World’s largest solar power plant planned for Chernobyl nuclear wasteland
112 replies, posted
[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]
Properly designed and maintained plants really doesn't have any major safety issues short of sabotage or whatever. The only issue I would say Nuclear has is big companies cutting corners like with Fukushima.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;50797087]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.[/QUOTE]
You didn't talk about that anywhere in your post?
[QUOTE=Kyle902;50797129]You didn't talk about that anywhere in your post?[/QUOTE]
the second half you said solar is less useful because it pulls in less energy, thats true but this land cannot be inhabited anyway, so might as well put a clean and self reliant energy source there instead.
[QUOTE=zombini;50797067]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.[/QUOTE]
Does that mean i could call myself a Kryptonian.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;50797167]the second half you said solar is less useful because it pulls in less energy, thats true but this land cannot be inhabited anyway, so might as well put a clean and self reliant energy source there instead.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough
[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;50796813]Solar is pretty cool.
Much better and safer than nuclear, I've heard.[/QUOTE]
I came here to destroy this comment and everyone else has done it for me.
I'm glad so much of FP knows the realities of nuclear energy, it gives me hope.
To be fair the only real thing that made Chernobyl unsafe was the Soviet government.
[QUOTE=jonjon1234;50797015][url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1336387&p=43252922&viewfull=1#post43252922[/url][/QUOTE]
Making the windmills is shit though.
I love nuclear as much as the next guy but as long as it's such a political pariah, we might as well work on solar and wind. We also need to exploit our offshore wind resources. I've once heard we could meet the needs of the US on offshore wind alone on the east coast . It's deep sea floating platforms too, so you can't see it from land for the NIMBYs.
[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;50796813]Solar is pretty cool.
Much better and safer than nuclear, I've heard.[/QUOTE]
No, i know this is probably bait, but nuclear is a multitude safer then solar.
[editline]29th July 2016[/editline]
[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]
I feel the same about spiders
Isn't the Chernobyl area usually really cloudy though?
[QUOTE=zombini;50797025]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]
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]
Ive seen videos of them welding one to the front of a fully loaded train and driving it at max speed into a solid block of concrete
the concrete didn't budge, the train was scrap metal, the box looked broken at first but on closer inspection was just scratched and dented to hell on the outside, perfectly pristine on the inside.
Nuclear is pretty much mandatory for future, stupidly safe compared to fossil-derived energy generation ( when you consider the effects of pollution to people and climate ), but slacking in solar/wind would be very unwise. There has been leaps and bounds lately, and in many areas the solar has reached grid parity. Biggest problem would be areas near polar circle especially - although summer days are long, winter nights are long when the consumption is at its highest.
The unreliance can be addressed to extend with some methods - molten salt, electricity-to-gas or just mechanical batteries.
Geez nuclear wasteland seems a bit of a stretch, its not exactly a wasteland over there more like a bigass forest.
Also as far as chernobyl goes an accident was bound to happen with such a shitstorm of bad practices. Basically it was a dangerous reactor design, built improperly, and manned by staff who did not know how to operate such a reactor in a safe manner.
Also when I say dangerous im not implying that the RBMK-1000 series are inherently dangerous, just that they are harder to operate than modern reactor designs.
[QUOTE=mecaguy03;50797941]Geez nuclear wasteland seems a bit of a stretch, its not exactly a wasteland over there more like a bigass forest.
Also as far as chernobyl goes an accident was bound to happen with such a shitstorm of bad practices. Basically it was a dangerous reactor design, built improperly, and manned by staff who did not know how to operate such a reactor in a safe manner.
Also when I say dangerous im not implying that the RBMK-1000 series are inherently dangerous, just that hey are harder to operate than modern reactor designs.[/QUOTE]
And the fact that the reactor at Chernobyl was not 'really' a rbmk-1000, it was a refurbished one brought to the same specs and controls but it had very dangerous inconsistencies in behaviour...
bad practises all around basically.
And also after the accident happened the authorities were so bad at handling everything that the First Deputy Director of the institute that designed the reactor killed himself two years later.
Why not build another nuclear reactor there... or multiple of them, then cover the surroundings with solar panels...
[QUOTE=nuttyboffin;50798117]Why not build another nuclear reactor there... or multiple of them, then cover the surroundings with solar panels...[/QUOTE]
Nuclear power stations kinda require people. A bit problematic to have a decent amount of people working for decades in a area people are excluded from due to radiation. With solar power you can install it and then just monitor it remotely and occasionally send someone around for minor maintenance every now and again.
Hahaha
wait wait
How is that "Designed by a bridge engineer" thing? For real?
[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]
Mmm. Not really.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2IVTM0N2SE[/media]
Portugal was able to power itself for 4 days with just solar and wind now imagine that with United States level of funding and research.
[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;50798273]Hahaha
wait wait
How is that "Designed by a bridge engineer" thing? For real?[/QUOTE]
The reactor vat was a previous design that never got to completion, but was re purposed for the Chernobyl plant, to do that they brought in an infrastructure company that specialised in bridge repair work and a bridge engineer designed most of the plan to bring the old design up to spec to a rbmk-1000 reactor, the russian standard.
This is one, but not the most important reason the safety features did not work as expected during the accident. this information is only known since the fall of the soviet union.
[editline]30th July 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;50798295]Mmm. Not really.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2IVTM0N2SE[/media]
Portugal was able to power itself for 4 days with just solar and wind now imagine that with United States level of funding and research.[/QUOTE]
Portugal has loads of sun everywhere, and not a shitton of people live there tbh... dont want to downplay their efforts but its not comparable to the entire USA
It pains me every time a thread about solar/wind energy turns into a meaningless debate about nuclear vs. x/y/z energy. They can all coexist, you know.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;50798295]Mmm. Not really.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2IVTM0N2SE[/media]
Portugal was able to power itself for 4 days with just solar and wind now imagine that with United States level of funding and research.[/QUOTE]
And one of the benefits of solar is that the technology is rapidly evolving. Safety tests and long term stability testing aren't anywhere near as big a thing as they are in the nuclear field. So if there's a breakthrough that allows a new panel technology to exist, it can be rolled out super fast.
And replacing a solar field is much, much easier than decommissioning a plant, tearing it down and building again. Solar is expected to get even more efficient, if the efficiency increases can match our demand increases, that tiny plot of land needed to power the USA could theoretically barely increase in size.
Though the materials for the panels aren't exactly the cheapest things ever.
[editline]30th July 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50798299]Portugal has loads of sun everywhere, and not a shitton of people live there tbh... dont want to downplay their efforts but its not comparable to the entire USA[/QUOTE]
And I'm sure the predictions from SolarCity, a company that needs to know their targets for the future, will have taken this into account.
I'm a huge proponent of solar power. We should have it on to of every building, over every parking lot, and wherever else we can. I believe in a nuclear+solar+wind only future. We don't need anything else. We should kill coal immediately, phase out oil and natural gas gradually but quickly. Though I'm in favor of keeping a minimal amount of oil and natural gas extraction and reserves for national security reasons and petroleum products we cant readily or efficiently reproduce without oil.
[QUOTE=OvB;50798381]I'm a huge proponent of solar power. We should have it on to of every building, over every parking lot, and wherever else we can. I believe in a nuclear+solar+wind only future. We don't need anything else. We should kill coal immediately, phase out oil and natural gas gradually but quickly. Though I'm in favor of keeping a minimal amount of oil and natural gas extraction and reserves for national security reasons and petroleum products we can readily or efficiently reproduce without oil.[/QUOTE]
I agree, but there is a place for hydro or geo or stuff like it.
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50798396]I agree, but there is a place for hydro or geo or stuff like it.[/QUOTE]
Hydro is not environmentally responsible at all so it's use needs to be limited and scrutinized. Three Gorges and Belo Monte will extinguish species and entire habitats as it's nominal function that's typically not seen unless there's a catastrophic oil or nuclear accident. Dams are shit to the environment for multiple reasons.
CO2 cannot be our only environmental concern.
[QUOTE=OvB;50798414]Hydro is not environmentally responsible at all so it's use needs to be limited and scrutinized. Three Gorges and Belo Monte will extinguish species and entire habitats as it's nominal function that's typically not seen unless there's a catastrophic oil or nuclear accident. Dams are shit to the environment for multiple reasons.
CO2 cannot be our only environmental concern.[/QUOTE]
But the dams are already there, isnt the damage already done?
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50798433]But the dams are already there, isnt the damage already done?[/QUOTE]
For existing dams, sure. Especially large ones like Belo Monte and Three Gorges. I don't know but it's probably difficult to undo a dam and replenish hundreds of square miles of ecosystem that you turned into a lake. Existing dams under President OvB would be grandfathered in, but new dams would undergo critical environmental reviews to make sure they're not ruining local ecosystems or migratory fish species.
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50798433]But the dams are already there, isnt the damage already done?[/QUOTE]
I forget where exactly, but I remember reading an article for a project about a dam somewhere in the Pacific Northwest (US) was removed and small animals such as birds and amphibians and even salmon began to return in large numbers within months. All very important indicator species. Life always finds a way.
Can someone cite where all this death per kwh bs is coming from that isn't a journalist and actually has a study? I keep trying to find evidence of any death per kwh study being anything other then whatever variable the person writing it wanted to include.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.