It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Chernobyl, Fukushima and the Insanity of Nuclear Power

page: 2
16
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: AlienView

That's a great idea.

I also saw a documentary about one town in britian that uses their crematorium to heat the town's swimming pool. Just think if every crematorium were to not waste the energy from the burning bodies.




posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: AlienView

The public was lied to from the beginning. Waste? No problem, we'll just encase it in concrete and dump it in the ocean.
Ukey said the public you are the experts. Until the containment cased began to come apart. "Well then when the time comes we will put it in rockets and launch it up, out, and into the sun". UUUKey said the public, your the experts.

And don't forget that 'fusion' is right around the corner. Any day now. UKeyyy said the public in the early sixties but when will that be?.. Ohhh a couple of years, five, maybe ten, then we will convert all the big plants to fusion and have nothing to worry about. Glory be to paradise this will bring...Ukeeyyy said the public, your the experts.

Three Mile Island? Just a glitch, we got that problem solved now, don't worry. "Chernobyl" . Nah, don't worry, that was Russia and we know their tech is'nt as good as ours. That was human error, Russian error. Not us.

Fukishima? Scary for a minute but no problem now so just forget about it.



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 04:56 PM
link   
And did anybody see this announcement the other day?

China is planning to construct up to 20 floating nuclear power plants for remote locations, including the South China Sea, where China has been building man-made islands that could threaten freedom of navigation in the area.

Source: Washington Times, April 24, 2016 - China to build floating nuclear power plants in South China Sea

Nuclear fission uses only 5 - 10% of the nuclear fuel rods (typical reactor design). The amount of waste is ridiculous. Reactor design could be made more efficient. Other fusil materials can be used (namely thorium is being studied right now in Norway to use up the "spent" fission fuel rods). Current reactor designs do not cut it.

Do you think China will do anything in their haste to claim these "islands" that even comes close to being responsible with respect to nuclear safety? And wasn't there the world's largest storm ever measured by man in that area?



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Talking about China - Here is the good side:

Renewable energy in China


In 2013, China led the world in renewable energy production, with a total capacity of 378 GW, mainly from hydroelectric and wind power. As of 2014, China leads the world in the production and use of wind power, solar photovoltaic power, and smart grid technologies, generating almost as much water, wind, and solar energy as all of France and Germany's power plants combined. In 2016, China became world's largest producer of photovoltaic power, at 43 GW installed capacity.[1][2] China’s renewable energy sector is growing faster than its fossil fuels and nuclear power capacity. Since 2005, production of solar cells in China has expanded 100-fold. As Chinese renewable manufacturing has grown, the costs of renewable energy technologies have dropped dramatically. Innovation has helped, but the main driver of reduced costs has been market expansion. [3] China sees renewables as a source of energy security, not just of carbon emission reductions. Issued by China’s State Council in September 2013, China’s Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Air Pollution illustrates government desire to increase the share of renewables in China’s energy mix.[4] Unlike oil, coal and gas, the supplies of which are finite and subject to geopolitical tensions, renewable energy systems can be built and used wherever there is sufficient water, wind, and sun.[3]

See whole article here:
en.wikipedia.org...

Environmentally friendly and safe - Who could ask for more ?

It doesn't take an engineer to realize that the amount of sun falling on the Earth at any moment is more than sufficient to
meet all of Man's eneergy needs - But it would require the establishment of a world wide interconnected power grid.

And yet thousands of years since the beginnings of Human Civilization - Cooperation among peoples and nations
still remains prlblematic. I sometimes question whether the species Man is yet to achieve what they call a Type I
ciivilization - a prerequisite for the future.







"OPERATION NEW DAWN - THE BEGINNING OF THE FUTURE"
universalspacealienpeoplesassociation.blogspot.com...
edit on 26-4-2016 by AlienView because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

"Nuclear fission uses only 5 - 10% of the nuclear fuel rods (typical reactor design). The amount of waste is ridiculous."

The 'spent' nuclear fuel can be reprocessed, and has been for many years. There is really no waste, many useful materials can be recovered, Cobalt-60 for example. Canada supplies much of the worlds Cobalt-60, used for medical treatments, sterilisation, inspecting welds etc. The biggest waste to me is from the cooling towers, all that hot water could be used to heat houses,greenhouses, or swimming pools even. The fear of anything nuclear has been paid for by Big Oil, and Big Oil is responsible for far more pollution, waste and even death that nuclear ever has.



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: AlienView

They have one of the largest solar-wind farms on the planet! They have installed 8 kWH flow batteries on-site (btw, that is how you could run a submarine on wind-soar power. You energize the electrolytes using wind-solar and use that in the submarine). Yet this idea to float up to 20 nuclear reactors in the sea is... well... terms and conditions...



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 05:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Shuye

You didn't read all of my comment did you?



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 05:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: AlienView
T
There is no such thing as a 'safe' nuclear power plant -



WRONG!

thorium is a safe option.

Its cant melt down nor can it be used to make bombs.

Dear lord I hope this never happens! Simply for the fact that they use fluoride salts as a coolant and I can barely handle the anti-fluoride group as it is. I'm sure they can take this and fit it into their cause as well.

On topic and without humour: I hope they are actually going to replace traditional nuclear plants. They just need to perfect it first and make sure all precautions are taken.



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 05:35 PM
link   
The real problem is corruption of the companies that build and manage these power plants. You think the state of Mr Burn's power plant in the Simpsons is a caricature of Nuclear power plants? Not really. Just like any other business these corporations want to maximize the amount of profit they can, so cutting corners and skimping on materials is pretty commonplace. Most of the municipalities in my state (washington) are corrupt. The companies that built the hydroelectric dams skimped on the Rebar reinforcement so one of the dams downriver from me was on the verge of cracking open until they managed a stopgap fix that allowed them to increase the flow again. Hanford Nuclear Power Plant is one of the worst offenders of radioactive pollution, they used to vent radioactive steam into the air frequently, not to mention the contamination of the Columbia river.

There are underground bunkers storing thousands of barrels of radioactive waste that'll still be deadly 20,000 years in the future. They've actually had to come up with pictograms that they hope will communicate the danger of the waste to the roaming tribes of nomadic mutant scorpion gypsies that might stumble across them in 20,000 years, where they will still be horrendously dangerous.

We're all idiots. We're using radioactive materials that could render large swaths of land uninhabitable for potentially THOUSANDS of years to boil water and expecting the businesses that run the power plants to think about safety over profits... never gonna happen.



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: AlienView
T
There is no such thing as a 'safe' nuclear power plant -



WRONG!

thorium is a safe option.

Its cant melt down nor can it be used to make bombs.


Your a friggin Ewok! Burn wood!



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: AlienView

Before any type of energy or material is generated or manufactured, there should be a well thought out plan on how to either recycle the waste or break it down so it's not a threat to the environment or humanity. We're killing our planet and creating a world where our children will be faced with a mountain of environmental problems.

Humanity is a throw away society. We continue to bury and store our waste in landfills or underground storage facilities and than worry about the consequences when it's too late. We need to start putting our scientific resources toward clean energy and recycling technology. We need to set a path for 100% recycling and cleaning up our environment.



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 06:51 PM
link   
My step sisters mum was a Fed (different countries had to go to the site to Chernobyl to sign off on something) She went years later. She got cancer from the radioactivity. One day they didn't give her filtered blood and she immidiatly died (38)



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: realnewsrealfunny

www.greenpeace.org...


speaking of chernobyl...there is another problem looming there...the forest has been growing for 30 years with no clearing of underbrush (for obvious reasons)......if a fire happened,,,that area has a ton of burning fuel and would be really bad....logistics say it is just a matter of time before this occurs (there was a fire in 2015)



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 09:38 PM
link   
The only way I would ever consider a nuclear plant "safe" is if all humans could walk away from it, and it would dependably shut itself down to a safe state.

I'm so sick of hearing the company and political line... "Suuure, it's totally safe! Just as long as there's off site power to the plant. And even if that goes away- still totally safe! We just keep hauling in tanker-loads of diesel fuel, to run the emergency generators. It really is safe, like a million percent safe. Don't worry!"

What about an EMP from a really bad solar flare, like the one that was recorded less than 160 years ago, and will happen again- this isn't a question of IF, but WHEN. A similar event would knock out the entire power grid. No more power to all the filling stations, no more clear roads for the tanker trucks, and no more diesel fuel for the emergency generators... and there it is friends, every one of those safe and clean nuclear plants heats up, explodes, and melts down just like fukushima. Safe? Not by a long shot.

People worry about nuclear war wiping out humanity. But these plants- about which the truth has been swept under the rug- have an equal chance of turning the Earth into an uninhabitable chunk of radioactive rock for millions of years.

Carrington Solar Event of 1859 (Wikipedia)



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 09:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nucleardoom
When the sun decides to send another Carrington Event sized coronal mass ejection our way, or we're hit with a large scale EMP my ATS username becomes reality. It's only a matter of time with this many toxic time bombs scattered across the globe.
Without a doubt, nuclear technology is the single most idiotic idea humanity ever created.


The NRC has been examining these issues for more than 30 years, starting in the late 1970s when the agency studied how EMP could affect nuclear power plant safe-shutdown systems. In February 1983 the NRC issued the study’s conclusion: nuclear power plants’ safety systems can do their jobs after an EMP event. The agency revisited the issue in 2007 to account for the increasing use of digital computer systems in nuclear plants, which potentially could be more susceptible to EMP. The agency continued to conclude as recently as two years ago that nuclear power plants can safely shut down following an EMP event.


And FUkishima happenned because the morons didnt hasve redundancy built in to the diesel engines that ran th e cooling.



posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 12:37 AM
link   
And from the big-shots at the top of our world's power elite:

COUNCIL on FOREIGN RELATIONS

Targets for Terrorism: Nuclear Facilities

Contents;


Could terrorists target U.S. nuclear power plants? How vulnerable are U.S. nuclear weapons sites? How might terrorists attack other U.S. nuclear facilities? What kind of damage could such attacks cause to a nuclear power plant? What would happen if a plane crashed into a nuclear plant? Have terrorists threatened specific nuclear plants?

Except:



What kind of damage could such attacks cause to a nuclear power plant?

Experts say that an attack on a nuclear power plant, all of which are guarded by private security forces hired by the plants and supervised by the NRC, couldn’t lead to a nuclear explosion. The danger, they say, is that attackers could cause a meltdown or a fire or set off a major conventional explosion, all of which could spew radiation into nearby cities and towns.

See whole article here:
www.cfr.org...

So 'they say' the attack would not lead to a nuclear explosion - Just a lot of radiation - Makes you feel safe does it not ?

And if instead of a nuclear plant you had a large solar plant [they have already built some] or even many solar plants,
no risk at all to speak of - So you see that is the big advantage of nuclear power plants - They are dangerous


Come on people you don't want safety anyway do you ? - Live dangerously - Give us more nuclear plants









"JAPAN EARTHQUAKE, TSUNAMI, NUCLEAR REACTOR MELTDOWN"
universalspacealienpeoplesassociation.blogspot.com...
edit on 27-4-2016 by AlienView because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 01:10 AM
link   
I do not know the answer but current solar panels are bunk. It literally requires more energy to manufacture a solar panel than the amount of energy said panel will ever generate. Ever. They have short lifespans.

Solar energy COULD easily be the answer. I mean the Sun! It literally provides life to all of natures plants. We could certainly pull enough energy from the Sun to power everything. Scientists and engineers simply need to develop solar panel technology much further. It is possible and obvious.
edit on 27-4-2016 by lightedhype because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 02:26 AM
link   
World’s Largest Solar Power Plant Is Now In Operation



December 2nd, 2014 by Jake Richardson. Originally published on Solar Love.

Did you hear about the largest solar power plant in the world and how it is now producing electricity?
Did it make the nightly broadcast news?



Probably not,........ There’s a blatant lack of coverage for solar success stories, so it wouldn’t be surprising if most people aren’t hearing about them. California’s Topaz project is the largest solar power plant in the world with a 550 MW capacity, and it is now in full operation. It is located in San Luis Obispo County and has 9 million solar panels. Construction began just two years ago. The electricity produced by the plant will be purchased by Pacific Gas and Electric. The solar panels were manufactured by First Solar and the project was developed by First Solar. SEIA says about 200 homes in California are powered for each MW of solar power capacity. So, for a 550 MW solar plant, about 110,000 homes could be powered when the sun is shining. First Solar has said this figure could be 160,000 homes in the case of Topaz. The San Luis Obispo county population is about 276,000. It might turn out that the majority of this population could be powered by a single solar power plant. Energy storage is a growing field, so it eventually might be that excess electricity generated by solar power could be stored for nighttime use and for overcast days, extending the impact of Topaz even further. Using the electricity created by this huge solar plant rather than fossil fuels will prevent the generation of about 377,000 tons of CO2 annually. It will also not produce harmful air pollution the way coal power plants do. About 400 construction jobs were created during the construction phase and up to $400,000 in property taxes each year will be paid by the project owners. That’s a big boost to the local area. There is far too much negative or misleading press about solar power. If you like solar power and want people to know about this great news, please consider sharing this article.

See whole aritcle here:
cleantechnica.com...

When you consider a worldwide grid connecting solar plants all over the planet - There you have it - cheap renewable
energy for the entire planet.

Of course you can see the problem with this - IT IS CHEAP - You would not expect entrepreneurs to invest in a cheap source
of renewable energy when billions can be made, first off of coal and oil, and even more so now with nuclear -
Face it, just the disposal of nuclear waste is a multi-billion if not trillion dollar industry in itself. How many trillions are
being made on the clean-ups in Chernobyl and Fukushima


Businessmen are not stupid - Cheap produces little profit - And profit is the name of the game.

And as for the safety of the public - remember that famous motto of the 19th Century - "Let the Public be Damned"



"For 50 years, nuclear power stations have produced three products which only a lunatic could want: bomb-explosive plutonium, lethal radioactive waste and electricity so dear it has to be heavily subsidised. They leave to future generations the task, and most of the cost, of making safe sites that have been polluted half-way to eternity."
- James Buchan







universalspacealienpeoplesassociation.blogspot.com...



posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 02:57 AM
link   
a reply to: AlienView

Hooray for the Topaz power station and may there be many more. I do wonder though were we to have a chain of volcanic eruptions how much power would be possible to generate then - but its hopefully not going to happen.

I have worked in both coal and nuclear power stations and would tell you all that nuclear is the better of the two being more efficient and cheaper. Currently if we didn't have nuclear stations many poor people would not have electricity because they could't afford it and that is the conundrum of the matter. You have pollution whatever energy you use - there is no escaping that but its how you manage it that counts.



posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 03:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Shiloh7

Shiloh7 wrote:


You have pollution whatever energy you use - there is no escaping that but its how you manage it that counts.


Coal and oil air pollution is well known and always a problem - Nuclear waste some would consider worse.

And just what is the pollution coming from solar and/or wind generated energy ?

And now that you mention volcanoes:

Are volcanoes the energy source of the future?


The Reykjanes Peninsula, a finger of black rock jutting out over the Mid-Atlantic Ridge from Iceland's southwestern coast, has long leveraged its unique volcanic geology into economic opportunity. Its spectacularly carved edifices and vast lava fields draw naturalists from around the globe, while geothermal pools heated by deposits of steam and magma deep below ground provide the anchor for a thriving resort economy. The region is even powered by this geology; the 12 geothermal wells feeding 600-degree steam into the two turbines at Reykjanes Power Station provide a collective 100 megawatts of power for the surrounding area, enough to power many tens of thousands of homes. Conventional geothermal power plants like the one at Reykjanes make possible the kind of energy economy that has made Iceland a model for the world; the country generates virtually all of its electricity from renewable resources—a quarter of it from geothermal alone—making Iceland the poster child for geothermal energy usage in a world dominated by hydrocarbon economies. Read MoreWhy living off the grid will be easier in 25 years But conventional geothermal energy—based on technology that's been around since the 1970s—can only take an energy economy so far. If a consortium of researchers and energy companies has its way, Reykjanes—which is home to four volcanoes—could soon be ground zero for a geothermal energy revolution that could change the way countries and economies around the world view and utilize their geothermal resources.

See whole aritcle here:
www.cnbc.com...


edit on 27-4-2016 by AlienView because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
16
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join