Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 86

Thread: Touring Chernobyl In 2010

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,388

    Default 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

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    West Australia
    Posts
    372

    Default

    It's like a real life fallout 3.
    Very interesting to see. I remember seeing pictures of the site where they buried all these military vehicles.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    52

    Default

    Wish they would find a less dangerous power source - too many lives lost. Thou with the current power hungriness of people that ain't gonna happen.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Russe, Bulgaria
    Posts
    538

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SkyHiRider View Post
    Wish they would find a less dangerous power source - too many lives lost. Thou with the current power hungriness of people that ain't gonna happen.
    The power on the planet is not a little, the people are many.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    215

    Default

    After seeing all those pictures I can't really say a thing...
    It's incredible to imagine what has happened there.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    86

    Default

    A few comments:

    Testing of this nuclear safety feature in April of 1986 turned into this deadly disaster as established procedures were not followed and in the minutes leading up to the accident, emergency warnings were ignored and mistakes were made. There also proved to be several flaws within the design of the Soviet RBMK nuclear reactor and in its construction.
    According to the testimony of Anatoly Dyatlov, all the instruments read normal just six seconds prior to the explosion. Instrumentation was probably inadequate here, as it's considered likely that there was a "hot spot" that formed in the lower half of the reactor which went undetected.

    The RBMK reactor was known to be less stable at low power levels than at high power, and it was originally instructed that they perform the test at about 60% power. However, due to electricity demand they were forbidden to shut down the reactor for several hours after when the test was supposed to start, which caused Xenon to build up (which is a strong poison). The reaction rate tanked, and they removed a bunch of control rods to try and get it back up, finally deciding to run the test at much lower power than anticipated (~14% iirc).

    Again according to Dyatlov, the test completed successfully and the control rods were being reinserted to shut the reactor down after completion. The control rods, however, were tipped with graphite which moderated the reaction and when first inserted actually *increased* the reaction rate. (A fault which was first discovered in an incident at the Ignalina plant).

    Canadian simulations suggest that the control rods were actually able to successfully deactivate the top half of the reactor, but there was still enough material in the lower half that it was able to operate essentially independantly from the top half.

    Worth noting is that none of the reactors at Chernobyl had a containment building, which is effectively an airtight shield made of steel and concrete that covers the nuclear reactor and presents radiation from escaping into the atmosphere.
    The RBMK was a very tall reactor, especially factoring in the fuel cranes on the top, and they didn't consider it practical to add even more to the height by adding a heavy containment to the top. They did, however, have a fairly robust accident localisation system (ALS) for the bottom half of the reactor (a lot of good that did).

    (Sweden was reportedly the first country to notice the increase in airborne radiation)
    Yep - the Forsmark power plant registered somethat higher radiation levels at their detectors and shut themselves down for inspection thinking that they might have had a leak. They didn't find one.

    The sarcophagus did help in preventing greater amounts of radioactive material from escaping into the atmosphere, but it's fallen into a state of disrepair with cracks appearing along the roof and the entire structure is considered unstable and being at a risk of collapse.
    The sarcophagus is built upon the existing structure of the reactor 4 building, which is considered unsound as one of the major supports was severely bent in the explosion. Simulations suggest that a tremor of 7 or above on the Richter scale (which happen in the area about once every 30 years or so) could cause the thing to collapse.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SkyHiRider View Post
    Wish they would find a less dangerous power source - too many lives lost. Thou with the current power hungriness of people that ain't gonna happen.
    Nuclear power is safe, just not the way the Russians did it. A properly functioning (American) nuclear power plant emits less radiation than a Coal power plant. And there aren't very many nuclear disasters, but the ones that occur are widely publicized.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thefirstm View Post
    Nuclear power is safe, just not the way the Russians did it. A properly functioning (American) nuclear power plant emits less radiation than a Coal power plant. And there aren't very many nuclear disasters, but the ones that occur are widely publicized.
    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.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    15

    Default

    First: nice pictures, Michael. I'd be interested how it did "feel" there, I think there wasn't too much about that in the text.


    Quote 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.
    Well, I don't think they're really that safe, there are enough examples of quite serious events even in western nuclear power plants. But that is of course debatable.
    What I really doubt is the cheapness. Yes, it may be cheap now (though at least here in Germany it's heavily subsidies to my knowledge), but is it as cheap, if you factor in the costs of storing the waste ? We just have a very big problem with a mine called "Asse", where they dumped medium-grade waste - water got into the mine and now there is the threat of ground-water pollution. Probably there are safer storages for the waste, but I doubt anyone can predict what happens in millions of years. And you'll have to monitor and care about those storages for millions of years, even if not too much happens.
    The most interesting fact about all this is, that to my knowledge, there doesn't yet exist a single final storage for nuclear waste world-wide. And this after decades of producing waste and searching for a final storage.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote 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.

Posting Permissions

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