World’s largest solar power plant planned for Chernobyl nuclear wasteland
112 replies, posted
[QUOTE]The Ukrainian nuclear power station Chernobyl had a nuclear meltdown on April 26, 1986. Since then 1,600 square miles of land has been deemed an ‘exclusion zone’ as the radiation levels are too high for human health. But in a recent interview, Ukraine’s ecology minister said the government was negotiating with two US investment firms and four Canadian energy companies, which have expressed interest in the Chernobyl’s solar potential.
...
[QUOTE]The Chernobyl site has really good potential for renewable energy,” Ukraine’s environment minister Ostap Semerak, 44, said at an interview in London. “We already have high-voltage transmission lines that were previously used for the nuclear stations, the land is very cheap and we have many people trained to work at power plants. We have normal European priorities, which means having the best standards with the environment and clean energy ambitions,[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://electrek.co/2016/07/29/worlds-largest-solar-power-plant-planned-for-chernobyl-nuclear-wasteland/"]Source[/URL]
Solar is pretty cool.
Much better and safer than nuclear, I've heard.
completely safe. Great supplementary power generation
[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;50796813]Solar is pretty cool.
Much better and safer than nuclear, I've heard.[/QUOTE]
Nuclear doesn't have any significant safety issues. But may as well make use of the land with relatively maintenance free power generation if nothing else is going to use it.
[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;50796813]Solar is pretty cool.
Much better and safer than nuclear, I've heard.[/QUOTE]
Well "better" as in it's cleaner, and maybe cheaper than nuclear, but it's worse in every other way. Now if cleaner energy is all you want then yes Solar and Wind energy is the way to go. Problem is the massive amounts of land and solar panels/windmills you need to produce enough energy to be useful and productive.
[t]https://electrek.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/364ad70210851260e61def47be028663.jpg?quality=82&strip=all&strip=all[/t]
Relevant
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Image macro" - Craptasket))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;50796813]Solar is pretty cool.
Much better and safer than nuclear, I've heard.[/QUOTE]
Aren't the byproducts of solar panels awful for the environment?
Also according to sources on Google, the deaths per kilowatt/hr produced by nuclear are like, 0.04 and 0.44 for rooftop solar panels
[QUOTE=wystan;50796837]Well "better" as in it's cleaner, and maybe cheaper than nuclear, but it's worse in every other way. Now if cleaner energy is all you want then yes Solar and Wind energy is the way to go. Problem is the massive amounts of land and solar panels/windmills you need to produce enough energy to be useful and productive.[/QUOTE]
im all for nuclear, but the glaring point you're missing is the waste from it will take 10,000 years to dissipate to safe levels. if a windmill/solar panel is taken down, there's no nearly permanent waste left over.
Windmills and Solar panels will never be able to supply the amount of power needed if used to replace fossil fuels.
But with land deemed barren due to radiation or other kind of long term inhospitality to living life, well might as well set up a few giant windmills and some solar arrays.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;50796859]im all for nuclear, but the glaring point you're missing is the waste from it will take 10,000 years to dissipate to safe levels. if a windmill/solar panel is taken down, there's no nearly permanent waste left over.[/QUOTE]
Also, aren't the new reactors capable of using uranium really efficiently?
Like, to the point where we wouldn't even have to mine any more for a long time
Not that I'm blindly defending nuclear or even very educated on it, but I'm pretty sure the famous "haha oh boy here we go again" post said something along those lines
[QUOTE=codemaster85;50796859]im all for nuclear, but the glaring point you're missing is the waste from it will take 10,000 years to dissipate to safe levels. if a windmill/solar panel is taken down, there's no nearly permanent waste left over.[/QUOTE]
The amount of energy and resources required to produce windmills and solar panels tho'.
The name of the game is efficiency, and nuclear got that on lockdown even with spent fuel, as long as we're talking some of the newest reactor designs and not the old shit currently active.
So this would have 1/4 of the power output of the old nuclear plant. Still, pretty cool.
6 months seems like a fairly unreasonable timeline for a project this large though. But maybe the intention is to be there for as little time as possible due to the radiation.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;50796859]im all for nuclear, but the glaring point you're missing is the waste from it will take 10,000 years to dissipate to safe levels. if a windmill/solar panel is taken down, there's no nearly permanent waste left over.[/QUOTE]
Yea I glossed over just exactly how cleaner solar and wind is. I think nuclear is rad as hell (heh), but the general populace aren't comfortable with it yet it seems.
[QUOTE=Kylel999;50796866]Also, aren't the new reactors capable of using uranium really efficiently?
Like, to the point where we wouldn't even have to mine any more for a long time
Not that I'm blindly defending nuclear or even very educated on it, but I'm pretty sure the famous "haha oh boy here we go again" post said something along those lines[/QUOTE]
I love that post, does anyone have a link to it?
[QUOTE=Matt2468rv;50796847][t]https://electrek.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/364ad70210851260e61def47be028663.jpg?quality=82&strip=all&strip=all[/t]
Relevant[/QUOTE]
and a massove wind spill is a breezy day
[QUOTE=Morgen;50796833]Nuclear doesn't have any significant safety issues. But may as well make use of the land with relatively maintenance free power generation if nothing else is going to use it.[/QUOTE]
uh...
As safe as properly designed and maintained new nuclear power plants are, I kinda feel uncomfortable summarizing as "Nuclear doesn't have any significant safety issues".
[QUOTE=Kylel999;50796851]Aren't the byproducts of solar panels awful for the environment?
Also according to sources on Google, the deaths per kilowatt/hr produced by nuclear are like, 0.04 and 0.44 for rooftop solar panels[/QUOTE]
depends where theyre made, the cheap chinese junk they dump the caustic solvents in the local river but other more sustainable plants recycle the solvents and dont dump any
[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;50796813]Solar is pretty cool.
Much better and safer than nuclear, I've heard.[/QUOTE]
Ah yes, one fuck up (two if you count japan) because people fucked up, or made a poor decision to put backup generators that would have prevented the meltdown in an area that was flooded by the tsunami in 2011 clearly means solar is better.
[QUOTE=Barcock;50796917]uh...
As safe as properly designed and maintained new nuclear power plants are, I kinda feel uncomfortable summarizing as "Nuclear doesn't have any significant safety issues".[/QUOTE]
Well, yeah, they dont, not normally.
I mean, its only really been Chernobyl and Fukushima that anythings happened, right? And these plants have existed for decades.
I get what you mean but the likelihood of anything like that happening is really low. Chernobyl only happened because cheap ass cold war soviet shit and Fukushima because of the tsunami, if im not mistaken.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;50796859]im all for nuclear, but the glaring point you're missing is the waste from it will take 10,000 years to dissipate to safe levels. if a windmill/solar panel is taken down, there's no nearly permanent waste left over.[/QUOTE]
That's why France already reprocesses the fuel so it wont be radioactive for 10,000+ years, and 4th gen reactors will be able to operate with a much higher efficiency than current reactors. Also nuclear waste is stored on site inside concrete/lead lined containers, so no worry about leakage.
To be fair, it's not like the zone is going to be used for anything else anytime soon. Might as well
[QUOTE=Sableye;50796913]and a massove wind spill is a breezy day[/QUOTE]
or a hurricane
[QUOTE=MissZoey;50796909]I love that post, does anyone have a link to it?[/QUOTE]
[url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1336387&p=43252922&viewfull=1#post43252922[/url]
[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;50796813]Solar is pretty cool.
Much better and safer than nuclear, I've heard.[/QUOTE]
[quote]In terms of death per kWh generated, nuclear energy is literally the safest source of power (yes, even safer than solar and wind - keep in mind we are talking in relation to the energy produced, and solar/wind produce very little energy in comparison). In fact, here's the numbers:
- Coal: >1000x more dangerous
- Natural gas: 44x more dangerous
- Solar: 5x more dangerous
- Wind: 2x more dangerous (mostly from maintenance workers falling off turbines)[/quote]
[QUOTE=Barcock;50796917]uh...
As safe as properly designed and maintained new nuclear power plants are, I kinda feel uncomfortable summarizing as "Nuclear doesn't have any significant safety issues".[/QUOTE]
A properly maintained power plant won't have any issues. Chernobyl happened because A. the reactor was designed by a bridge engineer, B. the operators were conducting a dangerous safety experiment, and C. they fucked up.
Fukushima happened because the dumbasses that ran the plant decided to put the backup generators in the basement. Of course, the basement flooded with the tsunami and they didn't work anymore, meaning the cooling pumps weren't working. Also it was an extremely old plant and a lot of the safety features a newer plant would have weren't in place because the owners of the plant were waiting on the license to expire and the plant to close rather than spending a shitload on renovations.
A good example of how safe reactors are, is the Three Mile Island accident. The reactor was irreparably damaged, yes. But there was very, very little, if any radiation released. It was handled appropriately and all safety measures to prevent leaks were in place and functioning.
The worst accident in US history was actually at the SL-1 experimental reactor in 1961 in Idaho. It actually exploded just like Chernobyl's reactor did, and killed 3 people. The army came in, examined the situation, collected the dead, and demolished the building. The reactor and the building were buried in the desert, and no real contamination happened. This was before even automated reactors were a thing, the explosion happened because someone physically yanked a control rod out and caused a steam explosion. There was no mass panic like after TMI, although China Syndrome came out right before TMI happened and people lost their shit. People irrationally fear nuclear power because of the impeccable timing of the TMI accident and the release of The China Syndrome, and media fearmongering.
[editline]29th July 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;50796981]That's why France already reprocesses the fuel so it wont be radioactive for 10,000+ years, and 4th gen reactors will be able to operate with a much higher efficiency than current reactors. Also nuclear waste is stored on site inside concrete/lead lined containers, so no worry about leakage.[/QUOTE]
Plus the containers are so damn durable that not even a direct hit from a 747 could crack one open (simulated, not for real). They built those fuckers to be so damn durable that they could probably be dropped from space and survive.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;50796859]im all for nuclear, but the glaring point you're missing is the waste from it will take 10,000 years to dissipate to safe levels. if a windmill/solar panel is taken down, there's no nearly permanent waste left over.[/QUOTE]
Thats only for the older reactors. A good portion of the waste products we have from older reactors could theoretically be used as fuel for newer reactors.
You guys seem to be playing up the supposed environmental impact of nuclear power while failing to realize that solar panels don't magically appear out of thin air. Solar panels are horrible for the environment due to the way they are produced. They're also reliant on the weather which means if you want maximum output (solar is pretty inefficient anyways) you'd have to put it somewhere that gets very little clouds. They also produce next to nothing at night time.
[QUOTE=zombini;50797025]
A good example of how safe reactors are, is the Three Mile Island accident. The reactor was irreparably damaged, yes. But there was very, very little, if any radiation released. It was handled appropriately and all safety measures to prevent leaks were in place and functioning.
[/QUOTE]
iirc there was some radiation that leaked, not much, and it was blown to the east and settled pretty much only in the area around where i grew up. :v:
I don't see why you can't have both, nuclear, wind and solar are way better than coal.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;50797045]iirc there was some radiation that leaked, not much, and it was blown to the east and settled pretty much only in the area around where i grew up. :v:[/QUOTE]
That was almost entirely radioactive isotopes of xenon and krypton that leaked into the coolant. Ultimately, the amount of radiation exposure that was calculated for the people exposed to it was less than that of getting an x-ray taken, per person. It was still a very tiny amount. Plus radioactive xenon and krypton have short half-lives and don't incorporate themselves into bone or anything, so I think cancer rates weren't affected at all.
People like to point out three mile island without realizing that you'd probably get more radiation from eating a banana or going on a long distance flight then by being in proximity to the power plant when it leaked.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;50797044]Thats only for the older reactors. A good portion of the waste products we have from older reactors could theoretically be used as fuel for newer reactors.
You guys seem to be playing up the supposed environmental impact of nuclear power while failing to realize that solar panels don't magically appear out of thin air. Solar panels are horrible for the environment due to the way they are produced. They're also reliant on the weather which means if you want maximum output (solar is pretty inefficient anyways) you'd have to put it somewhere that gets very little clouds. They also produce next to nothing at night time.[/QUOTE]
you're not getting the article, Chernobyl is a wasteland with barely anyone in the general area. Its great to build these solar panels that require little to no interaction afterwards and have them collect energy while taking up land that can't be used for humans anyway.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.