that living there is such a risk that it requires forced expulsion.


I should clarify: the government does not allow children to live in the zone, and most of the residents there are old enough that radiation exposure is unlikely to cause cancer, and even if it does cause a cancer it is unlikely to play a major role in their health before they die.

The point is that the zone is not an area of extreme nuclear hazard, it's an area of extreme nuclear cautiousness. There's probably some little bit of spent fuel just sitting under a log someplace waiting to be discovered by someone, and that stuff is bound to cause trouble in the future. I'm not trying to deny that Chernobyl was an ecological disaster, but on the scale of bad to apocalyptic, it's much more on the low end.
 
2013-02-13 04:36:05 PM

thecpt: 3 mile isle never killed anyone, and the argument that birth rates declined have never been confirmed or agreed upon.


I thought three mile was considered somewhat of a success story.  Something bad happened, all the safety protocols were followed and disaster was adverted.  I could be wrong, just remember reading that in one of these threads.
 
2013-02-13 04:42:21 PM

Champion of the Sun: thecpt: 3 mile isle never killed anyone, and the argument that birth rates declined have never been confirmed or agreed upon.

I thought three mile was considered somewhat of a success story.  Something bad happened, all the safety protocols were followed and disaster was adverted.  I could be wrong, just remember reading that in one of these threads.


exactly what I was getting at.  I am very pro nuclear, and although I wouldn't call it a true "success" due to there being an actual mechanical failure and failure of a sensor, protocols developed even 30 some years ago were able to avert any further problems.  People in the immediate area were exposed to the effect of a day in the sun without their shirt on.
 
2013-02-13 04:58:29 PM

Champion of the Sun: thecpt: 3 mile isle never killed anyone, and the argument that birth rates declined have never been confirmed or agreed upon.

I thought three mile was considered somewhat of a success story.  Something bad happened, all the safety protocols were followed and disaster was adverted.  I could be wrong, just remember reading that in one of these threads.


The success story is that proper planning and design averted a potential catastrophe. Ideally, nothing would ever go wrong, but when something does go wrong you want to be able and prepared to handle it. The operators did exactly that.

Nuclear safety is planned around a "defense-in-depth" approach. There are numerous policies and regulations that govern how a plant should operate, so that a dangerous condition is never reached. However, when a dangerous condition occurs, there are again numerous policies and regulations that govern how to mitigate the danger and minimize radioactive release (even at the expense of the plant and plant workers). Then, in the event that a radioactive release does occur, there are policies and regulations that govern how to mitigate the effect of the release and how to manage that.
 
2013-02-13 04:59:54 PM
No offense, guys, but "didn't kill anyone" or "didn't kill many" doesn't count for much when you have large uninhabitable zones. Fukushima, and almost all of the reactors in Japan, are sited in rural areas for precisely this reason - but it means you lose farmland and have to evacuate 100k people, in a country that literally has no farmland to spare. Incidentally, one of the main reasons Fukushima didn't lead to major health problems was that the wind was favorable and blowing to the sea. Had the wind been blowing towards Tokyo during the worst phase of the disaster it would not have been so pretty.

Also incidentally, there have been 2 majornuclear disasters with nuclear being a pretty small part of overall power generation, and only for the past 60 years. You can claim newer designs are safer, but since most of what's claimed to be so safe doesn't exist, it's not exactly that credible (the gen 4 reactors are purely in theory at this point). It's a finicky technology, which is appealing when it doesn't force you off land that's been in your family for generations and poison said land for decades. The very small amount of waste and lack of CO2 pollution are somewhat overshadowed by the potential for serious disaster.

Considering that solar and wind are getting very cheap, why not just build a lot? Yes, storage is an issue, but it's a solvable problem. Yes, people in the US would probably have to cut down their energy use, but so what? Why go from one dirty energy source to another when you have even better options?

www.landartgenerator.org
 
2013-02-13 05:05:33 PM
i1182.photobucket.comEVERYONE SHOULD BE ABSOLUTELY CALM!!!i1182.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-13 05:08:18 PM

TheOmni: "Even if the radiation level has not changed, it's still an alarming signal," Vladimir Chuprov, head of the energy program at Greenpeace Russia, said, according to the Interfax news agency. "If the panels in the turbine hall have collapsed, then in principle there is no guarantee that the sarcophagus, built in 1986, will not start falling apart in the near future."

This doesn't really follow. These two things were built for completely different purposes, there's no reason to believe that the collapse of a roof in a turbine hall has any relation to the structure of a protective dome over a major nuclear disaster. It could be indicative that other parts of the original Chernobyl plant are in danger of collapse, but the sarcophagus is a completely different structure.


Not trying to defend Greenpeace here, because I think they're totally bass-akward, but it does follow, just not in the way dude up there is saying it. The reality is that the Sarcophagus isn't actually held together by anything other than gravity. What's more, it was made to be a temporary shelter, never something permanent. It's in really, really, really, and I can't stress this enough, REALLY bad shape. It was too hot (both physically and radioactively) to weld together when it was built, and after the fall of the soviet union, nobody really had any money to do anything about it. They're pretty much afraid of low hurricane force winds, significant snow accumulation, and minor earthquakes being able to topple it. That's why there's been such a push to have the new safe containment system put in place as soon as possible. It's already been delayed (they hoped to have it finished by now way back when they first started talking about it) and won't be finished until over a decade from now. Only then will collapse not be nearly as much of a danger as they'll actually be dismantling everything under the new shell in an attempt to clean it up as much as they possibly can.

Now the sarcophagus doesn't have a flat, asphalt roof like the turbine building did/does, so it would take more snow to topple it, but it still illustrates that the region does have it's problems. Also, the roof has been maintained far more recently than the sarcophagus structure itself. Since Reactors 1-3 were still used over the years for power generation (well, until unit #2 had a fire in the turbine hall, then just 1&3 were used) they kept the rest of the plant in operable shape until they shut the whole thing down for good in 2000.

But I digress, both structures, despite being built for different purposes, are in bad shape and in danger of collapse, otherwise the NSC wouldn't be a huge priority right now.
 
2013-02-13 05:08:36 PM

adamatari: www.landartgenerator.org


Well, that's not misleading at all.
 
2013-02-13 05:25:53 PM
Indeed the sarcophagus was hastily put up in a hurry.  There are holes in it big enough to drive a car through folks.  They do have a sprinkler system set up inside to keep dust from exiting.

To be completely honest if the main roof collapses it is entirely possible to have another release of radiation and dust that could be as big as the explosion in 1986.  They really need to get their act together and complete that biological shield they've been talking about the last couple of years.  So yeah... feel free to panic a bit.

It's almost impossible to find, but if you ever run across Suicide Mission to Chernobyl watch it.  They still have to go in to the ruined reactor from time to time to check up on it's condition.
 
2013-02-13 05:28:51 PM

adamatari: but it means you lose farmland


oh come one, you lose that for every thing.  you'll lose fishing areas for oil, you know, like the gulf coast for a year.

adamatari: Fukushima didn't lead to major health problems was that the wind was favorable and blowing to the sea. Had the wind been blowing towards Tokyo during the worst phase of the disaster it would not have been so pretty.


I can agree to some of that, but as you speculate that we can't be certain of how safe the new reactors are you can't be sure of how much damage that could have caused. Considering how facility mgmt, design, and upgrades are routine in building technology there is truth that risk will be eliminated with the next generation.  It's not like there stepping out on a brand new limb or anything.

adamatari: It's a finicky technology


cadmium rods say lolwut.

adamatari: Considering that solar and wind are getting very cheap, why not just build a lot?


They aren't cheap and right now its a joke how much power those two methods produce.  I'm all for supplementing the grid and reducing supply, but using those for a large chunk of demand is nearly impossible.  Inconsistent supply, insignificant contribution to several geographic area, and the life cycle of analysis of solar can sometimes show a panel is worse for the environment.  These methods along with tidal simply can't handle demand, and tidal causes many dead fishies.

your chart makes no sense.  LAGI seams to be an unfeasible joke from looking at their website.

adamatari: The very small amount of waste and lack of CO2 pollution are somewhat overshadowed by the potential for serious disaster.


So you're saying that we can't have a nation that has 80% of our power come from these things safely, like i don't know France already does.  If forecasts for climate change are wrong we still face that fossil fuels are dying and we will need something in 30 years.  If they are right and saying the temperature is rising at only half the predicted rate we need to cut down on carbon emissions now which Nuclear can do in combination with electric cars.  And that will need to happen within the next 20 years.

Again, its the best we can do with what we have now.  Its proven to be safe.  It's waste is manageable and containable.

Why farking not?
 
2013-02-13 05:32:54 PM

thecpt: Why farking not?


Because ZOMG RADIATION!, that's why.
 
2013-02-13 05:39:01 PM

brantgoose: Now they will have to build an even bigger "sarcophagus" over the existing cement cover.


I thought that was the existing plan. They just don't have any money or political will to do it.
 
2013-02-13 05:43:28 PM

thecpt: bu bu buuut Yucca Mountain is taking toooo loooonnnng (because a hole in the ground apparently takes over a decade).


The YMP project has been shut down.

http://www.reid.senate.gov/issues/yucca.cfm
 
2013-02-13 05:50:43 PM

saturn badger: thecpt: bu bu buuut Yucca Mountain is taking toooo loooonnnng (because a hole in the ground apparently takes over a decade).

The YMP project has been shut down.

http://www.reid.senate.gov/issues/yucca.cfm


I'm not surprised.  It had problems to begin with, and quite frankly why would you haul it across the country to a place that near a geologic fault?  Still government attempted to solve a problem, which was stopped by the government, and all at the cost of the tax payer.

(about the linked article) Sometimes I feel like the only person who remembered that Obama supported clean coal, while McCain actually had a nuclear energy plan.  I don't dislike Obama or anything, but he hasn't done much for our energy future.  Then again, the news isn't saying its a crisis now because of Marcellus shale and what not.
 
2013-02-13 05:56:30 PM

adamatari: Yes, people in the US would probably have to cut down their energy use, but so what? Why go from one dirty energy source to another when you have even better options?

[www.landartgenerator.org image 850x600]


Let me ask you a few question:
1) Do you take mass transit?
2) What kind of car(2) do you drive?
3) How large is your home? Do you have A/C?
4) How have you personally modified your purchasing habits to indirectly consume less energy?

Perhaps you are a model human being and have excellent answers to all of these questions. But I bet not.

TD;DR: It will never happen. Americans will never reduce their consumption.
 
2013-02-13 06:08:10 PM

Champion of the Sun: thecpt: 3 mile isle never killed anyone, and the argument that birth rates declined have never been confirmed or agreed upon.

I thought three mile was considered somewhat of a success story.  Something bad happened, all the safety protocols were followed and disaster was adverted.  I could be wrong, just remember reading that in one of these threads.


Absolutely, if you consider forcing our President to marry an 80-foot tall cleaning woman, fish you could read by, and lobsters as big as a house. http://vimeo.com/20995501
 
2013-02-13 06:13:40 PM

If I'm going out, it is with some Hawt Ukrainian Biker Babe in teh ЗЖCLЦSIФИ ZФЙЭ


i651.photobucket.com

 
2013-02-13 06:19:51 PM

thecpt: ...It's proven to be safe.

I guess your definition of "safe" is "creates uninhabitable, unfarmable zones that last for generations, with clean up issues that similarly last for decades". As a poster above has pointed out, they still have issues containing Chernobyl (New Safe Containment is behind schedule, old sarcophagus is jury-rigged and old). Nuclear has in fact proven to be disaster-prone and dangerous.

thecpt: you lose [farmland] for every thing.  you'll lose fishing areas for oil, you know, like the gulf coast for a year. 

Losing farmland to urbanization is effectively trading agriculture for habitation. Not possible in irradiated zones. And don't get me started on fisheries issues or oil spills, because I will seriously not stop. Though the biggest problem there is that we literally have scraped the bottom and caught all the farking fish, but habitat destruction and pollution through argicutural runoff is another thing, and major oil spills are just the straw that broke the camel's back in the Gulf. But yes, we should transition from oil to clean power like solar.

thecpt: cadmium rods say lolwut.


Nice job they did in Fukushima. Also, fat lot of good they do if your spent fuel pool catches on fire. I call it finicky because it has very stricty operating perameters, very strict safety perameters (you MUST have cooling, forever, without interruption), and tends to not work as well as planned. Look up Monju Nuclear Plant or Crystal River to see what I mean. Nuclear has always lived on the promise of "safe" and "too cheap to meter" and failed on both counts.

thecpt: Again, its the best we can do with what we have now.


Perhaps the most puzzling comment of the bunch. You think we somehow have the capacity to build hundreds or thousands of new generation nuclear reactors with new and unproven designs but putting up solar panels, wind turbines, and building various types of storage somehow is an engineering feat that is beyond us? Really? I guess we can't beat the Germans, with their solar power and beach volleyball...

I don't even want to touch the waste issue except to say that, despite being very small in volume, it requires storage for literally tens of thousands of years. Human civilization is maybe 10,000 years old, electric power is barely over 100 years old, and nuclear is around 60 years old. I don't consider waste to be the major issue with nuclear, but it's certainly not trivial either.
 
2013-02-13 06:40:48 PM

Jument: adamatari: Yes, people in the US would probably have to cut down their energy use, but so what? Why go from one dirty energy source to another when you have even better options?

[www.landartgenerator.org image 850x600]

Let me ask you a few question:
1) Do you take mass transit?


Yes, when I can't ride my bike.

2) What kind of car(2) do you drive?

It's called a bicycle.

3) How large is your home? Do you have A/C?

I live in a small apartment, with neither A/C or heating. But I also live in Hawaii, where this is possible, and recognize this is not elsewhere. Besides which, my footprint is larger here due to things like groceries being shipped in. Hawaii is very much dependent.

4) How have you personally modified your purchasing habits to indirectly consume less energy?

I don't buy much, as I have very little money.

Perhaps you are a model human being and have excellent answers to all of these questions. But I bet not.

It's called "being poor". I will freely admit that I would consume more if I had more money, and I am no paragon (this computer is eating electricity from an oil-buring plant as we speak). Nevertheless, very few people need an SUV, and if we took mass transit as seriously as we take roads, and took global warming seriously as an existential threat and acted with the urgency we had in WWII, we could change things. Doesn't mean we will but techinically it is possible.

TD;DR: It will never happen. Americans will never reduce their consumption.

I don't disagree that Americans as a whole will never willingly reduce consumption. We have limited free will as individuals, but societies cannot be moved so easily. I expect nothing will be done unless it has to be, and at some point American will have to reduce their consumption. As a matter of fact, they have since 2008, due to becoming poorer. This is not the best way to reduce but it sure works:

gailtheactuary.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-02-13 06:46:26 PM
Jument:
And yet from TFA there are construction workers on site. That surprised me actually. I imagine they were radiation detector badge thingies constantly and get a shiatload of hazard pay.

They're building a new  sarcophagus that encloses the whole site. The old one was built hastily, isn't water tight and is deteriorating.
 
2013-02-13 07:12:53 PM
Clm down guys, as much as it sucks, the Russian know how to handle this crap...

If you want to shiat your pants, dig a bit more into fukushima and the years of corruption, hidden defects and subcontractor going cheap on anything under the sun...

After if you have spare underwear start to catch up with the crisis management. You don't even have to like or dislike nukaplants. Just see their incompetence toward an industrial accident and try not to bblow a hole in your forehead while facepalming.

Remember several things officially stated though.
The quake intensity at the plant was NOWHERE NEAR  magnitude 9
It was a big 7 well under the supposed specced parameter of the plant
It still managed to ruin it BEFORE THE TSUNAMI STRICKED
The tsunami of this level was a RECURRING EVENT with temple in the mountainside remembering the previous death AND WAS OVERDUE  of about 30 years at least.
The company managing the plant was notified by geologist COUNTLESS TIMES that tsunamis aof  this level could happen again to which they answered that their plant has been approved by the governement (in the 60') and therefore they were not obliged to do anything to improve safety.
AND THE BEST
THE JAPANESE GOVERNEMENT MOUTHPIECES ACTUALLY TELL THE PUBLIC TO SMILE IN ORDER NOT TO GET RADIATION SICKNESS THAT ALL RADIATION RISKS ARE FALSE RUMORS CAUSING STRESS, IT S THIS STRESS THAT MAKE PEOPLE SICK AND SPREADING THESE RUMORS IS ILLEGAL. AND THE MAYOR OF TOKYO ISS WORKING ON A BAN OF PERSONNAL GEIGER COUNTERS IN ORDER TO ALLOW ONLY PUBLIC MEASUREMENT (known to be rigged thanks to personnal measure and safecast work)
 
2013-02-13 07:29:53 PM

cig-mkr: Remain calm, ALL wild animals glow in the dark.


ih1.redbubble.net
 
2013-02-13 08:17:44 PM

PirateKing: Get out of here STALKER.


Blowout soon!
 
2013-02-13 08:31:03 PM

Jument: Let me ask you a few question:
1) Do you take mass transit?
2) What kind of car(2) do you drive?
3) How large is your home? Do you have A/C?
4) How have you personally modified your purchasing habits to indirectly consume less energy?

Perhaps you are a model human being and have excellent answers to all of these questions. But I bet not.


When coming across someone who supports renewable power:

Rule 1 - question their own personal habits. If they aren't living in a cave or getting calls from Ed Begley Jr. for advice on sustainability, their opinion doesn't matter.

Rule 2 - If the person is really living an ultra-clean & green life, via renewable power - claim that not everyone can live a life like that and it's expensive.

Rule 3 - if they point out anyone can buy into successful community owned renewable energy projects, and show how simple it is to finance improvements with little personal money - simply say it's impossible and it won't work. Then talk about how clean coal and nuclear is the only way forward. Rinse, repeat.
 
2013-02-13 09:00:38 PM
uninhabitable, unfarmable zones that last for generations,

Except for the WHO reports from a few years ago that say a large percentage of the exclusion zone is back below background readings and can be safely populated, if it wasn't for the fear factor.
 
2013-02-13 09:01:17 PM

adamatari: I guess your definition of "safe" is "creates uninhabitable, unfarmable zones that last for generations, with clean up issues that similarly last for decades". As a poster above has pointed out, they still have issues containing Chernobyl (New Safe Containment is behind schedule, old sarcophagus is jury-rigged and old). Nuclear has in fact proven to be disaster-prone and dangerous.


Chernobyl is the incomparable disaster caused by absolute morons, but you're shifting my argument.  Nuclear power is the best we have at meeting our energy demands especially when considering human life.  Compare just these two Nuclear accidents and Coal
Even look at the year with the fewest deaths for coal and how recent it was.  Can nuclear energy be a disaster? Sure as farking hell can.  Even in the links you posted, was it that bad? No.  The Florida plant reached the end of its economic service life. 

The Japanese are apparently idiots, that much I'll give you.  I don't think the common nuclear proponent would advocate putting plants along the ring of fire or at tectonic lines.

adamatari: Not possible in irradiated zones.


Agreed, but there aren't that many.  I don't know that much about Japanese infrastructure

adamatari: we should transition from oil to clean power like solar


Its not feasible to meet future US demand with current renewable energies, more specifically it can hardly be harvested efficiently in densely populated areas like the North east, or North of Virginia for that matter.  Farms can't transmit the energy harvest that far, and you wouldn't be able to turn on anything at night.  Adding batteries would further make it economically unfeasible.  That being said, I fully support everything solar but please realize that solar, geothermal, tidal, hydro, and wind will not be able to cover a large enough chunk of our needs.  don't say biofuels either.  everyone knows how stupid that is, and those aforementioned sources are at least credible.

adamatari: Perhaps the most puzzling comment of the bunch. You think we somehow have the capacity to build hundreds or thousands of new generation nuclear reactors with new and unproven designs but putting up solar panels, wind turbines, and building various types of storage somehow is an engineering feat that is beyond us? Really? I guess we can't beat the Germans, with their solar power and beach volleyball


No that comment was meant to link it together.  As it currently stands, 500 plants built at 1970 specs would supply the equivalent of 100% of our energy.  The cost to increase from our 100 or so to 500 would be in billions obviously, but why not allow the general increase of plants now?  Our country is vast which complicates solar, and even if we did beat the Germans (which would be awesome) they get 20% of their power that way.  If solar power became 20% of ours overnight, renewables still wouldn't be greater than 35% of our current energy.  We're going to need something else to supplement.  Also, people hate wind turbines more than they hate nuclear power plants for some weird reason.  (seriously)

I do consider the waste as a problem.  Current practices of storage have proven to be safe, and by far outweigh the problem of CO2 emissions for all intents and purposes.
 
2013-02-13 09:09:00 PM

germ78: brantgoose: Now they will have to build an even bigger "sarcophagus" over the existing cement cover.

I thought that was the existing plan. They just don't have any money or political will to do it.


news articles from way back stated the life of the cocoon was 20-25 years. we passed that anniversary years ago. nothing was done because governments don't give a damn for the planet they need to live. the rich and powerful seem to raise money for whatever interests them around the globe. plenty of cash could have been found or raised for this needful construction. Putin is a dooshbag. a wealthy powerful POS commie red dooshbag.
 
2013-02-13 09:59:29 PM
How would you like the task of building a giant arched enclosure over the reactor site?

Nyet, there is no problems with radiation. 30 km exclusion zone is old Ukrainian joke, yes? Don'ts worry about it.
 
2013-02-13 10:03:25 PM
www.thestar.com

Wow.  How hot does something have to be to glow lavender?
 
2013-02-13 10:14:51 PM

studebaker hoch: Wow. How hot does something have to be to glow lavender?


Fabulously?
 
2013-02-13 10:25:10 PM
I hit "Add Comment" and realized I'd completely missed the obvious.

/shakes fist
 
2013-02-13 10:32:29 PM

thecpt: I'm not surprised.  It had problems to begin with, and quite frankly why would you haul it across the country to a place that near a geologic fault?  Still government attempted to solve a problem, which was stopped by the government, and all at the cost of the tax payer.


It was all unworkable from the start. Seismic issues, water leakage and a state that fought them every step of the way. Then we have a massive cave filled with nice deadly material that was supposed to be sealed for, what? 1,000 years? So you put up a warning in who knows what language will be spoken then and once they decipher it you just know they will want to explore it.

It was a bad idea from the beginning.
 
2013-02-13 10:42:34 PM

thecpt: 'm not surprised.  It had problems to begin with, and quite frankly why would you haul it across the country to a place that near a geologic fault?  Still government attempted to solve a problem, which was stopped by the government, and all at the cost of the tax payer.


Sorry. Forgot this one.

The idea is for the containers to get encrusted with salt to seal them forever. I never thought a steel and salt mix was a good idea.

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

Then there was the one I saw in a documentary a few years ago. Bore a hole in the Oklahoma aquifer and drop radioactive waste underneath it. Nothing could go wrong here, right? Just possibly losing the largest underground aquifer in the country.

You can't store it here safely. I'm not keen on the outer space idea. I am more for safer nuke plants.

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

But then there is the medical waste.

It is a big mess.
 
2013-02-13 10:50:39 PM

thecpt: Its not feasible to meet future US demand with current renewable energies, more specifically it can hardly be harvested efficiently in densely populated areas like the North east, or North of Virginia for that matter.  Farms can't transmit the energy harvest that far, and you wouldn't be able to turn on anything at night.  Adding batteries would further make it economically unfeasible.  That being said, I fully support everything solar but please realize that solar, geothermal, tidal, hydro, and wind will not be able to cover a large enough chunk of our needs.  don't say biofuels either.  everyone knows how stupid that is, and those aforementioned sources are at least credible.


No that comment was meant to link it together.  As it currently stands, 500 plants built at 1970 specs would supply the equivalent of 100% of our energy.  The cost to increase from our 100 or so to 500 would be in billions obviously, but why not allow the general increase of plants now?  Our country is vast which complicates solar, and even if we did beat the Germans (which would be awesome) they get 20% of their power that way.  If solar power became 20% of ours overnight, renewables still wouldn't be greater than 35% of our current energy.  We're going to need something else to supplement.  Also, people hate wind turbines more than they hate nuclear power plants for some weird reason.  (seriously)

First of all, I think you're confusing "wants" and "needs" when it comes to energy. Electricity is still new in historic terms. Second of all, I think you need to go back and look at that solar map I posted. Additionally, I think you need to redo your math on how much 500 nuclear plants would cost - each one  is in the BILLIONS. So we're talking trillions of dollars. Converting to solar and wind would require similar costs, admittedly, but with fewer risks. Currently there are less than 500 nuclear reactors worldwide, 2 of which have had major issues and serveral of which have had less major issues (like the Monju plant I linked to, which has had constant issues, or Three Mile Island). The fact that they try to build them and sometimes they just don't work very well is discouraging, which you seem not to have picked up on. It is very hard for me to believe that we wouldn't have any problems with 500 reactors. Going by the current track record we would see 2 major meltdowns and a fair percent that would have problems and not produce any power, or would run behind schedule and have cost overruns.

There aren't many irradiated zones partly because we haven't used that much nuclear power. Nuclear does not have a good track record.

As for transmission issues, currently power from neighboring states is supplied to Los Angeles. Long distance transmission is not a pipe dream or fantasy, it's a reality on the ground. The problems of the eastern grid are real - the South is not nearly as good for solar as the desert west, though much better than the northeast. All the same, the south is much better off than Germany and probably could support itself and export power to the northeast. Costal wind and inland wind from the midwest could also cover eastern needs. Also, you don't have to put solar on farms - you can put it on ROOFS. Every single house, every single building can produce power with solar. You can put solar over parking lots.

You also seem to have conveniently built a straw man for the storage issue - "sitting in the dark". Germany gives away power to Switzerland, where they have pumped storage. Rather than blowing up mountains in Virginia for coal, pumped storage could be built there. Still environmentally messy but better than mountaintop removal.

Ideally, we would actually adapt agressively as well and reduce power use. Renewables would have to be overbuilt as well.

Either way, transitioning from fossil fuels will be a major industrial project, and one that the US has not seriously started on yet (unless you consider the 2008 crash and subsequent reduction in oil use a start). I have looked at nuclear, and the closer I look the more issues I see. It's expensive, fragile, complicated, prone to disaster, and requires planning beyond a human timescale to deal with waste. To be honest, I don't expect us to transition cleanly anyways - I expect us to grasp at straws, use lots of dirty coal, and still find ourselves poorer, with less energy, and with serious environmental issues. Energy has become a major issue but the actual truth on the ground is we still depend on coal and natural gas, both of which only dig us deeper into the climate change hole. China is much more dependent on coal than we are and much dirtier about it at that.

I am not an optimist.
 
2013-02-13 11:23:13 PM
Mad_Flyer:

The quake intensity at the plant was NOWHERE NEAR  magnitude 9

Intensity and magnitude are not the same thing. The intensity at Fukushima was Mercalli VII. Very strong.
 
2013-02-13 11:26:39 PM

thecpt: don't say biofuels either. everyone knows how stupid that is


Biofuels are not stupid. We just choose to do them in the stupidest way possible. You don't use food as fuel, that's dumb as hell. You also don't use arable land to grow fuel. That's not only stupid, it's also net carbon positive, as you have to create new farmland, which releases stored CO2. There are several ways to get biofuel that aren't stupid. I'm sure they won't ever fill our entire energy needs, but they could put a serious dent.

Hemp is an excellent source of oils. Hemp grows on land unsuitable for farming.
We send an alarming amount of animal and plant waste to landfills every year, from waste food, cardboard, paper, and grass. (Assholes who throw their grass clippings out and buy chemical fertilizer really piss me off, but they do it.) If we simply subsidized waste management companies a little bit, they could provide garbage disposals that feed into special garbage cans, and take the food waste to a facility to capture methane. If we chose to make plastics from vegetable oil, you could throw plastic in there, too. Actual garbage taken to landfills would decline sharply, and you could do monthly pickups on non-organics.
We don't do anything constructive with our human waste, or much of our farm manure. That's another excellent source of methane.
GM algae that excrete petroleum as waste are looking pretty promising. I personally feel that a Manhattan Project investment in that could revolutionize our energy sector. It takes a lot of water, but you could pretty easily install desalinization plants to feed the tanks at a net gain of energy, even without using solar to power them.

Biofuels are not a magic bullet, but they're not nearly as stupid as they appear from the pork-laden farmer bribes we know today.
 
2013-02-13 11:29:10 PM

Mad_Flyer: *derpa derpa herpa dooooo*


The earthquake near Fukushima and the tsunami both exceeded the design parameters of the plant. The surprise shouldn't be that the plant failed- it wasn't designed to survive the magnitude of the event that occurred, the surprise is that the Japanese regulatory agencies allowed the Fukushima design parameters to be less than was necessary than they should have been for the site.

The Fukushima site was designed around the following Design Basis Events:

-A tsunami of 5.7 meters in height
-A ground acceleration of 1.74 m/s2

The Fukushima disaster was caused by an earthquake that resulted in a tsunami of 15m in height and a ground acceleration of 5.5 m/s2
The real cause of the Fukushima disaster was that the plant was allowed to continue operating even when it became apparent that the design basis events for which the plant was designed were insufficient. I'm not trying to cast blame when I say this, but at least part of the pressure to continue operating the old plant was due to the growing demand for energy and the reluctance of people to build out more capacity (which in Japan pretty much necessitates nuclear reactors) in the form of newer, safer designs.
 
2013-02-14 12:07:59 AM
img.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-14 12:57:34 AM

TopoGigo: Biofuels are not stupid. We just choose to do them in the stupidest way possible.


I one hundred percent agree.  I used the term for those who want to grow algae for direct fuel (which is what I thought the term meant now).  I'll have to read about that GM thing.

I agree with everything you listed to, especially in the mantra of reduce, reuse, recycle.  But about human waste,  the little bit of studying I've done for certification has indicated that black water (or material) is useless and needs to be treated as a biological hazard.  Grey water can be reused in buildings, but the moment it involves human waste nothing positive can be done with it.  There can't possibly be a sanitary way to collect human waste for methane production.
 
2013-02-14 01:26:07 AM
Stay calm? Isn't that what they told them the first go around?
 
2013-02-14 01:33:36 AM

adamatari: First of all, I think you're confusing "wants" and "needs" when it comes to energy.


Yeah, Its going to be needs sooner rather than later.  It's not like our population is increasing or anything


adamatari: Second of all, I think you need to go back and look at that solar map I posted.


I did, it was confusing and came from a pretty shiatty source.  That's why I originally said this:
your chart makes no sense.  LAGI seams to be an unfeasible joke from looking at their website. (you know, if you go back and look)

.

adamatari: each one is in the BILLIONS. So we're talking trillions of dollars


Yes I know.  Usually around 10 each.  But I'm not saying lets do either renewables or nuclear 100% and I'm not saying do it all at once.

adamatari: The fact that they try to build them and sometimes they just don't work very well is discouraging, which you seem not to have picked up on


wow would you look at that.  Some of them don't last well past their economic service life.  It's not like there is math for that or anything.  As posted above, Fukishima was poorly designed and should have been shut down.  Chernobyl was a user error.  Namely a lot of users, with no fail safes, and users who were intentional assholes.  Those are your 2 disasters.

adamatari: Going by the current track record we would see 2 major meltdowns and a fair percent that would have problems and not produce any power, or would run behind schedule and have cost overruns.


... its not like risks those 2 disasters made could be designed out of the system or anything.  And that Florida plant, what more proof do you need that energy companies and the NRC are on top of their shiat.  They shut down a facility because of a crack in the concrete.  Thats a success of the system and regulation by my standards.

adamatari: There aren't many irradiated zones partly because we haven't used that much nuclear power. Nuclear does not have a good track record.


The fark it doesn't.  A commodity every major nation can use without having corporate entities in the middle east, or a plethora of coal mining accidents with death totals that thoroughly eclipse the deaths attributed to nuclear power.

adamatari: As for transmission issues, currently power from neighboring states is supplied to Los Angeles. Long distance transmission is not a pipe dream or fantasy, it's a reality on the ground. The problems of the eastern grid are real - the South is not nearly as good for solar as the desert west, though much better than the northeast. All the same, the south is much better off than Germany and probably could support itself and export power to the northeast. Costal wind and inland wind from the midwest could also cover eastern needs. Also, you don't have to put solar on farms - you can put it on ROOFS. Every single house, every single building can produce power with solar. You can put solar over parking lots.


I did mean further transmission than just bordering states (I live in the NE).  I seriously agree with you that the desert west and the south should make the most of solar.  It just will not work similarly in the northern half and specifically the north east.  But about wind, it reeeeaallly doesn't make that much power.  And for the love of god don't assume I'm a farking idiot about where solar panels can go.  I was just saying "solar farms" as a term for where they mass collect the sun.  Arizona is sunny 300 days a year, PA not so much.  You can't do that out here.  You need a dependable energy supply.  Wind and solar can't meet peak needs, and won't be able to store for the long nights or shiatty weather.

adamatari: unless you consider the 2008 crash and subsequent reduction in oil use a start


aw hell nah.  It's still drill baby drill no matter the administration.  Once wallets fatten up and population increases that line will go right back up.

Anyways, the bulk of my argument is feasibility.  It is not feasible at this time to dedicate our resources to make ourselves 100% renewable energy dependent.  I really do believe that in the meantime we need to slowly increase the amount of plants and extent of the NRC to achieve future demand and ween ourselves off fossil fuels  I'm an optimist, but realists can see that the green movement is wasting its breath saying we can make it 100% green right now.

You should look up the transparent pv panels.  I would put that on every building if it actually worked.
 
2013-02-14 01:43:48 AM

thecpt: TopoGigo: Biofuels are not stupid. We just choose to do them in the stupidest way possible.

I one hundred percent agree.  I used the term for those who want to grow algae for direct fuel (which is what I thought the term meant now).  I'll have to read about that GM thing.


I haven't checked it out in a while, so I don't know the latest on GM algae. To my knowledge, nobody was talking about just burning algae. (Some people talked about straight burning other biomass. It's not a terrible idea if we can keep congressional pork out of it, but there just aren't many plants that would qualify to meet our needs. Hemp is probably one, since it doesn't need arable land to grow, and is very heavy in oil.) Last I heard, they had done a successful proof-of-concept in which a small tank of algae converted sunlight and a minor amount of nutrients in their water into jet fuel. They were able to siphon this jet fuel and burn it. That's been a year or so. The real bonus here is that they can pick the octane they want, and we already have the distribution infrastructure and the vehicles already run on gasoline. It likely won't help much for power production, but it sure would cut out the volatility of gas prices.

I agree with everything you listed to, especially in the mantra of reduce, reuse, recycle.  But about human waste,  the little bit of studying I've done for certification has indicated that black water (or material) is useless and needs to be treated as a biological hazard.  Grey water can be reused in buildings, but the moment it involves human waste nothing positive can be done with it.  There can't possibly be a sanitary way to collect human waste for methane production.

Well, we already collect human waste. We do a whole lot of things to it before it goes back into the water. One of those things is that we let it decompose. That decomposition produces methane. It seems to me that it would just be one more step in the purification process. I mean, I don't know for sure that it would produce enough methane to make it worth the extra cost of doing it, but it doesn't seem impossible. Hell, dairy farms already produce power directly from cow manure.
 
2013-02-14 11:30:50 AM
questionabletopic.files.wordpress.com
 
Displayed 130 of 130 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report