zonne-energie nu rendabel

quote:

Op zaterdag 26 mei 2012 17:35 schreef Tchock het volgende:

[..]

Ik ben met je eens dat dat slimmer is. Het punt is alleen dat het simpelweg nog niet gebeurt op grote schaal, en we moeten toch echt ergens energie vandaan halen.

En als het misgaat heb je een enorme schadepost, ja. Gelukkig is die kans zo ongelofelijk miniem dat het niet in woorden uit is te drukken.

quote:

Op zaterdag 26 mei 2012 17:57 schreef Tchock het volgende:

[..]

Een paar flinke? Precies dat, twee.

quote:

December 7, 1975 – INES Level 3 - Greifswald, Germany (then East Germany) - Partly damaged
Operators disabled three of six cooling pumps' electrical supply circuits to test emergency shutoffs. Instead of the expected automatic shutdown, a fourth pump failed causing excessive heating which damaged ten fuel rods. The accident was attributed to sticky relay contacts and generally poor construction in the Soviet-built reactor.[22]
February 22, 1977 – INES Level 4 - Jaslovské Bohunice, Slovakia (then Czechoslovakia) - Fuel damaged
Operators neglected to remove moisture-absorbing materials from a fuel rod assembly before loading it into the KS 150 reactor at power plant A-1. The accident resulted in damaged fuel integrity, extensive corrosion damage of fuel cladding and release of radioactivity into the plant area. The affected reactor was decommissioned following this accident.[23]
March 28, 1979 – INES Level 5[citation needed] - Middletown, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, United States - Partial meltdown
Equipment failures and worker mistakes contributed to a loss of coolant and a partial core meltdown at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station 15 km (9.3 mi) southeast of Harrisburg. While the reactor was extensively damaged, on-site radiation exposure was under 100 millirems (less than annual exposure due to natural sources). Area residents received a smaller exposure of 1 millirem (10 µSv), or about 1/3 the dose from eating a banana per day for one year. There were no fatalities. Follow-up radiological studies predict between zero and one long-term cancer fatality.[24][25][26]

See also: Three Mile Island accident

[edit] 1980s
March 13, 1980 - INES Level 4 - Orléans, France - Nuclear materials leak
A brief power excursion in Reactor A2 led to a rupture of fuel bundles and a minor release (8 x 1010 Bq) of nuclear materials at the Saint-Laurent Nuclear Power Plant. The reactor was repaired and continued operation until its decommissioning in 1992.[27]
March, 1981 — INES Level 2 - Tsuruga, Japan - Radioactive materials released into Sea of Japan + Overexposure of workers
More than 100 workers were exposed to doses of up to 155 millirem per day radiation during repairs of the Tsuruga Nuclear Power Plant, violating the Japan Atomic Power Company's limit of 100 millirems (1 mSv) per day.[28]
September 23, 1983 — INES Level 4 - Buenos Aires, Argentina - Accidental criticality
An operator error during a fuel plate reconfiguration in an experimental test reactor led to an excursion of 3×1017 fissions at the RA-2 facility. The operator absorbed 2000 rad (20 Gy) of gamma and 1700 rad (17 Gy) of neutron radiation which killed him two days later. Another 17 people outside of the reactor room absorbed doses ranging from 35 rad (0.35 Gy) to less than 1 rad (0.01 Gy).[29] pg103[30]
April 26, 1986 — INES Level 7 - Prypiat, Ukraine (then USSR) - Power excursion, explosion, complete meltdown
An inadequate reactor safety system[31] led to an uncontrolled power excursion, causing a severe steam explosion, meltdown and release of radioactive material at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant located approximately 100 kilometers north-northwest of Kiev. Approximately fifty fatalities (mostly cleanup personnel) resulted from the accident and the immediate aftermath. An additional nine fatal cases of thyroid cancer in children in the Chernobyl area have been attributed to the accident. The explosion and combustion of the graphite reactor core spread radioactive material over much of Europe. 100,000 people were evacuated from the areas immediately surrounding Chernobyl in addition to 300,000 from the areas of heavy fallout in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. An "Exclusion Zone" was created surrounding the site encompassing approximately 1,000 mi˛ (3,000 km˛) and deemed off-limits for human habitation for an indefinite period. Several studies by governments, UN agencies and environmental groups have estimated the consequences and eventual number of casualties. Their findings are subject to controversy.

See also: Chernobyl disaster
May 4, 1986 – INES Level 3-5 (need ref) - Hamm-Uentrop, Germany (then West Germany) - Fuel damaged
A spherical fuel pebble became lodged in the pipe used to deliver fuel elements to the reactor at an experimental 300-megawatt THTR-300 HTGR. Attempts by an operator to dislodge the fuel pebble damaged its cladding, releasing radiation detectable up to two kilometers from the reactor.[32]

[edit] 1990s
April 6, 1993 — INES Level 4 - Tomsk, Russia - Explosion
A pressure buildup led to an explosive mechanical failure in a 34 cubic meter stainless steel reaction vessel buried in a concrete bunker under building 201 of the radiochemical works at the Tomsk-7 Siberian Chemical Enterprise plutonium reprocessing facility. The vessel contained a mixture of concentrated nitric acid, uranium (8757 kg), plutonium (449 g) along with a mixture of radioactive and organic waste from a prior extraction cycle. The explosion dislodged the concrete lid of the bunker and blew a large hole in the roof of the building, releasing approximately 6 GBq of Pu 239 and 30 TBq of various other radionuclides into the environment. The contamination plume extended 28 km NE of building 201, 20 km beyond the facility property. The small village of Georgievka (pop. 200) was at the end of the fallout plume, but no fatalities, illnesses or injuries were reported. The accident exposed 160 on-site workers and almost two thousand cleanup workers to total doses of up to 50 mSv (the threshold limit for radiation workers is 100 mSv per 5 years).[33][34][35]
June, 1999 — INES Level 2[36] - Ishikawa Prefecture, Japan - Control rod malfunction
Operators attempting to insert one control rod during an inspection neglected procedure and instead withdrew three causing a 15 minute uncontrolled sustained reaction at the number 1 reactor of Shika Nuclear Power Plant. The Hokuriku Electric Power Company who owned the reactor did not report this incident and falsified records, covering it up until March, 2007.[37]
September 30, 1999 — INES Level 4 - Ibaraki Prefecture, Japan - Accidental criticality
Inadequately trained part-time workers prepared a uranyl nitrate solution containing about 16.6 kg of uranium, which exceeded the critical mass, into a precipitation tank at a uranium reprocessing facility in Tokai-mura northeast of Tokyo, Japan. The tank was not designed to dissolve this type of solution and was not configured to prevent eventual criticality. Three workers were exposed to (neutron) radiation doses in excess of allowable limits. Two of these workers died. 116 other workers received lesser doses of 1 mSv or greater though not in excess of the allowable limit.[38][39][40][41]

See also: Tokaimura nuclear accident

[edit] 2000s
April 10, 2003 — INES Level 3 - Paks, Hungary - Fuel damaged
Partially spent fuel rods undergoing cleaning in a tank of heavy water ruptured and spilled fuel pellets at Paks Nuclear Power Plant. It is suspected that inadequate cooling of the rods during the cleaning process combined with a sudden influx of cold water thermally shocked fuel rods causing them to split. Boric acid was added to the tank to prevent the loose fuel pellets from achieving criticality. Ammonia and hydrazine were also added to absorb iodine-131.[42]
April 19, 2005 — INES Level 3 - Sellafield, England, United Kingdom - Nuclear material leak
20 metric tons of uranium and 160 kilograms of plutonium dissolved in 83,000 litres of nitric acid leaked over several months from a cracked pipe into a stainless steel sump chamber at the Thorp nuclear fuel reprocessing plant. The partially processed spent fuel was drained into holding tanks outside the plant.[43][44]
November 2005 — INES Level needed - Braidwood, Illinois, United States - Nuclear material leak
Tritium contamination of groundwater was discovered at Exelon's Braidwood station. Groundwater off site remains within safe drinking standards though the NRC is requiring the plant to correct any problems related to the release.[45]
March 6, 2006 — INES Level 2[46] - Erwin, Tennessee, United States - Nuclear material leak
Thirty-five litres of a highly enriched uranium solution leaked during transfer into a lab at Nuclear Fuel Services Erwin Plant. The incident caused a seven-month shutdown. A required public hearing on the licensing of the plant was not held due to the absence of public notification.[47][48][49][50]

[edit] 2010s

See also: Timeline of the Fukushima nuclear accidents
March 11–20, 2011 - INES Level 7[51][52](previously rating is 5[53]) as of April 12 (A final rating is expected after the situation has been completely resolved).
Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant, Japan - partial meltdowns in multiple reactors [54]

Main article: Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster
After the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami of March 11, the emergency power supply of the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power plant failed. This was followed by deliberate releases of radioactive gas from reactors 1 and 2 to relieve pressure. On March 12, triggered by falling water levels, a hydrogen explosion occurred at reactor 1, resulting in the collapse of the concrete outer structure.[55][56][57][58][59] Although the reactor containment itself was confirmed to be intact,[60][61][62] the hourly radiation from the plant reached 1,015 microsievert (0.1015 rem) - an amount equivalent to that allowable for ordinary people in one year."[63][64] Residents of the Fukushima area were advised to stay inside, close doors and windows, turn off air conditioning, and to cover their mouths with masks, towels or handkerchiefs as well as not to drink tap water.[65] By the evening of March 12, the exclusion zone had been extended to 20 kilometres (12 mi) around the plant[66] and 70,000 to 80,000 people had been evacuated from homes in northern Japan.[67] A second, nearly identical hydrogen explosion occurred in the reactor building for Unit 3 on March 14, with similar effects.[68] A third explosion in the “pressure suppression room” of Unit 2[69] initially was said not to have breached the reactor’s inner steel containment vessel,[70] but later reports indicated that the explosion damaged the steel containment structure of Unit 2 and much larger releases of radiation were expected than previously.[69]
Disposed rods of reactor Unit 4 were stored outside the reactor in a separate pool which ran dry, yielding fire and risk of serious contamination.[71]
Staff was brought down from 800 Fukushima, who have been named the "Fukushima 50" by the press.[71] Events are still developing.
March 11–13, 2011 - INES Level 3,[72] Fukushima II Nuclear Power Plant, Japan - Overheating, possible radioactivity emergency.
After the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami of March 11, the cooling systems for three reactors (numbers 1, 2 and 4) of the Fukushima-Daini nuclear power plant were compromised due to damage from the tsunami.[73] Nuclear Engineering International reported that all four units were successfully automatically shut down, but emergency diesel generators at the site were Damaged by the 9.0 magnitude earthquake[74] People were evacuated around 10 kilometres (6.2 mi) from the plant. An evacuation order was issued, because of possible radioactive contamination.[75][76] October 2011, events are still developing.

quote:

Op zaterdag 26 mei 2012 18:02 schreef Guus Muisarm het volgende:
Wat mij wel langzaam ertegen doet keren is dat de techniek het langzaam via andere kanalen inhaalt. Zoals zonnecellen dus.

quote:

In listing civilian nuclear accidents, the following criteria have been followed:
1.There must be well-attested and substantial health damage, property damage or contamination.
2.The damage must be related directly to radioactive material, not merely (for example) at a nuclear power plant.
3.To qualify as "civilian", the nuclear operation/material must be principally for non-military purposes.
4.The event should involve fissile material or a reactor.

quote:

Op zaterdag 26 mei 2012 18:10 schreef Tchock het volgende:
Ik ontken niet dat kernenergie (enorme) nadelen heeft, maar ik weet wel dat de daadwerkelijke rampen ongelofelijk overdreven worden door de anti-kernlobby.

quote:

Op zaterdag 26 mei 2012 18:14 schreef Tchock het volgende:

[..]

Lees je eigen post eens. Als een centrale onherstelbaar beschadigd raakt maar er verder geen enkel gevaar is voor de gezondheid is dat volgens die definitie ook een 'ongeluk'. Dat is wel lekker makkelijk, alles op een grote hoop gooien en zeggen dat er serieus gevaar voor de gezondheid is

quote:

Op zaterdag 26 mei 2012 18:16 schreef Tchock het volgende:

[..]

Wikipedia is vrij bewerkbaar, ook voor anti-nuke lobby. En nou overdreven, zoals ik net ook al zei: door bijvoorbeeld alles op één hoop te gooien, of incidenten zonder slachtoffers bij rampen als Tsjernobyl te scharen zodat het lijkt alsof er regelmatig catastrofes van dat formaat plaatsvinden.

quote:

Op zaterdag 26 mei 2012 18:07 schreef Tchock het volgende:

[..]

Oké, ik ga niet je hele copypaste doorlezen.

quote:

Op zaterdag 26 mei 2012 18:20 schreef Tchock het volgende:

[..]

Ja, als jij totaal geen moeite doet om iets te typen maar een heel wikipedia-artikel inclusief noten en verwijzingen neerkwakt ga ik ook geen moeite doen om het te lezen, hoor. Dat zijn niet allemaal rampen, zoals je beweerde.