Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 86

Thread: Touring Chernobyl In 2010

  1. #71

    Default

    Seeing those pictures of the Chernobyl Nuclear Accident site makes me think of how vast the effects of the disaster to people have been. This site should be a reminder to anyone who wishes to build another nuclear plant or any source of alternative energy to be careful in the planning, construction, operation and all other details. If those involved have been more careful, the disaster could have been prevented and many lives could have been saved. I wish accidents like this would happen again.

  2. #72
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    2,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wall-Street-Guru View Post
    I wish accidents like this would happen again.
    You what?!

  3. #73
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    833

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatEmerald View Post
    You what?!
    He has a point though. People in general only realize problems if they are hit by it. Before that they don't bother.

  4. #74
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    2,537

    Default

    I'm pretty sure one accident is enough. Saying that is the same as saying that you wished for a second holocaust, just because there are people who weren't hit by the first one...

  5. #75
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wall-Street-Guru View Post
    Seeing those pictures of the Chernobyl Nuclear Accident site makes me think of how vast the effects of the disaster to people have been. This site should be a reminder to anyone who wishes to build another nuclear plant or any source of alternative energy to be careful in the planning, construction, operation and all other details. If those involved have been more careful, the disaster could have been prevented and many lives could have been saved. I wish accidents like this would happen again.
    I'm sure you ment "I wish accidents like this would (NEVER) happen again"

  6. #76
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    West Australia
    Posts
    358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greggel View Post
    I'm sure you ment "I wish accidents like this would (NEVER) happen again"
    Yeah I was going to say. Human error, it's inevitable...

  7. #77
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1

    Default Safety Procedures

    Let me start by saying I wished I had saved the links. I found a website stating the they were doing 'routine tests' when the reactor had a fallout. According to the website, it was customary to shut down safety warnings in place while doing these tests. For those of us in the US, nuclear energy is still the cleanest energy we produce. However, due to Chernobyl, Three Mile Isle, and now Japan, we have a bad feeling about nuclear energy.

  8. #78
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    in front of my box :p
    Posts
    781

    Default

    Fission is definitely NOT clean energy.

  9. #79
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    West Australia
    Posts
    358

    Question

    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...

  10. #80
    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
  •