• World’s largest solar power plant planned for Chernobyl nuclear wasteland
    112 replies, posted
What about all the animals living in the area as its pretty much become a preserve and don't they need the acceptance of the other countries that control that region?
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;50798295]Mmm. Not really. 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] Cool, lets take 3 Connecticut size land masses, assume they're all flat and have no wildlife living there, aren't affected by clouds or dust or rain, can store all the extra solar energy for night time use, run transmission lines from the Texas to Main, and assume power demand doesn't fluctuate. Why haven't we done this yet? [editline]29th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=BoopieDoopie2;50799056]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.[/QUOTE] Sure, [URL="https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/129793961052078081/208788508305915905/nea6861-comparing-risks.pdf"]here you go, look at the Frequency Consequence curves on page 36[/URL] [editline]29th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Sleepy Head;50798310]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] They can coexist but each energy source has a place. You don't want to cook your food on a nuclear reactor. You don't want your smoke detector being powered by a solar panel. Nuclear would ideally provide most of the energy for things that have to be kept on 24/7 (factories, hospitals, home refridgerators), and renewables would provide peak energy for extraneous luxury stuff like lighting, AC/Heating, hot water made without electricity, ect. You have a bunch of loons who think that you can plant a million solar panels and wind farms and they work exactly as intended and can give you energy whenever you want because of energy storage. Its a lot simpler to concentrate this energy demand to a single power plant that uses much less land space and simpler logistics for maintenance. Ideally the plant would be nuclear.
Personally I find we should phase out our fossil plants for nuclear but also have every new building constructed to include solar and a wind turbine, that way the main grid is powered by a reliable but cleaner source than currently while buildings also produce their own power which can be utilised by them to reduce the load on the main grid. Also building panels and turbines in the forest area around Chernobyl is smart to be honest, the land isn't safe to be lived on long term so having something that can produce power fairly autonomously with little long term maintenance is a good idea, plus as pointed out, half of the infrastructure is already there from the old plant, its just a case of reviving it. Plus even on overcast days, the more current solar panel designs can still produce power and even the smallest gust of wind can move a turbine, those huge things are lighter than you think and take barely nothing to make them move.
[QUOTE=Morgen;50798253]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.[/QUOTE] It's not like people haven't already been working there, every day: [quote=Wikipedia]After the explosion at Reactor No. 4, the remaining three reactors at the power plant continued to operate. In 1991, Reactor No. 2 caught fire, and was subsequently shut down.[13] In November 1996, Reactor No. 1 was shut down, followed by Reactor No. 3 in 2000. [/quote] Unit 3 which ran till 2000 is here, btw: [img]http://i.imgur.com/ZQ5P2PQ.jpg[/img] And people continue to work there to continue the decommissioning.
[QUOTE=michaeldim;50799439]It's not like people haven't already been working there, every day: Unit 3 which ran till 2000 is here, btw: [img]http://i.imgur.com/ZQ5P2PQ.jpg[/img] And people continue to work there to continue the decommissioning.[/QUOTE] A bit different than deciding to build a brand new station wouldn't you say? Building and operating a new nuclear power station in the UK is said to create 25,000 job opportunities. I'm not sure bringing 25,000 people into an exclusion zone is the best idea? It's not really an exclusion zone at that point then is it?
[QUOTE=Morgen;50799564]A bit different than deciding to build a brand new station wouldn't you say? Building and operating a new nuclear power station in the UK is said to create 25,000 job opportunities. I'm not sure bringing 25,000 people into an exclusion zone is the best idea? It's not really an exclusion zone at that point then is it?[/QUOTE] Most of the possible harm these days is eating any of the vegetation that grows there, due to accumulated radioactive materials like caesium-137. There's still some people living there that didn't want to leave during the original evacuation and they're fine aside from a higher incidence of cancer. There's a good video by thunderf00t (he's kind of a cunt but knows what he's talking about) on the subject.
[QUOTE=zombini;50799846]Most of the possible harm these days is eating any of the vegetation that grows there, due to accumulated radioactive materials like caesium-137. There's still some people living there that didn't want to leave during the original evacuation and they're fine aside from a higher incidence of cancer. There's a good video by thunderf00t (he's kind of a cunt but knows what he's talking about) on the subject.[/QUOTE] Not safe enough for the government to not want to keep people out though.
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50797467]No, i know this is probably bait, but nuclear is a multitude safer then solar. [/QUOTE] While nuclear plants are very safe, they are not any more significantly safer then solar panels. I think you're mixing efficiency with safer.
[QUOTE=CroGamer002;50799899]While nuclear plants are very safe, they are not any more significantly safer then solar panels. I think you're mixing efficiency with safer.[/QUOTE] Define your definition of safety. Deaths? Accidents? Frequency of power failures?
You know solar panels still work with light that makes it through the clouds, it isnt 100% output but its still a pretty good chunk of power. Really the only time solar panels dont work at all is at night. If you have a large enough buffer for solar I dont see much of a reason why it cant work in theory. If you can store the extra energy when its not needed and extract it when it is, such a system paired with solar can make it a viable option for powering entire countries.
I am no expert on Solar so if anyone can tell me more information on this please! When building solar cell's isnt there allot of harmful products in use and allot of waste and greenhouse gass emissions during the process ?
[QUOTE=Evanstr;50800149]I am no expert on Solar so if anyone can tell me more information on this please! When building solar cell's isnt there allot of harmful products in use and allot of waste and greenhouse gass emissions during the process ?[/QUOTE] Not really. Hazardous materials are used but as long as the manufacturers aren't dumping it into the atmosphere and are handling it properly then it shouldn't ever get into the environment. Most of the chemicals used are used by the semi conductor industry in general. Producing crystalline silicon uses a lot of energy as well, and produces silicon tetrachloride but that can be recycled safely. It's only dangerous if the manufacturers aren't handling the chemicals properly.
[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] Hey, did you know that producing solar panels takes a ridiculous amount of energy? That's why panels only start having a positive CO2 emissions balance after 15 or so years.
[QUOTE=DrDevil;50800417]Hey, did you know that producing solar panels takes a ridiculous amount of energy? That's why panels only start having a positive CO2 emissions balance after 15 or so years.[/QUOTE] You are misinformed. Even panels back in 2006 only consumed about 250 kWh per m2. Even in the UK that would pay itself back in under three years. The process is even more efficient now but I don't have an exact figure.
[QUOTE=Morgen;50800437]You are misinformed. Even panels back in 2006 only consumed about 250 kWh per m2. Even in the UK that would pay itself back in under three years. The process is even more efficient now but I don't have an exact figure.[/QUOTE] There is a bit of difference between the North and the South of England, I read that for residential solar installations in the North of England all things considered the financial return is about 9.5 years on average.
[QUOTE=karlosfandango;50800547]There is a bit of difference between the North and the South of England, I read that for residential solar installations in the North of England all things considered the financial return is about 9.5 years on average.[/QUOTE] Depends on the efficiency of the panels? But 9.5 years isn't bad for something that will last 25 - 35 years. The government kinda wrecked the incentives for feeding energy back into the grid though.
[QUOTE=OvB;50798443]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] Belo Monte is just the result of a shit government in place. I read about it and the area they chose for the dam is occupied by natives and has a large dry period. They claim it will offer energy for the Northern region in Brazil, but they could have chosen another location that at least didn't have a long dry period. And regarding Chernobyl, wasn't the disaster caused because they were experimenting something and removed the control rods, and the reactor reached high temperatures and it deformed the control rods slots in it, so you couldn't put them there anymore?
[QUOTE=Satane;50797104]can't be bothered to look it up but chances are solar caused more deaths than nuclear. smaller photovoltaic plants are often installed on residential roofs. accidents happen, people fall off. they also like to catch fire and burn down buildings.[/QUOTE] [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining_debate"]Accidents can happen when mining for uran too[/URL], though.
[QUOTE=Matthew0505;50800881]All the oil lobbies in the world won't be able to stop nuclear weapons development so the mines aren't going to close down either way.[/QUOTE] Lol, all nuclear powers have scaled back or simply maintain existing stockpiles, what are you talking about?
[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;50796813]Solar is pretty cool. Much better and safer than nuclear, I've heard.[/QUOTE] Absolutely, 100% false. Nuclear is the safest form of energy by a huge margin.
[QUOTE=Nebukadnezzer;50802833]Absolutely, 100% false. Nuclear is the safest form of energy by a huge margin.[/QUOTE] Too bad we're so slow to build new reactors, so much bullshit covered tape to go through, just like our shitty public transportation.
[QUOTE=Morgen;50800566]Depends on the efficiency of the panels? But 9.5 years isn't bad for something that will last 25 - 35 years. The government kinda wrecked the incentives for feeding energy back into the grid though.[/QUOTE] The solar panels on a couple of blocks of flats purpose built for one of the bigger UK housing associations that I was involved in latter part of 2015 were used to power communal areas and the remainder was somehow offsetting the cost of the other electricity used rather than being fed back into the grid.
[QUOTE=Nebukadnezzer;50802833]Absolutely, 100% false. Nuclear is the safest form of energy by a huge margin.[/QUOTE] I don't see how getting cancer is better than breaking a few bones. [sp]this is a joke, I don't hate both and I know nuclear is safer[/sp]
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50798064]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.[/QUOTE] Chernobyl was more of an indictment of socialism and the Soviet system than it was of nuclear power
This is stupid, why not just use regular steam turbines since there are so many fire anomalies there? Hell, the electro anomaly is literally free power.
Should have built solar power grids there long time ago, if they can keep 'em running without needing people living there in the radiation that's still around the area.
[QUOTE=Dr.C;50811384]This is stupid, why not just use regular steam turbines since there are so many fire anomalies there? Hell, the electro anomaly is literally free power.[/QUOTE] The problem is you have to go through all the stalkers to reach these anomalies, most of said stalkers are armed, bandits are a problem, and mutants would most likely break those steam turbines. Plus all the maps for the anomalies are out of date. [sp]Stalker aside, it would be pretty damn cool to have the battery artifacts from Roadside Picnic, because they are common, they can multiply, and they can power cars.[/sp]
My issue with nuclear power is that if it becomes widely used the likelihood of a catastrophic event increases hugely. It only takes one massive event and unfavorable weather and millions of people are initially affected, not only this their children for generations, possibly forever will remain changed. Radiation isn't fun.
[QUOTE=Faunze;50817903]My issue with nuclear power is that if it becomes widely used the likelihood of a catastrophic event increases hugely. It only takes one massive event and unfavorable weather and millions of people are initially affected, not only this their children for generations, possibly forever will remain changed. Radiation isn't fun.[/QUOTE] With properly trained workers, excellent reactors, and proper safety protocol, those problems become extremely unlikely.
[QUOTE=Faunze;50817903]My issue with nuclear power is that if it becomes widely used the likelihood of a catastrophic event increases hugely. It only takes one massive event and unfavorable weather and millions of people are initially affected, not only this their children for generations, possibly forever will remain changed. Radiation isn't fun.[/QUOTE] Every time someone makes this idiotically misinformed argument, I shed a single tear and turn slowly towards the camera.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.