The new €1.5bn roof over Chernobyl nuclear plant.

Rhys Essien

So this aint coming cheap.Workers would get an annual dose of radiation in 12 minutes if they are above the sarcophagus roof.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25086097

Mr. Tom

I suppose you could almost say, better the "sarcophagus" you know!!

TeddyTedson

Simpsons did it. Sort of

But jesus, that is a bit surreal.

Actually some amazing photos of people who returned to the area in recent years.
It's amazing to see cars that were just abandoned one day and inside homes where people just up and left leaving everything behind. It's almost voyeuristic :P

My name is URL

Mr. Tom wrote: »

I suppose you could almost say, better the "sarcophagus" you know!!

Worst novelty account ever

Dempsey

One of the most incredible feats of engineering if they manage to complete it before the sarcophagus collapses.

DrumSteve

My name is URL wrote: »

Worst novelty account ever

Evil can be only fought with Evil.

Bring back Facekicker.

NTMK

Rhys Essien wrote: »

So this aint coming cheap.Workers would get an annual dose of radiation in 12 minutes if they are above the sarcophagus roof.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25086097

1.5bn isnt too bad given the complexity and the wages they would have to pay workers and engineers, not to mind the cost of materials

Hownowcow

Why shouldn't you wear Russian underwear?

Because Chernobyl fallout.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

god that would have been so cool in stalker 2

Karl Stein

The disaster that just keeps on giving taking.

The private sector wouldn't touch nuke-power and only get involved because the risks, costs and legacy are socialised. But hey, what's new?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Carlos Roca wrote: »

The disaster that just keeps on giving taking.

The private sector wouldn't touch nuke-power and only get involved because the risks, costs and legacy are socialised. But hey, what's new?

even in a thread about a communist created nuclear disaster you jump in to bash the private sector

you are incredible

force eleven

Radiation. It's good for you.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1367698/Radiation-good-says-Ann-Coulter-weighs-Japans-nuclear-crisis.html

Karl Stein

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

even in a thread about a communist created nuclear disaster you jump in to bash the private sector

Don't like the truth? All nuke power is 'communist'. It was born of communism/socialism and state power and is sustained by it.

you are incredible

Why thank you dahling.

Sectors like nuke-power need to be a hell of a lot more 'private' you know why? They'd 'do the math', run a mile, and investment would pour into other methods of power generation.

I'm not anti PvS by the way - I'm anti the costs of private sector failure being lumped on the tax paying public.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Carlos Roca wrote: »

I'm not anti PvS by the way -

your post history suggests otherwise

I'm anti the costs of private sector failure being lumped on the tax paying public.

i actually feel pretty disgusted that we agree on something

biko

They should nuke the site from orbit, only way to be sure.

MadsL

biko wrote: »

They should nuke the site from orbit, only way to be sure.

http://www.gifday.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/fireflyhesitationthing.gif

The Diabolical Monocle

High tech construction worker - the candidate will gain vital experience in foreign construction, languages, and chemotherapy in the work place.

Pay - Jobsbridge

zl1whqvjs75cdy

I find all this chernobyl stuff really really fascinating. The photography of the nearby town. Also the story of the three engineers who went to open the steam valves knowing full well they were going to die a horrific death is really powerful.

Karl Stein

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

your post history suggests otherwise

That's your reading of it and it's wrong. Just calling out BS.

i actually feel pretty disgusted that we agree on something

That's says a lot more about you than I, Sir.

paulbok

From the pictures in the OP, I thought U2 were in town.

Maximus Alexander

Photos of Pripyat never fail to creep me out and intrigue me at the same time.

Mr. Tom

My name is URL wrote: »

Worst novelty account ever

Hardly a novelty account Judge!

Quotes can sometimes help us see things in a different way, in a different light.

testicle

Carlos Roca wrote: »

The private sector wouldn't touch nuke-power and only get involved because the risks, costs and legacy are socialised. But hey, what's new?

EDF (a private company) run most of the nuclear generation stations in the UK.

Karl Stein

testicle wrote: »

EDF (a private company) run most of the nuclear generation stations in the UK.

They run them. The were built by using tens of billions of pounds of taxpayers' money and then handed over to the so-called private sector to manage.

Consider the public private partnership of the UK Govt and EDF.

The government's agreement to underwrite the £16bn Hinkley Point nuclear power station could prove to be "economically insane" and hugely costly to consumers, City analysts have warned.

"Having considered the known terms of the deal, we are flabbergasted that the UK government has committed future generations of consumers to the costs that will flow from this deal," the analysts said.

The government has also given EDF so much leeway on time and cost that the consortium's risk is negligible, they argued.

Source

Again, the risk is borne by the public. Also, if there's a huge accident guess who picks up the bill? Yep, Joe Le Taxipayer. This is a good example of the no risk 'private sector' in action.

NuckingFacker

testicle wrote: »

EDF (a private company) run most of the nuclear generation stations in the UK.

They do indeed. They're a bit sketchy on the cashflow cycles of dealing with the waste, legacy waste and the disaster zones that are the dumping ponds from Sellafield et al. I'm gonna guess they'll slip a cap into their hand when those cans can't be kicked down the road any further. Though having an idea of the levels of responsibility usually displayed by the Great British Government in these matters, I doubt too much sleep is being lost. The mugs will pay as per usual. Decide who the mugs are yourself.

expectationlost

hey nuke power isn't that bad sure chernobyl isn't that bad we just still dealing with it now, and in japan they can't even deal with the water, sure nuclear power isn't that bad

Karl Stein

NuckingFacker wrote: »

Though having an idea of the levels of responsibility usually displayed by the Great British Government in these matters

In fairness that's not unique to the GB Govt.

shruikan2553

expectationlost wrote: »

hey nuke power isn't that bad sure chernobyl isn't that bad we just still dealing with it now, and in japan they can't even deal with the water, sure nuclear power isn't that bad

Out of over 400 nuclear power reactors. In terms of lives lost per unit of energy generated, nuclear power has caused fewer accidental deaths per unit of energy generated than all other major sources of energy generation.

NuckingFacker

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Out of over 400 nuclear power reactors. In terms of lives lost per unit of energy generated, nuclear power has caused fewer accidental deaths per unit of energy generated than all other major sources of energy generation.

yeah?Feck what happens the waste they entomb in gigantic stainless steel and concrete flasks - that's "someone elses" problem. And good luck quantifying the fatalities caused by Chernobyl, let alone those from Fukushima. That's whats so great - people don't drop with their heads falling off...it's a bit more insidious and lost in the great morass of causes of death.

Maximus Alexander

NuckingFacker wrote: »

yeah?Feck what happens the waste they entomb in gigantic stainless steel and concrete flasks - that's "someone elses" problem. And good luck quantifying the fatalities caused by Chernobyl, let alone those from Fukushima. That's whats so great - people don't drop with their heads falling off...it's a bit more insidious and lost in the great morass of causes of death.

Not trying to be contentious, but if what you're saying is true and it's not possible to identify the fallout of these incidents in terms of their effect on the health of the general populace, does that not mean it's miniscule to the point of being moot? Does that not add credence to the idea that nuclear power really isn't that harmful?

shruikan2553

NuckingFacker wrote: »

yeah?Feck what happens the waste they entomb in gigantic stainless steel and concrete flasks - that's "someone elses" problem. And good luck quantifying the fatalities caused by Chernobyl, let alone those from Fukushima. That's whats so great - people don't drop with their heads falling off...it's a bit more insidious and lost in the great morass of causes of death.

If you care about waste then you must be against fossil fuels too. Also fossil fuels cause air pollution, mining causes lung problems. From what I remember the only thing released into the air from a nuclear power plant is water vapor.

Karl Stein

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Out of over 400 nuclear power reactors. In terms of lives lost per unit of energy generated, nuclear power has caused fewer accidental deaths per unit of energy generated than all other major sources of energy generation.

So what?

NuckingFacker

shruikan2553 wrote: »

If you care about waste then you must be against fossil fuels too. Also fossil fuels cause air pollution, mining causes lung problems. From what I remember the only thing released into the air from a nuclear power plant is water vapor.

I have a piano to be pushing up a hill using a piece of rope, just as soon as I've sorted that I'll happily lash into a great big discussion of why I believe nuclear power is a crock of shyte. If you like, I'll also discuss why wind power is a massive cod fuelled by subsidies and crazy future valuations of a unit of electricity.

Karl Stein

NuckingFacker wrote: »

If you like, I'll also discuss why wind power is a massive cod fuelled by subsidies and crazy future valuations of a unit of electricity.

The thing is, I reckon people would be happier to see their money subsidize R&D in renewables if given the choice.

I don't think the public are against the govt subsidising the development of new technology as long as it's transparent, democratic, and demonstrably beneficial to the public (not the no-risk 'private' sector) in the long run.

NuckingFacker

Carlos Roca wrote: »

The thing is, I reckon people would be happier to see their money subsidize R&D in renewables if given the choice.

I don't think the public are against the govt subsidising the development of new technology as long as it's transparent, democratic, and demonstrably beneficial to the public (not the no-risk 'private' sector) in the long run.

The only renewable energy source that is viable is waste timber and that is currently not viable as we have prevaricated for decades and relied on coal and gas to fill the voids. The day governments get their thumb out and invest money in actually recycling 100% of the wood waste generated by both the forestry industry and industry generally will be the day they solve the long term energy needs of society. Proper investment in burner and generator technology as well as a commitment to actually harvest, collect, process and use every single scrap of waste wood generated by man would replace coal with a renewable source of energy. Currently, we p155 it all away, excuse my french and the same goes for waste plastic btw - until de-sulphation units were retrofitted to coal burning power stations, coal was a massive emitter of pollutants. Similar technology as well as ultra-burn inceration units for plastics which include a proper exhaust after-scrubber will lead to us mining our dumps for all the raw fuel we have thrown away like idiots for decades.

The real problem with the power generation industry is that there are too many vested interests, too many daft subsidies that skew the market in favour of rubbish technology that would otherwise be dropped like a hot snot and too little interest in actually doing somthing that will be long-term correct as opposed to short term profitable. And too many greens are well meaning idiots with no practical grounding leading to airy-fairy nonsencery.

Carlos Roca

Carlos Roca wrote: »

They run them. The were built by using tens of billions of pounds of taxpayers' money and then handed over to the so-called private sector to manage.

Consider the public private partnership of the UK Govt and EDF.



Again, the risk is borne by the public. Also, if there's a huge accident guess who picks up the bill? Yep, Joe Le Taxipayer. This is a good example of the no risk 'private sector' in action.

Surprised to see you using "City analysts" to back up and argument

Karl Stein

Deleted User wrote: »

Surprised to see you using "City analysts" to back up and argument

There's a lot more than just those lads who 'do the math'. There's probably a bit of concern, on their behalf, for British interests that might not be so prevalent in 'city analysts' in Paris where EDF's parent company are located.

Carlos Roca

Carlos Roca wrote: »

There's a lot more than just those lads who 'do the math'. There's probably a bit of concern, on their behalf, for British interests that might not be so prevalent in 'city analysts' in Paris where EDF's parent company are located.

I doubt it's The UK state they're worried about, I'm sure if their paymasters were in any way involved they'd be finding fewer issues with it.

beano345

NTMK wrote: »

1.5bn isnt too bad given the complexity and the wages they would have to pay workers and engineers, not to mind the cost of materials

All the money in the world would never get me to work near that thing


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1dfC7Sf5ws&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Capt'n Midnight

testicle wrote: »

EDF (a private company) run most of the nuclear generation stations in the UK.

They are getting an index linked price for the electricity for the next 40 odd years. That price is currently twice the wholesale price.

It's a licence to print money unless they've screwed up on the costs.

EDF have a market capitalisation of €50Bn

The cost of Hinkley C is €16Bn

It's scary when you realise how close to betting the company on the next big job the nuclear industry can get.

xzanti

Looks like this is in doubt now as the political situation over there is so bad.

The Chernobyl Children International charity has expressed deep concerns over delays to a project aimed at making the site of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant safe.

It was 28 years ago this week when an explosion at the plant sent huge amounts of radiation into the atmosphere.

A $2bn internationally-funded construction project is aimed at building an extra shield around the leaking reactor. However, the project is now expected to be postponed, after Russia indicated that it may withdraw financial support due to political tensions with Ukraine.

The charity's CEO, Adi Roche, said the issue must be put back on the political agenda.

Speaking on RTÉ's Morning Ireland, she said: "This is an urgent situation.

"What we really need is when the negotiations are happening between Russia and Ukraine, we need people like Eamon Gilmore ... to be able to put on the negotiating table the issue of coming back to ensuring that this sarcophagus does get finished and it gets finished on time, for the protection of the entire planet."

I was listening to Adi Roche on the radio earlier talking about this.. it sounds like it's literally a ticking time bomb.

According to her, only 3% of the nuclear matter was emitted back in 86.. and the other 97% is just waiting to burst out.

Quite disturbing.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0CEoQqQIwAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rte.ie%2Fnews%2F2014%2F0423%2F610378-chernobyl-appeal%2F&ei=w8pXU9S-HqeI7AavvYHwCw&usg=AFQjCNHKTHGtkDKh1GTDi4v537kmTPtpKg

Nemeses

This project is long overdue...

That shelter should have been erected in the early 2000's!!

ScumLord

Karl Stein wrote: »

The disaster that just keeps on giving taking.

It was only really a disaster for humans, from an environmental point of view despite the radiation every other living thing has benefited from the accident. Once humans moved out of the area wildlife flourished and they even saw species that hadn't been seen in decades returning. They're life spans are just too short to be affected by increased radiation.

I think nuclear power has a future just not that kind of N.power that was mainly used for it's byproducts.

Rhys Essien wrote: »

So this aint coming cheap.Workers would get an annual dose of radiation in 12 minutes if they are above the sarcophagus roof.

Why did they put one of the muppets down there. What good can a big hairy elephant do?