 |
|
Ethelred
|
|
Does Finland have a place to store the waste?
There is no reason that an inherently safe reactor can't be built. However there is still the matter of what to do with the waste and the eventual decommisioning of the plant. If the plant is a new and has an inteligent design and there are effective methods to handle the waste then I think its a good idea.
Chernabol was a very old plant with a very poor design. Very dangerous. There is no reason to build something even remotely like it. It was much like the earliest US reactors that were built mostly to make plutonium and the power was secondary.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
Chernabol was a very old plant with a very poor design. Very dangerous. There is no reason to build something even remotely like it. It was much like the earliest US reactors that were built mostly to make plutonium and the power was secondary. |
Oh sure. Where did you get this BS?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:19
|
|
A...... *shuting up*
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Serb
Oh sure. Where did you get this BS? |
From the real world. Chernobyl was an old plant design and didn't even have a containment vessel.
Excerpt from http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf44.htm
The RBMK reactor, a graphite-moderated type with the fuel and cooling water in pressure tubes, has been much discussed and is based on a design developed for military plutonium production. While tolerably stable and safe at operating power, RBMKs at less than 20% power were notoriously unstable, which is how the 1986 Chernobyl disaster came about. After this, all RBMKs underwent major modification to their control systems, and the fuel enrichment was increased from 1.8% to 2.4% U-235 (most reactors use fuel enriched to 3.5% or more U-235). Lithuania's Ignalina reactors were until recently the world's largest.
This one says similar things about the design
http://www.sciam.com/0496issue/0496shcherbak.html
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Eli
|
|
Israel
Jul 2000
time: 07:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
Does Finland have a place to store the waste?
|
Serb's backyard.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
also i have a question: what happens if someone bombs a nuclear plant? will there be large contamination? (logically)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
thanks
yes i was talking about bombinmg like plane dropping firing bombs or cruise missile bombing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Stefu
|
 |
CLOWNS WIT DA DOWNS 4 LIFE YO!
Jan 1970
time: 07:19
|
|
quote:
1. Finland has as a matter of fact already reached the emission limits of the Kyoto convention, so you can't argue this positive decision with that. |
And building fossil fuel plants, including gas, would push us over the limit.
quote:
2. This very recent voting result means that Finland will be the first European country to build more nuclear power for decades. |
Nope. French built a nuclear power plant as recently as 1998.
quote:
BTW accidients with nuclear power plants are not always related to bad design. I.e. in the Chapelcross nuclear power plant in the UK, 24 highly radioactive poles of fuel fell to the floor from a 15 m height. And that was a close shave! So you can't just blame bad design or that something is made in the former USSR. Njet!
There has already been two accidients or serious situations this year; one in Germany and one in the US. Not to forget two leaks at the TVO's plant in Hästholmen two years ago. |
Deaths caused by Western nuclear power plants=0. Zippo. Zilch. Nada. None. Looks like a pretty good record for 30 years. OTOH, if one wants to bring up Chernobyl (deaths: 31) one might also want to consider that worst gas accident cost lives of 3350 (India, 1984) and second worst 650 (Soviet Union, 1989). Not to mention the effect it must have had on atmosphere - methane, after all, is 20 times worse a greenhouse gas than CO2, and gas leaks tend to get pretty lot of it to air.
quote:
Paiktis, I assume it really depends on the structure of the NPP and safety systems. If the reactor is automatically switched off, then it might give you some extra protection, but as the NRC has reported, a NPP can only cope with a small plane crashing into it, but nothing larger than that. |
Considering the issue is whether to build an additional reactor to one of two nuclear plants that already exist, I don't see how much terror is in connection to this particular issue, ie. fifth nuclear reactor. :hmm:
And anyway, Finland, being a small non-NATO country with no homegrown terrorist groups, shouldn't be a prime target on any sort of terrorist's list.
quote:
It's far more safe to use solar power |
In FINLAND?
quote:
to build windmills. And it's still free and we won't run out of wind. As a matter of fact the Earth is getting windier. |
Well, except when it's winter or, uh, a windless day. Hmm, winter - what season would be the one when we need most energy? And, of course, wherever wind power's used, it's always heavily subsidized by the state, and still is much more expensive than nuclear power.
Bottom line is that if we have expensive eco-friendly form of energy production, and non-expensive eco-friendly form of energy production, then it's wiser to choose the non-expensive one, wouldn't you agree?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-05-2002 16:45
Of course, I should have thought of that 
.
|