|
Chernobyl, 26th April, 1986 (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
Well, yeah..safety regulations are there for a reason. When you save money on construction works, do an experiment that has already been known to have failed, turn off automatic safety regulations, and finally ignore all the system warnings, you might just as well expect something like this to happen. What really puzzles me is how the operators of the plant who should have been well versed in the plant operations didn't realize the risks of what they were doing. |
Hehe, exactly :) |
|
|
| svens_bath |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
The problem is cost. Most renewable energy sources are not very cost efficient costing as much as two to three times more than nuclear power. Nuclear power is slightly cheaper than most coal and gas plants. Significantly cheaper if you factor in the cost of C02 emissions.
Click on linky and go to figure 1.1 on page 4 |
ok but what is the source of these costs..surely there must be a way of cutting them down somewhere (sorry if its in the link..ive not got time to read it all). surely this would be worth it because nuclear just doesnt see like a very prudent option for me...our govt's plans to get rid of the waste?...dig a very large hole and bury it. that cant be right, can it? |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by svens_bath
ok but what is the source of these costs..surely there must be a way of cutting them down somewhere (sorry if its in the link..ive not got time to read it all). surely this would be worth it because nuclear just doesnt see like a very prudent option for me... |
At this moment you really can't do much to decrease those costs. A silicone solar panel pretty much costs a fixed amount of money to produce, and so does a big wind turbine, and there really isn't any way to reduce the price tags of those items. But the real issue with the renewable energy sources is that they can't work continuously. A solar power plant works only during daytime, and it works at full capacity only when there's no clouds. A wind turbine works, well, only when there's wind blowing. Hydroelectirc plants are a bit more stable in that aspect, but they can only be built on specific locations, and they still are suspectable to environmental issues (freezing of the water, floods, droughts..). So to have a continuous power supply, you simply have to have conventional or nuclear plants around. Generally you can't really get much more than about 25% of your power from such sources.
| quote: | | our govt's plans to get rid of the waste?...dig a very large hole and bury it. that cant be right, can it? |
Well, all that radioactive material that's used to power up the plant did infact come from a big hole in the ground, so dropping the nuclear waste back into a big hole in the ground isn't really that inconcievable. The only other thing you could do with it is launching it into orbit or something, but when it's burried so deep it's not really that hazardous for such a costly operation to be considered. |
|
|
| svens_bath |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
At this moment you really can't do much to decrease those costs. A silicone solar panel pretty much costs a fixed amount of money to produce, and so does a big wind turbine, and there really isn't any way to reduce the price tags of those items. But the real issue with the renewable energy sources is that they can't work continuously. A solar power plant works only during daytime, and it works at full capacity only when there's no clouds. A wind turbine works, well, only when there's wind blowing. Hydroelectirc plants are a bit more stable in that aspect, but they can only be built on specific locations, and they still are suspectable to environmental issues (freezing of the water, floods, droughts..). So to have a continuous power supply, you simply have to have conventional or nuclear plants around. Generally you can't really get much more than about 25% of your power from such sources.
Well, all that radioactive material that's used to power up the plant did infact come from a big hole in the ground, so dropping the nuclear waste back into a big hole in the ground isn't really that inconcievable. The only other thing you could do with it is launching it into orbit or something, but when it's burried so deep it's not really that hazardous for such a costly operation to be considered. |
re. the price tags, couldnt companies cut the price of these things, because its a global common interest that we find a good solution.
i hear what youre saying about the unreliability..there must be areas where its constantly windy though? off the coasts and that..
isnt there a difference between the radioactive material before its processed, and the waste material, in terms of hazard? is there not a chance it could seep into the earths core or something? or even make its way back to the surface?
so is nuclear youre preferred option then i take it? |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by svens_bath
re. the price tags, couldnt companies cut the price of these things, because its a global common interest that we find a good solution. |
Well, companies are not charities. The only way you could do that would be if the government subsidizes them, but then you'd get increased taxes on some other product, so ultimately the end result would be the same. But as I've said, that's not the primary problem.
| quote: | | i hear what youre saying about the unreliability..there must be areas where its constantly windy though? off the coasts and that.. |
Well..yeah, but you can't really find an area where there's a constant wind of the right magnitude. There are areas where there's often windy, but the strength of the wind is important also. If it varies too much, your generators will either not provide enough power or burn out.
| quote: | | isnt there a difference between the radioactive material before its processed, and the waste material, in terms of hazard? is there not a chance it could seep into the earths core or something? or even make its way back to the surface? |
The only difference is that the unprocessed material is not concentrated. So yeah, being close to a processed fuel lump is more dangerous than being around raw uranium ore. But I suppose if you'd take the waste fuel into an airplane and then sprinkle it evenly all over the globe, you'd effectively nullify the danger :)
| quote: | | so is nuclear youre preferred option then i take it? |
Yes, at least until (and if) we manage to create a working fusion reactor. |
|
|
| svens_bath |
| good to get your views on this, cheers:cool: |
|
|
| The Greek |
| Uranium ore in its native state is a solid that inhabits the earth just like all the other minerals on earth. The waste material is a liquid, and by burying that in barrels that can easily degrade over time, is a whole different ball game. You must understand the ability of a liquid to travels through what may seem as solid rock. It is in fact full of joints, cracks, and depending on the material has a certain porosity. Throw in all that the water table, another liquid that inhabits the same regions in the same manner, which most folks get their water from, and you have the makings of a dangerous situation. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by InterMilan31
ive visted chernobyl. Very wierd place quiet and dreary and most is still marked off. And no i dont have a 3rd arm or my balls fell off |
...but you never need a night light...:p |
|
|
| metalgearsolid |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
...but you never need a night light...:p |
That was uncalled for. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by metalgearsolid
That was uncalled for. |
Get a sense of humour... ;)
It's not like we can do anything about the past; we can learn from it though... |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nou
LOL no.
Uhm... unprocessed uranium is very very very non-radioactive because it exists in very very minute amounts. You have to refine it thousands of times over for it to become useful in a reactor, and many more times for it to be weapons grade. |
Well..that's kind of what I said. That the unprocessed ore is not as harmful as processed ore or waste because it is less concentrated. It's not really that miniscule amounts that we're talking about though, since uranium ore is not that uncommon. |
|
|
|
|
