Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 26

Thread: Four Years Since The Phoronix Chernobyl Expedition

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,419

    Default Four Years Since The Phoronix Chernobyl Expedition

    Phoronix: Four Years Since The Phoronix Chernobyl Expedition

    Today is the 28th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster within the Ukraine. With this being a light news weekend, if you weren't a Phoronix reader four years ago, we took a trip out to Chernobyl and Pripyat and you can see a horde of our photos...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTY3MzE

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    60

    Default

    Thanks Michael, that is one poignantly enduring photo shoot. Those interested in What Went Wrong might wish to browse WNA's article: Chernobyl Accident 1986.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pipe13 View Post
    Thanks Michael, that is one poignantly enduring photo shoot. Those interested in What Went Wrong might wish to browse WNA's article: Chernobyl Accident 1986.
    Typical BS from rival reactor manufactures (spoiler: Russian reactors bad, American are good). "Good" american reactor: Fukushima Daiichi, hi-end industry dancing robots, boston dynamics amasing mule, toilets with chips since ~1980, blabla.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by storm_st View Post
    Typical BS from rival reactor manufactures (spoiler: Russian reactors bad, American are good). "Good" american reactor: Fukushima Daiichi, hi-end industry dancing robots, boston dynamics amasing mule, toilets with chips since ~1980, blabla.
    Bad Russian reactor = Chernobyl
    increase in reactivity when control rods initially inserted (the primary reason for the accident)
    no secondary containment (should they had serious secondary containment, it would have contained the consequences of the first problem)
    crappy medical system fails to distribute iodine tablets to the people exposed

    Good US reactor = Fukushima
    reactor operating for 45 years successfully
    when the earthquake hit it shutdown itself successfully like many times before
    reactor building tsunami defenses calculated 13 meter walls, tsunami waves were 14 meters
    all 3 diesel generators for each reactor in the basement, generators flooded and stopped, should just one generator for each reactor have been placed in the ceiling the problem might have been avoided
    should one of the reactors have been restarted in a low power setting to provide power for safety systems the accident could also have been prevented
    TEPCO had receiver reports warning about both the tsunami wall being potentially to small and the placement of the diesel generators, but did nothing about it (not fault of nuclear reactor supplier but that of TEPCO)

    So please go a head and apologize for talking all of this nonsense. You have no idea what you are talking about on nuclear matters. I have completed an 8 week intro course on nuclear power that allows me to understand all of this stuff you have no idea about.

    Today even in Russia nuclear energy should be safe, after the cold war ended, and the Chernobyl experience, free exchange of ideas brought Russia to adopt most international nuclear safety rules.

    This anti USA view of the world is so stupid. I'm from Brazil and lived in the USA, so I know the difference. You are so wrong, it's not even funny to show how wrong you are.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    522

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by storm_st View Post
    Typical BS from rival reactor manufactures (spoiler: Russian reactors bad, American are good). "Good" american reactor: Fukushima Daiichi, hi-end industry dancing robots, boston dynamics amasing mule, toilets with chips since ~1980, blabla.
    So which points in this article are incorrect? Please enlighten us.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by storm_st View Post
    Typical BS from rival reactor manufactures (spoiler: Russian reactors bad, American are good). "Good" american reactor: Fukushima Daiichi, hi-end industry dancing robots, boston dynamics amasing mule, toilets with chips since ~1980, blabla.
    Japanese-American ESBWR and AP-1000 designs are admittedly the worlds best bar none. But I wouldn't write Rosatom off just yet: their WER PWR series is no slouch, as witnessed by an impressive slew of design wins: see Nuclear Power in Russia -- particularly the table of Export sales and prospects for Russian nuclear power plants near the bottom.

  7. #7

    Default

    What appears to be a decent documentary on youtube here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18o_X696dYw

    Pretty scary stuff. Lots of sacrifice.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    466

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by log0 View Post
    So which points in this article are incorrect? Please enlighten us.
    The part where it pretends that our species is intelligent, mature, and responsible enough to develop technology that safely harnesses the energy released by nuclear fission.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,544

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by russofris View Post
    The part where it pretends that our species is intelligent, mature, and responsible enough to develop technology that safely harnesses the energy released by nuclear fission.
    The *species* is sufficiently intelligent / mature / responsible (at least a sufficient subset is), but we haven't developed societal and reward models which encourage the right behaviour yet. Availability of relatively cheap fossil fuels puts an upper limit on the amount we are willing/able to spend to make reactor installations safe and implement something closer to a "closed loop" fueling/reprocessing model that limits or eliminates the nuclear waste problem.

    I remember hearing someone suggest that drilling a sufficiently deep hole to dump nuclear waste into the earth's molten core (assuming we still believe the earth has one) would "solve the problem", hey what could go wrong ? Seems to me that radioactive volcanoes would be even worse than sharks with lasers.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by macpacheco View Post
    Today even in Russia nuclear energy should be safe,
    Nonsense. Those power plants are planned, built, maintained and operated by humans. Mistakes will be made and disastrous accidents will happen in the future, as they happened in the past, no matter how safe you think those reactors are, simply because humans make mistakes.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •