20th Anniversary of Chernobyl Disaster

[Aa]

Originally posted by gelfie@Apr 27 2006, 01:05 PM
Couldn't be any worse than Richard Carlton's (ego)trip there the other week on 60 minutes.

I'm glad i missed it.

[hawker]

Originally posted by gelfie@Apr 27 2006, 12:35 PM
Couldn't be any worse than Richard Carlton's (ego)trip there the other week on 60 minutes.

Who the hell watches Channel Nine? Waste of time for news / current affairs etc... ABC or SBS only I say...

[mechcon]

let alone tv

[hawker]

Originally posted by mechcon@Apr 27 2006, 01:02 PM
let alone tv

I am offended. I work part-time in tv :P - everyone has to watch :P

[Exocet]

For those still wondering exactly what happened:

On the Friday evening of April 25, 1986, the reactor crew at Chernobyl-4, prepared to run a test the next day to see how long the turbines would keep spinning and producing power if the electrical power supply went off line. This was a dangerous test, but it had been done before. As a part of the preparation, they disabled some critical control systems - including the automatic shutdown safety mechanisms.

Shortly after 1:00 AM on April 26, the flow of coolant water dropped and the power began to increase.

At 1:23 AM, the operator moved to shut down the reactor in its low power mode and a domino effect of previous errors caused an sharp power surge, triggering a tremendous steam explosion which blew the 1000 ton cap on the nuclear containment vessel to smithereens.

Some of the 211 control rods melted and then a second explosion, whose cause is still the subject of disagreement among experts, threw out fragments of the burning radioactive fuel core and allowed air to rush in - igniting several tons of graphite insulating blocks.

Once graphite starts to burn, its almost impossible to extinguish. It took 9 days and 5000 tons of sand, boron, dolomite, clay and lead dropped from helicopters to put it out. The radiation was so intense that many of those brave pilots died.

It was this graphite fire that released most of the radiation into the atmosphere and troubling spikes in atmospheric radiation were measured as far as thousands of miles away.

These were inexcusable errors of design.

The causes of the accident are described as a fateful combination of human error and imperfect technology. Andrei Sakharov said, that Chernobyl accident demonstrates that our system cannot manage modern technology.

[Paxton]

Originally posted by nateb@Apr 27 2006, 01:21 PM

Coal running out, WHAT THE!

Coal is a fossil fuel. We are rapidly running out of fossil fuels, including Oil, Natural Gas and Coal.

[feeze]

Originally posted by timothy@Apr 27 2006, 10:52 AM
flower power. i will never support lucas heights. and the submarines are not important. if something tragic happened at lucas heights people would never understand the reasons it was built.

i hope it all works out in the end. seems all a little bit stupid, with green energy moving well away from radioactive sources.

there are many power sources and the big money dudes like it all the way it is, everyone believes it is our best option because coal is so bad. there are many ways to produce power. the planet will move away from an old technology that will be laughed at in the future.

Mate do you even know what they do at Lucas Heights? (And the cyclotron in Camperdown at the RPA)

Ever seen those pictures of those bald kids with cancer, well it's not the cancer that makes them lose their hair.

I for one fully support the research and material production done by ANSTO.

P.S. sorry if this seems like a flame but I dislike it when people assume Lucas Heights is a power reactor and ignores all actual work they do which is essential in our modern lives.

http://www.ansto.gov.au/natfac/hifar.html

[mechcon]

Originally posted by Hawker wrote:
I am offended. I work part-time in tv tongue.gif - everyone has to watch :P

I dont care said pierre :P

[nateb]

Coal is a fossil fuel. We are rapidly running out of fossil fuels, including Oil, Natural Gas and Coal.

come for a drive to the Hunter Valley and show me where the shortage is, than go for a drive out west a little further and show me?

[timothy]

feeze, sorry if i implied lucas heights was something it is not. however i do think lucas heights has many dangerous procedures that in the long term are pointless.

flower power does exist but is not a money spinner yet, thats all. the fossil fuel scare can be used in the same way when we discover the uranium in the ground is special and should really be left in it's place.

what quantity of any natural resource should remain. the earth is now being mined for all the best bits.

[Ed01]

You do understand reactors are needed for the manufacturing of certain types of medical and commercial radioisotopes and Lucas Heights facility is one of them. Silicon irradiation is also made possible by nuclear reactors.

[bartron]

Been to lucas heights and stood next to the reactor..saw the fuel rods glowing blue in the pool (that was cool). It is a 'very' safe reactor and useful fo all types of medical isotope making and such.

Chernobyl was not a safe reactor. The design they used was fatally flawed from the start. Modern reactor designs are such that runaway is almost impossible. I'd feel perfectly safe with an operating reactor nearby. They have a bad rap because nuclear = atomic = bomb = OMFG (or so people think).

[mwot]

Originally posted by nateb@Apr 27 2006, 01:21 PM

Coal running out, WHAT THE!

For those of you interested in fossil fuel reserves - and for those who can stand such a dry read - you might find this transcript from an upper BP exec of some interest.

Certainly, if this is anything to go by, the oil companies also believe that

the official data – always open to challenge - but the best data we have – indicates we have decades worth of fossils fuels in the ground.

and also

Working from today’s official data, we believe there is about 40 years’ worth of conventional oil reserves at the current production rates. That is based on the ratio between the world’s total proved reserves at the end of a given year and the production in that year – the so-called R/P ratio. In addition, there are plausibly significant yet to find reserves and considerable potential unconventional resources.

For gas, we know of about 70 years’ worth of reserves at the current rate of consumption and again material yet to find reserves. There are also significant resources of unconventional gas including a potentially enormous resource in the shape of gas hydrates. Finally, for coal, the R/P ratio is at least 160 years, with estimates up to 1,000 years because no one has gone seriously exploring for coal.

Start reading from section 7 of the transcript, if you're lazy like me. (Also note you can download a pdf version of the slide pack referred to.)

As oil/energy companies currently make their profits largely from fossil fuels, it's in their interests to be on the money when it comes to supply ... and also for seeking alternative fuels. The drawback from alternatives becoming expedient tends to be more infrastructure issues and affordable technologies for mass production.

[g5agogo]

I'm sorry but current nuclear technology is not the answer to greenhouse emissions. At best it can probably provide a small fraction of electrical power for a limited number of years. There is not sufficient uranium to provide the current world's energy needs for a significant number of years.

Nuclear power is not currently competitive economically - even with governments providing sovereign risk coverage for accidents, and with zero provision for long term custody of wastes and decommissioned plant. Don't forget that nuclear is not replacing petrol it is replacing electrical generation which still at this moment principally means coal. Coal is very cheap and will remain so for a significant number of years unless mechanisms are put in place to increase its cost (e.g. carbon tax).

The time frame for building nuclear power plants is substantial. When you look at this in terms of the time required to replace a significant part of the worlds electrical power generation, this severely limits its ability to provide a solution to greenhouse gas emissions.

There are other forms of nuclear energy technology that show potential for being safer, with potential for longer resource viability and greater energy provision at lower cost. However, these are in the research phase, and so are unlikely to provide a significant solution to greenhouse issues in an appropriate timeframe.

There are many people spouting that nuclear technology is the answer to greenhouse emissions, but they are mainly self-interested parties. The Federal Government is particularly supportive as are the minerals industry in Australia, primarily because Australia accounts for more than 40% of world proven reserves of uranium. Australia also has a massive dependence on the resources boom feeding China and India (to a lesser but growing extent in future years). Australia has run up ever increasing foreign debts despite the apparent good performance of the Australian economy almost entirely funded by debt. We are now around the same levels of foreign debt as a percentage of GDP that Brazil were when their economy was at its bleakest, despite record prices for our commodity exports. Without significant reform of our economy, uranium exports are almost an essential for continued growth. By the way, the minerals industry and government are well aware that increased exports of uranium will have zero effect on coal exports. Australia is the world's biggest coal exporter.

[disgust]

Originally posted by nateb@Apr 27 2006, 03:17 PM

come for a drive to the Hunter Valley and show me where the shortage is, than go for a drive out west a little further and show me?

Australia is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to black and brown coal. Germany has more coal than us and doesn't even mine it. They'd prefer to make their country rich through engineering & manufacturing. We're to busy digging holes. The clever counrty my ass.

[g5agogo]

disgust, while I agree with the thrust of your sentiments, sadly I'll have to point out that Australia has significantly greater proven reserves of coal than Germany.

cheers

[timwallG5]

There was also another nuclear accident in the late 1970s. No, it wasn't in Soviet Russia, it was in the USA.

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