Slashdot Mirror

I imagine that the costs of shipping the protective radiation shielding materials alone for a Nuclear Reactor might be prohibitive (because of the weight of the materials).

One possibility would be to build the reactor a "safe" distance away from the habitats and run some sort of power lines out to it.

Of course, with Mars now so close to the Earth and putting on such a spectacular show, we can only imagine how much prettier a show it would be with a Russian Nuclear Reactor on the surface!

I think the map is a few years old but a lot of the radioactive material that Chernobyl released has a halflife of a few thousand years. From what the Ukranian Govt. has said(probably isn't true, however) the immediate area around Chernobyl is relatively radioaction free, with the exception of the Reacter 3/4 building.

Check out these site for more info
Chernobyl.com
Chernobyl.co.uk
WNA Chernobyl Info
Chernobyl Disaster Zone Site There's an english link on the bottom.

Those sites are defintely some good places to start. Chernobyl is actually quite an interesting subject.

They want to reopen Chernobyl. This article states "Officials from the European Bank for Reconstruction have criticised plans by the Ukrainian authorities to reopen a reactor at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. They say they are concerned about the safety of reactor number three, which sits next to the remains of the world's worst nuclear disaster, because of a failure to put in place extra safety measures that had been agreed. " Here is a link about the facilities.

There was supposed to be an Earth shattering kaboom!

This is bullshit. Cuba has been hydrogen-fuel-cell powered for decades.

I don't know if it was your meant to troll, but troll you did.

Cuba may have made some efforts to use clean, renewable energy sources (wind, wave, solar) but it's also made considerable effort to use dirty, finite sources as well, including nuclear power.

The nuclear power plant at Juragua has been under construction since 1983. It's not yet been completed, so it's not up and running, but Cuba is still trying to get the plant productive.

Unsurprisingly, for what it calls "safety concerns", the US isn't too keen to see that happen - apparently, it's OK for the US to have nuclear power plants all over the country, nuclear powered ships and submarines and even to launch nuclear powered satellites but God forbid that some communists 200 miles off the coast of Florida should want to use nuclear power too.

It's true that these concerns aren't totally unfounded as the type of reactor that the plant uses (the Soviet-designed VVER-440) doesn't have an exemplorary track record but let's remember that while the USSR had Chernobyl, the US had Three Mile Island.

By withholding its funding to the International Atomic Energy Agency - an overly-aggressive and short-sighted attempt to pressurise that body into abandoning all assistance that its giving Cuba to safely complete and operate the plant - the US is effectively shooting itself in the foot. By doing everything it can to make sure that the Cuban plant isn't built, the US is only ensuring that cost-effectiveness and completion at any cost are the paramount in Cuba's considerations, at the expense of safety.

Yet elsewhere, the US is spending millions to make sure that similar Soviet-designed plants are as safe as possible. Overall, a rather naive approach by US legislators - not the first time and it won't be the last either.

(So, in a way, there is a capitalist conspiracy, but not where you were looking.)

But I digress. Cuba obviously isn't 100 percent wave powered and, frankly, it's never likely to be. Wave power stations cost money too and, if you've got chronic power shortage problems like Cuba has, they're far less cost-effective than the alternatives.

On the other hand, Islay is hoping that its wave power station may soon provide all the energy that it ever needs - a noble goal, well worthy of our praise and good wishes.

remember chernobyl? that's why. duh.

for those born after 1986 and everybody else who hid in a nuclear fallout shelter: check out www.chernobyl.com

a few quotes about the disaster:
- "The people of Chernobyl were exposed to radioactivity 100 times greater than the Hiroshima bomb."
- "More than 600,000 people were involved with the cleanup many who are now dead or sick."

i don't know about you - but i think these are perfectly good reasons to give up on the technology. and don't get me started on the cost of safely storing nuclear waste.

the advantages of pollution vs radiation should be clear: there are filters for pollution. and it generally doesn't last 10.000 years. doesn't have the potential to directly kill tens of thousands of people, either.