Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Phoronix 2011 Chernobyl Nuclear Tour

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    *"So, there is no technology capable of handling our need for power. " -> So, there is no "green" technology capable of handling our need for power.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Detructor View Post
      So, there is no technology capable of handling our need for power.
      Maybe not YOUR need for power, but certainly Austria's need for power, or Portugal's, or Iceland's, or some parts of Spain.

      If you need more power than all of Austria, then you should rethink your power requirements

      Comment


      • #63
        Really?

        Originally posted by Davidovitch View Post
        I am sorry, but have to react on this. What do you mean by the media is over reacting on this? Together with Chernobyl this incident clearly shows that nuclear power is NOT a sustainable option. What I do not understand about all this pro nuclear lobby is how you can minimize the nuclear risk? What else has to happen to proof otherwises? Remember that risk equals the chance of something going wrong multiplied with the consequence. Well, the chance of something might be lower than a plane crashing (which actually might be wrong, but just for the sake of the argument), but the consequences are...well you witnessed that first hand.
        I am not specialist in this area, I bet you are not either.
        I just say one thing: Compare amount of pollution and human death's/sicknesses caused by producing atomic energy, and "conventional" methods, including everything since Chernobyl and accidents(apart from Chernobyl itself, lesson IS actually learned).

        Just because facility was destroyed - doesn't mean everything else is contaminated, or foobar contaminated.

        Comment


        • #64
          Real-time generation, demand and CO2 emissions in Spain:

          https://demanda.ree.es/demanda.html

          I like how hydro shrinks at night, when water is pumped uphill using mostly wind energy.

          Anyway, those windmills seem to be standing up just right.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Detructor View Post
            ... [the biggest photovoltaik power plants deliver 40MW, a nuclear fission power plant delivers (such as the nuclear fission power plant "Biblis" in Germany, near Biblis delivers at least 1167 MW per reactor block)

            ....
            you spread only disinfo here without sources. Here is a list with solar power stations. Maybe your source is already very outdated

            Capacity of the biggest solar thermal station has a capacity of 354 MW. That is not bad. Would be very interesting to get info about construction cost, operation cost, dismantling cost, disposal/recycling cost, cost of possible risks with sources. Otherwise these numbers don't tell much.

            Comment


            • #66
              About nuclear power plant Biblis: Two reactors produce together 2525 MW. The two planned reactors only exist on paper and will not be built. Arguing without sources is not very convincing.

              (source)

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post
                Nuclear waepons were only used as a weapon in WWII, which stopped uhm... the entire fsking World War.

                So difficult this rational thinking... -_-
                You wrong, an high amount of nuclear weapons were used in tests, and they have done much damage to ecosystem and population near tests areas, but this information is not easy to find, governments are not interested in public document those negative effects.

                There is a good story in nevada - Utah desert, US have done a lot of nuclear tests there (during 1950-1990 aprox) At the same time near the test zone various cinema studios filmed various films, if you search far enough you will find that a very HIGH percentage of actors and "cinema workers" that participated on those films have developed cancer a few years later.

                Nuclear power plants are fairly safe, although when an accident happens the consequences are fatal, a lot of people developed cancer on countries near Chernobyl (far away than 30km) and there are studies that correlated the Chernobyl accident with those cancers. In a vast zone around Chernobyl, farming is not allowed any more.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Jimbo View Post
                  You wrong, an high amount of nuclear weapons were used in tests, and they have done much damage to ecosystem and population near tests areas, but this information is not easy to find, governments are not interested in public document those negative effects.
                  ...
                  Here is a video animation which shows nuclear explosions from 1945-1998.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Detructor View Post
                    If you go for those windpower thingis, forget it, they're big, they aren't safe (everytime a bigger storm comes down, one of those things breaks)
                    Why some countries *already* produce 40% of its energy from wind sources and others no? why Spain has 40% wind and 15% nuclear and France has 75 nuclear and wind power at minimum amount?

                    I answer you, because of politics and bad decisions. There are choices now, we are not in 50s, so making the right decision is important. This is the balance of exported power between france and spain during the last years:

                    2006 4410 (GWh)
                    2007 5487 (GWh)
                    2008 2889 (GWh)
                    2009 1590 (GWh)
                    2010 -1387 (GWh)

                    Positive numbers show that Spain purchased power to France, negative that France purchased power to Spain. Spain has increased his power output during the last years due to wind power, and it exports power to France. Thanks to wind power inversions the production of energy is now more economic and competitive in Spain than in France.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Detructor View Post
                      ...
                      If you go for those windpower thingis, forget it, they're big, they aren't safe (everytime a bigger storm comes down, one of those things breaks) and they don't generate enough power. ...
                      they break lol? Where are the sources for this?

                      wind power is considered to be very cost competetive compared to nuclear power. Cost of electricity by source

                      I doubt that these calculations include risk from severe catastrophes like from Tschernobyl or Fukushima. Would also be interesting to know if waste management/recycling costs are fully included in these calculations. And how much does human lifes, healthiness and nature cost?

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        :ottering money plants::
                        Serously article with web cam images from Japan and jap.manufacturer list that could be affected by disaster will grab more attention.. and maybe some time later ukraine chernobyl footage.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Fenrin View Post
                          I doubt that these calculations include risk from severe catastrophes like from Tschernobyl or Fukushima. Would also be interesting to know if waste management/recycling costs are fully included in these calculations. And how much does human lifes, healthiness and nature cost?
                          Those are excellent questions. According to a very recent report (freely downloadable), the nuclear industry (in the US) is heavily subsidised, being the shifting of risks from the the industry to the public one of the results of those subsidies, and generating a market distortion the neoliberal type of moron should abhor if intellectual honesty wasn't incompatible with this ideology.

                          Conspicuously absent from industry press releases and briefing memos touting nuclear power’s potential as a solution to global warming is any mention of the industry’s long and expensive history of taxpayer subsidies and excessive charges to utility ratepayers. These subsidies not only enabled the nation’s existing reactors to be built in the first place, but have also supported their operation for decades.

                          The industry and its allies are now pressuring all levels of government for large new subsidies to support the construction and operation of a new generation of reactors and fuel-cycle facilities. The substantial political support the industry has attracted thus far rests largely on an uncritical acceptance of the industry’s economic claims and an incomplete understanding of the subsidies that made—and continue to make—the existing nuclear fleet possible.

                          Such blind acceptance is an unwarranted, expensive leap of faith that could set back more cost-effective efforts to combat climate change. A fair comparison of the available options for reducing heat-trapping carbon emissions while generating electricity requires consideration not only of the private costs of building plants and their associated infrastructure but also of the public subsidies given to the industry. Moreover, nuclear power brings with it important economic, waste disposal, safety, and security risks unique among low-carbon energy sources. Shifting these risks and their associated costs onto the public is the major goal of the new subsidies sought by the industry (just as it was in the past), and by not incorporating these costs into its estimates, the industry presents a skewed economic picture of nuclear power’s value compared with other low-carbon power sources.

                          SUBSIDIES OFTEN EXCEED THE VALUE OF THE ENERGY PRODUCED

                          This report catalogues in one place and for the first time the full range of subsidies that benefit the nuclear power sector. The findings are striking: since its inception more than 50 years ago, the nuclear power industry has benefited—and continues to benefit—from a vast array of preferential government subsidies. Indeed, as Figure ES-1 (p. 2) shows, subsidies to the nuclear fuel cycle have often exceeded the value of the power produced. This means that buying power on the open market and giving it away for free would have been less costly than subsidizing the construction and operation of nuclear power plants. Subsidies to new reactors are on a similar path.

                          [...]

                          The most important subsidies to the industry do not involve cash payments. Rather, they shift construction-cost and operating risks from investors to taxpayers and ratepayers, burdening taxpayers with an array of risks ranging from cost overruns and defaults to accidents and nuclear waste management. This approach, which has remained remarkably consistent throughout the industry’s history, distorts market choices that would otherwise favor less risky investments. Although it may not involve direct cash payments, such favored treatment is nevertheless a subsidy, with a profound effect on the bottom line for the industry and taxpayers alike.

                          Reactor owners, therefore, have never been economically responsible for the full costs and risks of their operations. Instead, the public faces the prospect of severe losses in the event of any number of potential adverse scenarios, while private investors reap the rewards if nuclear plants are economically successful. For all practical purposes, nuclear power’s economic gains are privatized, while its risks are socialized.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Fenrin View Post
                            you spread only disinfo here without sources. Here is a list with solar power stations. Maybe your source is already very outdated

                            Capacity of the biggest solar thermal station has a capacity of 354 MW. That is not bad. Would be very interesting to get info about construction cost, operation cost, dismantling cost, disposal/recycling cost, cost of possible risks with sources. Otherwise these numbers don't tell much.
                            -> http://www.solarserver.de/news/news-9993.html
                            "Das Unternehmen ACCIONA Energy hat ein Solar-Kraftwerk mit einer Photovoltaik-Spitzenleistung von 46 Megawatt (MW) in Amareleja (Moura, Portugal) in Betrieb genommen. ACCIONA habe in die Solarstromanlage - die größte ihrer Art weltweit - rund 261 Millionen Euro investiert"

                            which means in english: The company ACCIONA Energy has build and is operating a photovoltaik-powerplant with a possible peak of 46 MW in Amareleja (Moura Portugal). ACCIONA put 261 Million Euros into this powerplant which is the biggest of it's type worldwide

                            http://www.solarserver.de/news/news-9947.html
                            "Deutschlands größte Photovoltaik-Kraftwerke sind komplett am Netz"
                            "Germanys biggest photovoltaik-powerplants are now completely integrated into the power-delivery network"

                            "In Waldpolenz schloss juwi-Niederlassungsleiter Ingo Rödner gemeinsam mit dem Bürgermeister der Stadt Brandis, Andreas Dietze, offiziell den Bau des 40-Megawatt-Solarkraftwerks ab, das die drittgrößte Photovoltaik-Anlage der Welt ist."

                            -> In Waldpolenz juwi-branch manager Ingo Rödner and Brandis' mayoral Andreas Dietze officialy completed the construction of the 40-MW-photovoltaik-powerplant, which is the third biggest photovoltaik power plant worldwide.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              You're talking about photovoltaics, he's talking about thermal-solar energy.

                              Photovoltaics are currently more suitable for covering the electricity needs of a home, other designs are better suited for large plants.

                              But that's the beauty of photovoltaics -- you can put them everywhere, and they don't need to generate 1000 MW all at once.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Davidovitch View Post
                                I am sorry, but have to react on this. What do you mean by the media is over reacting on this?
                                The Surgeon General was misquoted by NBC(1) appearing to say that citizens on the west coast were right to purchase iodine tablets to prepare for radiation from Japan. RT(2) is reporting that the UN is saying a radiation plume will hit California tomorrow.

                                That is an over-reaction.

                                So anyway, now that the supporters of Nuclear power have cleared up the fact that nuclear energy is the only viable option for power, are they volunteering to store the waste in their basements and attics? Or should we just continue digging holes and dumping like Canada is currently doing next to Lake Huron and the U.S. wants to do in Yucca Mountain?

                                (1) http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local...118031559.html
                                (2) http://rt.com/usa/news/us-nuclear-plume-usa-japan/

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X