Page 7 of 15 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 146

Thread: Nuclear power plants

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    1,546
    Total Downloaded
    0
    All sorts of wild estimates of the total death toll from the Chernobyl disaster exist. The minimum like likely figure seems to be about 30,000 but the most likely figure is estimated at 985,000 mostly from cancer. This later figure comes from Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment written by Russian biologist Dr. Alexey Yablokov, former environmental advisor to the Russian president; Dr. Alexey Nesterenko, a biologist and ecologist in Belarus; and Dr.Vassili Nesterenko, a physicist and at the time of the accident director of the Institute of Nuclear Energy of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus. Its editor is Dr. Janette Sherman, a physician and toxicologist long involved in studying the health impacts of radioactivity. The book is published by the New York Academy of Sciences. You can download a copy from here: http://www.strahlentelex.de/Yablokov%20Chernobyl%20book.pdf ( NB: size is 4.29 MB )

    Cheers
    KarlB



  2. #62
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    791
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by isuzurover View Post
    The big issue is baseload power. At present, fossil fuels (coal or gas) or nuclear provide almost all the world's baseload power.

    Some "green" options like geothermal, ocean swell/tide, solar thermal + storage, etc... can provide baseload power as well, but the technologies are either experimental, very expensive, or the sites where they can be implemented viably are too few and far from the demand. Plus for all apart from Geothermal, a few days with no wind or sun will mean no power.

    However, a lot of the issues can be overcome by better grids and smarter power management. It is usually windy or sunny somewhere. The middle of Australia has over 300 sunny days a year...
    Good points. So what is the resolution, an even mix of all sources?

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    On the road.
    Posts
    1,946
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by goingbush View Post
    Was Poms like you that buggered up Australia in the first place (by laying claim to it) and more recently thought it fine to Australia as a Atomic test site
    you think it would have been any better if the french found this place first?

    Quote Originally Posted by isuzurover View Post
    The big issue is baseload power. At present, fossil fuels (coal or gas) or nuclear provide almost all the world's baseload power.

    Some "green" options like geothermal, ocean swell/tide, solar thermal + storage, etc... can provide baseload power as well, but the technologies are either experimental, very expensive, or the sites where they can be implemented viably are too few and far from the demand. Plus for all apart from Geothermal, a few days with no wind or sun will mean no power.

    However, a lot of the issues can be overcome by better grids and smarter power management. It is usually windy or sunny somewhere. The middle of Australia has over 300 sunny days a year...
    and when its dark the solar systems provide how much power?.
    i am all for greener ways to generate power but that baseload eveyone talks about needs to come from somewhere and nuclear is the answer.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    13,786
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorkie View Post

    and when its dark the solar systems provide how much power?.
    i am all for greener ways to generate power but that baseload eveyone talks about needs to come from somewhere and nuclear is the answer.
    Solar thermal + storage (usually molten salt) can provide power for 24/7.
    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhV2LT8KVgA]Gemasolar - The World's First Baseload (24/7) Solar Power Plant - YouTube[/ame]

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Narre Warren
    Posts
    835
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by goingbush View Post
    mate, if your going to bandy about stats like that take a bit of care to get them right, including ALL of 1986, Aust road deaths to end on 2012 were 51,106

    Was Poms like you that buggered up Australia in the first place (by laying claim to it) and more recently thought it fine to Australia as a Atomic test site

    oh, for pity's sake
    5 SEPTEMBER 2005 | GENEVA - A total of up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (NPP) accident nearly 20 years ago, an international team of more than 100 scientists has concluded.

    As of mid-2005, however, fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster, almost all being highly exposed rescue workers, many who died within months of the accident but others who died as late as 2004.

    WHO | Chernobyl: the true scale of the accident


    Waste disposal
    Final disposal of high-level waste is delayed for 40-50 years to allow its radioactivity to decay, after which less than one thousandth of its initial radioactivity remains, and it is much easier to handle. Hence canisters of vitrified waste, or used fuel assemblies, are stored under water in special ponds, or in dry concrete structures or casks, for at least this length of time.
    The ultimate disposal of vitrified wastes, or of used fuel assemblies without reprocessing, requires their isolation from the environment for a long time. The most favoured method is burial in stable geological formations some 500 metres deep. Several countries are investigating sites that would be technically and publicly acceptable, and in Sweden and Finland construction is proceeding in 1.9 billion year-old granites.
    One purpose-built deep geological repository for long-lived nuclear waste (though only from defence applications) is already operating in New Mexico, in a salt formation.
    After being buried for about 1000 years most of the radioactivity will have decayed. The amount of radioactivity then remaining would be similar to that of the corresponding amount of naturally-occurring uranium ore from which it originated, though it would be more concentrated.

    Waste Management Overview

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    On the road.
    Posts
    1,946
    Total Downloaded
    0
    thanks.
    playing devils advocate though surely not all days you will get perfect sun light so you still need something to top up the grid during those times?.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Narre Warren
    Posts
    835
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Hydro is the only reliable and viable form of renewable energy at this time. Everything else is either unable to provide base load power, theoretically possible or impractical to employ for base load generation.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    18,616
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterM View Post
    Hydro is the only reliable and viable form of renewable energy at this time. Everything else is either unable to provide base load power, theoretically possible or impractical to employ for base load generation.
    But has a huge environmental impact on the river system that it sits on.
    REMLR 243

    2007 Range Rover Sport TDV6
    1977 FC 101
    1976 Jaguar XJ12C
    1973 Haflinger AP700
    1971 Jaguar V12 E-Type Series 3 Roadster
    1957 Series 1 88"
    1957 Series 1 88" Station Wagon

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    13,786
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterM View Post
    Hydro is the only reliable and viable form of renewable energy at this time. Everything else is either unable to provide base load power, theoretically possible or impractical to employ for base load generation.

    See above. The Gemasolar plant has been providing baseload power since may 2011.

    Busting the baseload power myth › Opinion (ABC Science)


    Quote Originally Posted by Yorkie View Post
    thanks.
    playing devils advocate though surely not all days you will get perfect sun light so you still need something to top up the grid during those times?.
    Of course. But it is easy to have a standby gas turbine - which is quick to start and stop.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    On the road.
    Posts
    1,946
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by isuzurover View Post
    Of course. But it is easy to have a standby gas turbine - which is quick to start and stop.
    just as easy to have a nuclear reactor running, no gases from burning off, and after all nuclear is nearly green energy as if comes out of the ground.

Page 7 of 15 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Search AULRO.com ONLY!
Search All the Web!