|
|
 |
Author |
|
| Message | |
|
Ty Gwyn
Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Posts: 2055
Location: Lampeter
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 12, 12 10:36 pm Post subject: Rosatom s offer to build the new reactors. |
 
|
Rosatom the builders of Chernobyl have offered assistance to build the new reactors at Anglesey and Gloucestershire,since the German companies have pulled out.
Bearing in mind,its only a few weeks back,the last farm in Snowdonia had the all clear after the radiation fall out from Chernobyl.
Do we have confidence in a company like this?
Also recently ,the prize of 1million has come back on the table for a carbon capture program for clean coal technology,bearing in mind,in the next 5yrs,8 coal fired power stations are coming to the end of their lives,and the time scale to build a Nuclear reactor is way beyond that,and the output of wind power is a spit in the ocean,
Do you think of the big boys in power,that the penny has finally dropped,that the destruction of the coal industry in the 80s/90s has put us in this position,and the thought of the lights going out,is getting to close. |
|
|
|
 |
dpack
Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 21636
Location: yes
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 13, 12 12:13 am Post subject: |
|
umm .
my nuke reports are in the archive .
i wish it was safe nearly free energy
i would rather iron me feet than trust a" russian nuclear company" 3 big red flags in one go |
|
|
|
|
dpack
Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 21636
Location: yes
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 13, 12 12:26 am Post subject: |
|
having checked i have lots more info on nuke but 4 gig in one go is a bit much |
|
|
|
|
dpack
Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 21636
Location: yes
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 13, 12 12:37 am Post subject: |
|
recon that is easier |
|
|
|
|
bagpuss
Downsizer Moderator
Joined: 09 Dec 2004
Posts: 10132
Location: cambridge
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 13, 12 6:28 am Post subject: |
|
I don't know anything about the company so your concern may well be justified but the blame for Cheynobyl I think can be left squarely at the governments feet for decided to test their emergency shut down proceedures on a live reactor |
|
|
|
|
dpack
Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 21636
Location: yes
|
|
|
|
|
jema
Downsizer Moderator
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 25965
Location: Still in Swindon
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 13, 12 12:42 pm Post subject: |
|
As I understand it Chernobyl was much more of a management failure than a plant failure.
e.g. if you do systematically turn off just about every safety feature, and then recreate a meltdown scenario, then you get what you ask for  |
|
|
|
|
Bodger
Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 11255
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 13, 12 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
I read that the cost for developing a new reactor at Wylfa is going to be in the region of 8 billion pounds. It occurs to me, that if a similar amount was to be spent on safer greener energy, then we'd really be cooking with gas, or possibly not, depending upon what the boffins, given the investment, might develop. |
|
|
|
|
dpack
Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 21636
Location: yes
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 13, 12 2:30 pm Post subject: |
|
the legacy of the soviet programmes is huge ,they cant tidy their own stuff ,fox henhouse etc .the hns of russian nuke activities has a historical record second to none .
russian commercial activity is controlled in a way that puts the mafia into division 4 ,it dosnt get reported much cos journos get shot enemies filled with polonium210 or a carbomb surprise
from the rosebud episode
Joey Ramone: I'd just like to say this gig sucks.
Johnny Ramone: Hey, up yours Springfield. One, two, three, four!
Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday Burnsy.
The Ramones: Happy birthday to you!
C.J. Ramone: Go to Hell you old bastard.
Marky Ramone: Hey, I think they liked us!
Mr. Burns: Have the Rolling Stones killed.
Smithers: But sir, those aren't--
Mr. Burns: Do as I say!
ummm spooky |
|
|
|
|
vegplot
Joined: 19 Apr 2007
Posts: 19059
Location: On the circuit at Ty Croes
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 13, 12 3:49 pm Post subject: |
|
Thanks for the offer, but no. |
|
|
|
|
bagpuss
Downsizer Moderator
Joined: 09 Dec 2004
Posts: 10132
Location: cambridge
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 13, 12 4:39 pm Post subject: |
|
Don't get me wrong this company building uk power stations probably isn't a good idea but that isn't because of Chernobyl |
|
|
|
|
dpack
Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 21636
Location: yes
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 13, 12 9:04 pm Post subject: |
|
| jema wrote: |
As I understand it Chernobyl was much more of a management failure than a plant failure.
e.g. if you do systematically turn off just about every safety feature, and then recreate a meltdown scenario, then you get what you ask for |
the big pop was not the only major incident with that type of reactor ,one af its siblings had a partial meltdown a few years before but got patched up ,another one of very similar design had caught fire ,but not too badly ,in cumbria long before those were built ,so was it wise ?.yes cos that type of boiler makes a fair bit of plutonium as the graphite is quite good at moderating neutrons even if it has a habit of catching fire
design was a problem but group stupidity helped a lot with the "safety test" at Chernobyl
this technology is very dangeroos even at best ,it has a legacy that is not addressed ,until that legacy is sorted it would be daft to add to it |
|
|
|
|
dpack
Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 21636
Location: yes
|
|
|
|
|
Shane
Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Posts: 2757
Location: Doha. Is hot.
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 12 4:01 am Post subject: Re: Rosatom s offer to build the new reactors. |
|
| Ty Gwyn wrote: |
Rosatom the builders of Chernobyl have offered assistance to build the new reactors at Anglesey and Gloucestershire,since the German companies have pulled out.
Bearing in mind,its only a few weeks back,the last farm in Snowdonia had the all clear after the radiation fall out from Chernobyl.
Do we have confidence in a company like this? |
The problem at Chernobyl was caused by the design and the operation, not the construction. |
|
|
|
|
dpack
Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 21636
Location: yes
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 12 9:12 am Post subject: |
|
the basic construction possible saved it from being a lot worse .when it melted after the bang the fuel liquified and ran out of the graphite moderator therefore reducing the intensity of the fission from slow neutrons and the mass concrete under the reactor held the hot blob before it hit the water table and went postal with chemistry and steam .
still a very moody way to boil water ,some reactor designs are much safer and use failsafe design rather than yield of plutonium as the basis
as an aside the uk holds about 500 tonnes of plutonium 239 (maybe 1 tonne is weaponised to arm the entire uk nuclear "deterent") the rest needs guarding from accident or misuse for at least half a million years
the waste from making it is many times that amount in various forms and places ,for instance the beach at dounrey was a mistake but the irish sea and the deep atlantic etc were deliberate
these lads have acted like fly tippers at times
.hanford http://news.opb.org/article/questions_remain_about_hanfords_waste_treatment_plants_mixing_tanks/
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=145326474
i prefer jr ewing to mr burns
Last edited by dpack on Sun Apr 15, 12 9:51 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
|
View Latest Posts