[QUOTE=AtomicSans;42221971]Goddamn, when did you become so dense?[/QUOTE]
When people jumped on the Thorium bandwagon. I don't even remember anyone talking about it five years ago.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;42210721]Yet they did make the public swallow that bill 30-50 years ago? I'd rather pay a little more and get clean, safe energy instead of using coal or gas. Denmark should have a nuclear plant somewhere, wind power isn't a solution on its own.[/QUOTE]
Ha that isn't going to fly here, we can't even convince the public to replace a $50million NFL football stadium built in the 80's.
Its funny because Fukishima happened not because of the earthquake, but because of the tidal wave.
Things were happening just fine until the tidal wave came, and knocked out the (idiotically located, right below the sea wall) backup generators for the powerplant.
If the tidal-wave wall surrounding the powerplant was just slightly higher, or the backup generators were located on high ground, Fukishima would have never happened and things would be running as planned.
[QUOTE=MIPS;42220212]So in 50 years nobody has considered a full-scale operation even though it outweighs nuclear in every possible way? Besides "The idea has just not been commercialized", is there anything other reason why it still has not took off? Biased science? High cost? Advocates that are full of themselves?[/QUOTE]
Sadly it was because of the Cold War, the "Can't Make Bombs BS", and idiotic politicians. The usual shit...
[QUOTE=GiGaBiTe;42208974]You act like decommissioning an old nuclear power plant is some easy task and that building a new one is pennies on the dollar.
In reality doing both things costs billions of dollars, a bill that nobody in their right mind wants to try and force the public to eat. It costs far less to keep a 30-50 year old derelict nuclear power plant running until something bad happens and then shutter it.
I'm glad japan finally got some sense in turning those banes of humanity off, too bad it isn't indefinitely.[/QUOTE]
it's quite easy task if you have the technological and industrial level ...
we have quite some reactors several in country ... including before CSFR split some going obsolete
anyway the point is simple, if you projected reactors and plants with lifetime 30 years
then Fukushima was supposed to get major upgrade / improvements in 2011
before getting another one or two 10 years extensions
yet, it got extensions w/o that happening and that's what i got in mind
our own nuclear plants received massive modernizing and now
theirs lifetime was classified as up to 50-60 years possible w/o replacement of whole reactor units
the thing is, Dukovany were built in 1985 [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dukovany_Nuclear_Power_Station[/URL]
with way better reactor [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressurised_water_reactor[/URL]
which reactor lifetime is approx 35 then it needs major modernizing to last another 30 years ...
than every block which were Fukushima [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_Water_Reactor[/URL]
the safety difference is also massive ...
(i would say if Fukushima was PWR instead BWR then the issue would not happen)
anyway while we 'complain' about our neighborhood Austria and Germany pressing us into constant checks and modernizing, it pays out our nuclear plants are constantly under watch, improved on bi-yearly basis ...
ofcourse security and modernization wise, it's again a lot behind Temelin nuclear plant
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temelín_Nuclear_Power_Station[/URL]
that one is one of first successful merges of east and west nuclear technologies
from what we learned in the last 50+ years we run nuclear reactors and plants ...
it's cheapest and most secure energy source
which can deliver 100 to 1000 MegaWatts of energy 360 days in year
(5 days downtime for routine check) 24 hours a day at any situation (except earthquake)
i'm simply sad as anyone who understand nuclear energy about what happened at Fukushima
because it thrown the industry back (adoption of new reactors especially)
in fact these days exists working prototypes of low yield reactors they technically no threat to environment
but in moment You mention 'nuclear' or 'radioactivity' the green party is going to burn you alive ;)
but on other hand, ALL bad may be good for something, after Chernobyl massive improvements happened in nuclear security ...
Fukushima will drive even more tightening ...
maybe finally speeds up 'removal' of really obsolete reactors and replacement with more safer types
after all, we need energy, electricity is the most crucial part of our economies ...
we need it cheap ... coal, gas isn't endless nor cheap ....
we need it stable ... wind, solar energy isn't 24/7 nor cheap (manufacture and mainteance cost)
we need LOT of it ... eco sources barely reach 10-100 MW ... nuclear plant can reach easily 1000s MW
no i'm not against eco friendly sources , but with common sense and cold blood logic
as backup, as addition when possible or really innovative ...
ofcourse i look with hope on Thorium based reactors, on even newer nuclear reactor generation
on the dreamed fusion and so on :)
but the key is, that we can these days build really VERY secure reactors, if we not cheat the security
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.