Merged nuclear power safe?

[shadron]

It's not my video. I wonder why you'd need to personalize the issue.

I'll ask my question again as you haven't answered it. Does anyone know of any research into the fate of the tens of thousands of "bio-robots"/"liquidators" sent in to try and clean up the horrific disaster? Does anyone care?

No, it wasn't your video. You only brought it here and added it to the thread.

What is a bio-robot, Jane? Was I a bio-robot for going to work every working day for 35 years? Is it a person just following orders in a semi-feudal society? Is it someone who apparently was apprised of some of the risks (as they were known) and then thrown into the fray for 120 seconds per day with thousands of others? You know, the SU was up against a rock and a hard place; the work had to be done. Had it been truly callous about it it could have worked those people for eight hours straight, then buried them the next day and gotten the next several thousand in. I don't suppose "bio-robot" was your term, either, hence the scare-quotes - you just used it here.

As it happens, yes, they have been followed, as well as they could be identified. They were given privileges by the Soviets for their help; whether we or they would gauge them sufficient for what they endured, I don't really know. I do know that the newly formed Ukraine government tried to kill those benefits, but relented under pressure from their own electorate. How well are the benefits administered? I don't know, but the fact that they exist at all indicates some amount of interest in those people's well-being.

I also know that the Chernobyl Forum has monitored a sampling of them for unusual diseases, and has not been able to detect any bump in the expected statistics for hard cancers or child defects.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/health_impacts.html
Chernobyl Disaster^WP

 

[Cuddles]

A bequerel is a single nucleus decay per second. As a measurement it is indescribably tiny; the Hiroshima bomb is estimated to have released 8x10^24 Bq of radiation. The more useful quantity of radiation rate is the Curie, which is 3.7x10^10 Bq.

Yeah, but if we use Bq then we can have lots of big, scary numbers for people to worry about. If we use Curie, we'll have to start saying nano and pico a lot and people will hardly panic at all.

 

[Aepervius]

Which post?

You could have tried post 2330, which you avoided. The one about the critical mass of a 2% mixture of fuel, further diltued in corium. Or the discussion how an hiroshima like atom explosion could never taken out europe , not even a tiny bit of it. Like it did not kill Japan.

In other word how "the batlle of chernobyl" was bunk.


But I get the feeling you are not exactly here to discuss numbers.

 

[technoextreme]

Well .. Germany will be one big experiment. Can nation wide grid be run mostly from wind and sun ? We'll see soon.

Remember how people like Jihad Jane and DC scoffed at the idea of a variable loading causing huge problems for power generation. Its happening all ready in the United States. We are actually having to temporaily shut down power plants because of the variable loading and there really is nothing we can do about it.

 

[DC]

Remember how people like Jihad Jane and DC scoffed at the idea of a variable loading causing huge problems for power generation. Its happening all ready in the United States. We are actually having to temporaily shut down power plants because of the variable loading and there really is nothing we can do about it.

pls? surce?
we have that problem already here in switzerland, also often do to italy having to buy electricity from all over Europe and it comes true our net to them.

but this is however not saying that it will not be possible to have renewable only in a smart net.

 

[DC]

how often will we have accidents once the majority of electricity is produced by Nuclear?
my country does not have to much space so we can have several areas not populated anymore do to radioactivity.

 

[Ziggurat]

how often will we have accidents once the majority of electricity is produced by Nuclear?

Obviously you should switch to coal. Coal power plants are very safe and reliable.

 

[technoextreme]

pls? surce?
we have that problem already here in switzerland, also often do to italy having to buy electricity from all over Europe and it comes true our net to them.

but this is however not saying that it will not be possible to have renewable only in a smart net.

Yes because buying power is not the same as having so much power that you would blow up the grid into a million little pieces. I'm talking about a power surplus on the level of not being able to do anything with it.

http://www.rdmag.com/News/2011/05/Policy-Industry-Energy-Grid-Northwest-power-surplus-may-halt-wind-energy/

 

[DC]

Yes because buying power is not the same as having so much power that you would blow up the grid into a million little pieces. I'm talking about a power surplus on the level of not being able to do anything with it.

http://www.rdmag.com/News/2011/05/Policy-Industry-Energy-Grid-Northwest-power-surplus-may-halt-wind-energy/

this also is already a little problem, but we have alot water dams that can pump up water to use and store the energy. But it still is not enough,

additonally to that problem we have the italians sucking energy via our net.

but we are already working on solutions.

those problems can be handled, also germany has alreadyy intersting solutions , like those smart grids they set up for tests.

the problem can be solved.

 

[DC]

Obviously you should switch to coal. Coal power plants are very safe and reliable.

what a dumb and idiotic answer.
we don't have a single coal plant. we are not so stupid as the rest of you guys that use coal power.

come back once you have such a clean energy bundle like we have, ok?

 

[Eddie Dane]

The swiss are following the Germans and want to replace nuke power with "renewable energy".

The Federal Council wants to give up new nuclear power plant and into renewable energy. The exact implementation of the plans, however, is still open - as well as the political outcome of the nuclear debate.

Link In German.

Nice going there, Europe.
Asia is going to kick our butt in every way the next 200 years.

 

[Ziggurat]

what a dumb and idiotic answer.

Um... that was sarcasm on my part. That should have been obvious. So should the fact that "dumb and idiotic" is redundant.

we don't have a single coal plant. we are not so stupid as the rest of you guys that use coal power.

Indeed, you don't. You have nuclear instead. That was rather my point: you can afford to avoid coal precisely because you use lots of nuclear. I consider that a good thing.

come back once you have such a clean energy bundle like we have, ok?

You've got about 53% hydroelectric and 42% nuclear (source). Hydroelectricity cannot be adopted in many places, so outside of that, your claim to having a "clean energy bundle" rests mostly on the fact that nuclear constitutes the vast majority of electricity production beyond hydro. The irony of bragging about your lack of coal plus your opposition to extensive use of nuclear has evidently escaped you.

 

[Cuddles]

The swiss are following the Germans and want to replace nuke power with "renewable energy".

To be fair, they already get the majority of their power from renewables - Switzerland is very well off for hydroelectric, and probably has a lot of scope for wind power if they want to go that way.

Also, they're very much not following the Germans. Firstly, they're not turning off any power plants, just (maybe) deciding not to build new ones. And secondly, Switzerland has been strangely anti-nuclear (strange considering how much of their power they get from nuclear) for quite a while, and have voted to ban new nuclear plants in the past, as well as having other very close votes on the matter.

No doubt Fukishima will come up a lot in the debates now, but this is actually an issue they've been having for decades.

 

[DC]

Um... that was sarcasm on my part. That should have been obvious. So should the fact that "dumb and idiotic" is redundant.



Indeed, you don't. You have nuclear instead. That was rather my point: you can afford to avoid coal precisely because you use lots of nuclear. I consider that a good thing.



You've got about 53% hydroelectric and 42% nuclear (source). Hydroelectricity cannot be adopted in many places, so outside of that, your claim to having a "clean energy bundle" rests mostly on the fact that nuclear constitutes the vast majority of electricity production beyond hydro. The irony of bragging about your lack of coal plus your opposition to extensive use of nuclear has evidently escaped you.

i like our nuclear plants. i am pro nuclear power. but i dont see Nuclear power as the final solution, and especially for a small country like mine, there is a problem, when we have accidents in such nuclear power plants, we dont have to much space to have large areas where nobody is allowed to be living because of contamination.
this is a problem.

Yes our energy bundle is so clean because we use alot nuclear power. But we are still working on making that bundle even cleaner with more renewable sources.

you call it now sarcasm, but it is clear by now that the coal power red herring is not sarcasm but a red herring.

 

[DC]

The swiss are following the Germans and want to replace nuke power with "renewable energy".




Link In German.

Nice going there, Europe.
Asia is going to kick our butt in every way the next 200 years.

no we don't, the government want to not replace old nuclear plants with new ones. but they will not turn off plants immediately, while we actually should turn off our oldest one immediately.
also this is atm merely an idea of our Bundesrat, next year they will present it to parliament, and maybe then decisions will be made.
the timeframe seems also to be somewhat realistic to come up with alternatives to nuclear plants.

BTW: im not a big fan of the decision, but it might be what people want atm. But as the Government is the initiator, i am pretty convident that the thought out timeline will not be kept and when we do not have a proper replacement for Nukes we will most propably not turn them off, or even build a new one. But if we do it correctly, it could mean a good financial push for the alternatives. I wish they would have made it a long time timetable and not a medium timetable.

 

[Cuddles]

when we have accidents in such nuclear power plants, we dont have to much space to have large areas where nobody is allowed to be living because of contamination.
this is a problem.

Is it really? Let's see. Number of civilian nuclear accidents requiring large evacuation zones - 2. Number of those that would have been prevented by the designs any new plants would be - 2. Number that have occurred in Switzerland even without the newer designs - 0.

Doesn't seem like that much of a problem to me. Hell, you don't even need to be so specific about the accidents - Switzerland has had a grand total of one nuclear accident, in an experimental reactor in the 60s. It's not prone to earthquakes, and if a tsunami reaches Switzerland the effect on nuclear power stations really will be the least of everyone's problems. The possibility of a massive accident causing widespread contamination just isn't an important concern compared to things like cost, waste, supply stability, and so on.

There are, of course, genuine points to be made for and against nuclear power. But this is exactly the kind of baseless fearmongering that makes it impossible for there to be any sensible debate on the matter.

 

[DC]

Is it really? Let's see. Number of civilian nuclear accidents requiring large evacuation zones - 2. Number of those that would have been prevented by the designs any new plants would be - 2. Number that have occurred in Switzerland even without the newer designs - 0.

Doesn't seem like that much of a problem to me. Hell, you don't even need to be so specific about the accidents - Switzerland has had a grand total of one nuclear accident, in an experimental reactor in the 60s. It's not prone to earthquakes, and if a tsunami reaches Switzerland the effect on nuclear power stations really will be the least of everyone's problems. The possibility of a massive accident causing widespread contamination just isn't an important concern compared to things like cost, waste, supply stability, and so on.

There are, of course, genuine points to be made for and against nuclear power. But this is exactly the kind of baseless fearmongering that makes it impossible for there to be any sensible debate on the matter.

the typical downplaying of real dangers.....

some people just like to make it look more save than it is in reality, just like alot like to let it look as if it is much more dangerous than it is.

the more Nuclear power we use, the more the chanve of accidents will rise.
even if we did not have a huge accident yet, the chance is there, and this risk must be taken by the population, and it looks as if they are not willing to.

yes tsunamis are unlike here, but we have for example the beznau plant that is very very close to a water damm. in an earthquake, and yes we also do get earthquakes here, there is a chance the damm breaks and will flood the plant, and we will have the same situation as in Japan. When i am not misstaken Beznau is a similar model to the Fukushima reactors.

and your listing of our accidents goes on to the level of 9/11 CT's claiming a CD because never before did a steel frame gigh rise collapse do to fire.
Just because we didnt have huge Nuclear accidnets in our plants, does not mean there will never be any, or that its impossible.
there remains a risk. and this risl is pretty large, because it can mean a large area will be contaminated and not usable for living or farming.
and as i already pointed out. we dont have to much unneeded space avaible.
and people seem not ready to take that risk.

And its not like Nuclear is the only technology, i think it will be possible, or we will make it possible to replace nuclear plants in future with saver technologies that will be able to provide base loads.

ans yes "the possibility of a massive accident causing widespread contamination" is "an important concern compared to things like cost, waste, supply stability, and so on." for the people, and here it is the people making the decision.

 

[Ziggurat]

yes tsunamis are unlike here, but we have for example the beznau plant that is very very close to a water damm. in an earthquake, and yes we also do get earthquakes here, there is a chance the damm breaks and will flood the plant, and we will have the same situation as in Japan.

What else would the dam flood? How many people would that kill directly?

And isn't the fact that a dam could fail in an earthquake a rather strong argument against hydroelectricity, which makes up over half your electric power generation and almost all your non-nuclear capacity? You're apparently quite willing to run that risk. What makes nuclear any worse? Nothing, as far as I can tell, and even as far as you have said.

You continue to fail to make ANY case that the risk of using nuclear power is disproportionate to its benefits.

And its not like Nuclear is the only technology, i think it will be possible, or we will make it possible to replace nuclear plants in future with saver technologies that will be able to provide base loads.

In the distant future, perhaps. In the near future, not a chance in hell.

Unless you want to use coal or other carbon-based fuels.

 

[DC]

What else would the dam flood? How many people would that kill directly?

And isn't the fact that a dam could fail in an earthquake a rather strong argument against hydroelectricity, which makes up over half your electric power generation and almost all your non-nuclear capacity? You're apparently quite willing to run that risk. What makes nuclear any worse? Nothing, as far as I can tell, and even as far as you have said.

You continue to fail to make ANY case that the risk of using nuclear power is disproportionate to its benefits.



In the distant future, perhaps. In the near future, not a chance in hell.

Unless you want to use coal or other carbon-based fuels.

a damm flood would still leave the area able to be rebuild, we would not lose a large area for a very long time if there were no nuclear plants.

and surely Nuclear plants cannot be replaced overnight. medium to long term yes, that is why it is not a short term decision.
we are actually aware of that and working on it.

and no coal is not considered an alternative. There is even big outrage when our electrical companies invest in coal plants in other countries.

and yes every technology has its dangers, but nuclear is the only one able to leave behind a contaminated area not able to be living on or planting food on after a accident. The less space you have, the more this problem wighs for you.

 

[Ziggurat]

a damm flood would still leave the area able to be rebuild, we would not lose a large area for a very long time if there were no nuclear plants.

And all the dead people? Apparently, **** 'em.

and surely Nuclear plants cannot be replaced overnight.

And they can't be replaced at all unless you have something to replace them with. And right now, realistically speaking, you have NOTHING to replace them with except fossil fuels. All you have is hopes that one day you'll have something else. Perhaps that day will come. But it isn't here. And it isn't about to be here either.