New nuclear power plant to Finland!

[Ethelred]

Does Finland have a place to store the waste?


There is no reason that an inherently safe reactor can't be built. However there is still the matter of what to do with the waste and the eventual decommisioning of the plant. If the plant is a new and has an inteligent design and there are effective methods to handle the waste then I think its a good idea.

Chernabol was a very old plant with a very poor design. Very dangerous. There is no reason to build something even remotely like it. It was much like the earliest US reactors that were built mostly to make plutonium and the power was secondary.

[Urban Ranger]

I think you Finns should build your homes underground. You'll need far less heating this way

[Provost Harrison]

Re: The fifth nuclear reactor, yea!

Originally posted by kassiopeia


Reindeer's, PH, a reindeer's head.

Of course, I should have thought of that

[Serb]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Chernabol was a very old plant with a very poor design. Very dangerous. There is no reason to build something even remotely like it. It was much like the earliest US reactors that were built mostly to make plutonium and the power was secondary.

Oh sure. Where did you get this BS?

[KrazyHorse]

Then why did it blow up?

[aaglo]

Well, the Tsernobyl -plant was old, but I don't think that it was poorly designed. No nuclear plant is.


[edit]: unnecessary comment

[aaglo]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Then why did it blow up?

Poor maintenance

[edit]: another unnecessary comment removed

[Serb]

A...... *shuting up*

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by aaglo


Poor maintenance.... THREADJACKER!!!

Thread Nazi. We should have invaded Finland while our troops were over there...

[aaglo]

Hmmm... Canadian troops over here? Why? Military manouvers excersise or what?...

You couldn't do that even if you wanted to

[Serb]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Thread Nazi. We should have invaded Finland while our troops were over there...

Stop to regret about the past.
LET'S DO IT NOW.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Serb


Oh sure. Where did you get this BS?

From the real world. Chernobyl was an old plant design and didn't even have a containment vessel.

Excerpt from http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf44.htm


The RBMK reactor, a graphite-moderated type with the fuel and cooling water in pressure tubes, has been much discussed and is based on a design developed for military plutonium production. While tolerably stable and safe at operating power, RBMKs at less than 20% power were notoriously unstable, which is how the 1986 Chernobyl disaster came about. After this, all RBMKs underwent major modification to their control systems, and the fuel enrichment was increased from 1.8% to 2.4% U-235 (most reactors use fuel enriched to 3.5% or more U-235). Lithuania's Ignalina reactors were until recently the world's largest.

This one says similar things about the design

http://www.sciam.com/0496issue/0496shcherbak.html

[Andemagne]

jeiii! go nukes!

another bit of news that I first heard on Apolyton.

hopefully I/we don't have to regret the decision.

[Eli]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Does Finland have a place to store the waste?

Serb's backyard.

[faded glory]

Russia wants to store Europe and America's nuclear waste in Siberia. For a price of course, there was a piece of legislation putin wanted in the politburo that allowed it (or whatever they call there congress these days)


The thinking behind nuclear waste is, one day they should find a bacteria or somthing to eat the waste or send it somewhere.


Finn's shouldnt need that much reactors. Unless there supporting terorism