Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Touring Chernobyl In 2010

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

  • phoronix
    started a topic Touring Chernobyl In 2010

    Touring Chernobyl In 2010

    Phoronix: Touring Chernobyl In 2010

    I just returned to the United States after being in Ukraine the past five days over Easter weekend. The purpose of this trip was to explore the site of the Chernobyl nuclear accident and surrounding areas -- Kyiv, Pripyat, the Red Forest, etc. Contrary to some initial beliefs, it was not an April Fools' Joke. Due to the great interest in Chernobyl among those interested in science and technology whether it be due to the fascination with nuclear power or finding Chernobyl popularized by video games, documentaries, and the like, I have published my collection of these photographs of Chernobyl showing what the area looks like in 2010 -- just days prior to the 24th anniversary of this catastrophic disaster -- along with some of my thoughts and information collected from this journey.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=14747

  • roboso
    replied
    I'm happy to look at the photos and videos you do ... from those radiation I prefer to stay away.

    Leave a comment:


  • Qaridarium
    replied
    yes michael the pro atom guy of phoronix do not respond on my argumentation.

    We Germans really like Michaels pro Atom point of view thats why we shut down 7 atom power plants and quit atom bullshit in 2022.

    The GOOD Germans calculate thats green energies is cheaper and saver and more effective that that bullshit atom crap.

    My Families home is the best argument against Michaels pro atom point of view we do use 6000kw/h per year but our 10,5kwp photovoltarik power plant on the roof do make more than 10 000kw/h pear year! but thats not all we do have an 92% energy efficiency Gas powered heat and power station with 5kw/h for full Autarky and we do plan right now 2 pices 5Kwp Savonius wind turbine (2 means 10kwp) on the Roof.

    Means 1 German house produce more than 4 time more electric energies than they need,

    Means if the Americans next time need to bomb BAD-EVIL Nazis they better get every single house on target because Germany after 2022 do not lose electric power if someone nukes a nuclear mega power plant or any other big power plant.

    But next time the "evil-Nazis" just need to hit the US Nuclear power plans means in real they do not need any nuclear weapons because the US people build an Nuclear power plant in every single town and al-Qaeda teach the world how to attack a nuclear power plant right. Just get an Air plain and run into it and the nuclear power plant do the rest!


    But wait? Americans just build "saver" nuclear power plans.. true means they do not have saver ones yet and they can not shut down the danger old ones...


    I'm sure Al-Qaeda can turn an save nuclear-Thorium-reactor into an Radiological weapon by driving an air-plain into it.

    its save because its only do kill people 500 years in a round and not 20 000 years like plutonium...

    means the us people are save with save nuclear reactors because Al-Qaeda don't know that and they are not so Clever to use Thorium as a Radiological weapon.

    The pensions are safe.

    The earth is flat.

    Sex makes you blind.

    Nuclear power plants are safe.

    And Michael is maybe a German in the future?

    Leave a comment:


  • Qaridarium
    replied
    @michael do you know the Merit-Order effect?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merit_Order

    In Germany we lost 3 000 000 000? on Green energy every year
    but we won 5 000 000 000? every year on the Merit-Order effect because of the Green Energy.

    in fact Germany makes 2 000 000 000? profit out of the green energy.

    in Fact Germany shut down 7 nuclear power stations 1 month ago and Germany without this 7 nuclear power stations export energy to other EU govs.

    Leave a comment:


  • Qaridarium
    replied
    Originally posted by yogi_berra View Post
    Yucca Mountain will never open
    you can guarantee this for 1 000 000 years ??

    what is if you are wrong??? can we travel back in time to kill you right at this moment?

    Leave a comment:


  • yogi_berra
    replied
    Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
    all of that facilities are not save for 1 000 000 years
    Yucca Mountain will never open and even if some douche is elected that ignores the legal challenges to the site and opens it, it would already be full from the backlog of waste leaving nuclear waste still stored on site at most reactors.

    It was not a well thought out idea.

    Leave a comment:


  • Qaridarium
    replied
    Originally posted by bugmenot View Post
    I also think that "modern" nuclear power stations (at least here in Germany, I don't trust others) are relatively safe and secure.
    you are just wrong the only save one in germany are that one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THTR-300

    and that one... fail. all other german nuclear power plans are 100% FAIL by design.

    Leave a comment:


  • Qaridarium
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael View Post
    There's Yucca Mountain and other facilities for storing waste for many, many years.
    all of that facilities are not save for 1 000 000 years

    Leave a comment:


  • Qaridarium
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael View Post
    Yeah, westernized nuclear power is quite safe. Even after visiting Chernobyl, I still am a strong proponent of nuclear energy production. They are safe, clean, can operate more efficiently than wind or solar energy farms, can ultimately be cheaper than other forms of "clean" energy, etc.
    i don't think you and i'm sure you are wrong.

    the fukushima nuclear power plants ARE Westernized power plants.

    means Chernobyl is just a random thats Russian was first in failing at nuclear stuff.

    in my knowledge there are only 2 save nuclear power systems one of them is the Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator and the other is the thorium-high-temperature-nuclear-reactor and the thorium one its just an theoretical safety

    and an Westernized uranium/plutonium reactor IS NOT SAVE;

    and they are not "clean" you need tonns of CO2 and other gases to build an reactor and you only have an thermal use of 2-5% means an nuclear power plant heats the Earth up without any CO2 effect.
    and LOL what is clean about nuclear hazard ?

    "can operate more efficiently than wind or solar energy farms"

    LOL your argument is just FAIL in germany wind energy farms only get 4-5cent per KW/h of electric energie...

    and an nuclear power plant cost 2,60? per KW/h if you have the same criteria for the nuclear power plants as for the wind farm.


    same criteria means:
    Quick translate:
    "Calculating overall cost for the nation
    The cost of nuclear power plans are massively payed by the German Gov because of the shut down of old power plans.
    German Nuclear power plans do not have an Assurance means if something goes wrong the GOV pay for it means the power costs is not real because you pay tax for that."

    http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernene....BCr_den_Staat

    same criteria also means :
    Quick translate
    "the german GOV give 203700000000? for free from 1950 to 2010, its 4,3 ct/kWh for nuclear power plans "

    http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernene...in_Deutschland

    and:
    Quick translate
    "nuclear power plans cost 5,8 Cent/kWh (without Assurance and all gov paying). means its expensive carbon and Gas are cheaper"

    http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernkra...schaftlichkeit

    "can ultimately be cheaper than other forms of "clean" energy, etc."

    you are just wrong.

    Leave a comment:


  • b15hop
    replied
    Let me start by stating that I am partial to green technology. Although people state that nuclear isn't clean, which in many ways it isn't. Compared to other types of energy generation, can be clean IF done right. America seems to be the only country capable of spending the money in making reliable and efficient reactors.

    A second note about green technology. Why would a country such as Italy, deny the benefits of nuclear energy. Italy want's no part in the generation of electricity with nuclear technology. Yet regardless of their own ideology, fail to accept that the electricity they source from France, comes directly from nuclear reactors that just happen to sit close to the border of the two countries. What do you think will happen when one of those reactors melt down? Too late to complain AFTER it has happened. Just because the reactor is not directly in their "back yard" so to speak, doesn't mean the fallout can't travel 100's of km.

    Regarding Japan. I would like to know why on earth they built the reactor so close to a fault line. Not just any fault line but one of the biggest on the planet. For a country that prides itself on renewable energy, full of intelligent people, masters of electronic gadgetry, recycling etc... It almost seems hypocritical of Japanese culture to build nuclear energy sources when they are the leaders in renewable culture. Why not build tidal power generators? Thermal power? Wind (Mitsubishi) ? Solar (Sanyo)?? This frustrates me that they have so much capability, but all for what. Nothing...

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X