Greenpeace activists paraglides into French nuclear reactor
A little less conversation,
a little more aviation...
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Bracknell, UK
Posts: 696
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They prefer to paraglide into nuclear installations, however, as paragliding into windfarms tends to have a brutally Darwinian outcome.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What happened in Fukushima was a good recent demonstration of why nuclear power is not the solution.
That is not a demonstration of why Nuclear power is not the solution but a demonstration of how important it is that the sites are not built in totally the wrong areas and on fault lines.
Also many of the Nuclear power stations are years old with old technology unlike the latest creations which are far safer.
But wind farms will not make your lights go bright at night only the developers who s bank accounts will glow very bright.
Frankly the things are so ugly I would rather look at our lovely countryside in the dark.
Are they worth the 1% of our energy supplies they create?
Wouldn't that cost a fortune?
Have not got a clue? Dont know the weight or mass of Nuclear waste
If its a quarry load YES
Might be a good earner for the owner of the old Citation I fly
At least we will get it part of the way up there!!!Pace
Last edited by Pace; 2nd May 2012 at 16:35.
Land based windfarms are probably everything you say. The massive offshore windfarms that keep appearing around our coasts are another beast.
The amount of energy available in wave and tidal power is massive, but the engineering problems to be solved are also equally massive for the time being. Much to be said in trying to solve those however, and lots of people are having a damned good go. As an engineer (amongst other things) the idea of working on that sort of technology I personally find nearly as exciting as working on flying machines. Nearly!
Nuclear power has issues undoubtedly. One of those is the difficulty of waste, another is safety - they do need to be put somewhere very stable, which really really means not in an earthquake zone. Another is that because they got unfashionable in the 80s and 90s, we're down a generation of nuclear engineers and there's a massive amount of new training and education needed. And then also, they need to deal with the waste issue and to be fair, it's not trivial. Although, the quantity of genuinely nasty stuff is very low - the bulk of nuclear waste is things like tools and protective clothing that have been contaminated and are best off in a hole in the ground. But there's no real hazard, and no weapons potential, to that stuff.
What were we talking about again?
G
The amount of energy available in wave and tidal power is massive, but the engineering problems to be solved are also equally massive for the time being. Much to be said in trying to solve those however, and lots of people are having a damned good go. As an engineer (amongst other things) the idea of working on that sort of technology I personally find nearly as exciting as working on flying machines. Nearly!
Nuclear power has issues undoubtedly. One of those is the difficulty of waste, another is safety - they do need to be put somewhere very stable, which really really means not in an earthquake zone. Another is that because they got unfashionable in the 80s and 90s, we're down a generation of nuclear engineers and there's a massive amount of new training and education needed. And then also, they need to deal with the waste issue and to be fair, it's not trivial. Although, the quantity of genuinely nasty stuff is very low - the bulk of nuclear waste is things like tools and protective clothing that have been contaminated and are best off in a hole in the ground. But there's no real hazard, and no weapons potential, to that stuff.
What were we talking about again?
G
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What were we talking about again?
Seriously there could be mileage in the nasty stuff heading into space? and the better stuff buried safely?
Maybe not yet but ???
Forgotten what the original subject was too
Pace
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But wind farms will not make your lights go bright at night only the developers who s bank accounts will glow very bright.
Frankly the things are so ugly I would rather look at our lovely countryside in the dark.
Are they worth the 1% of our energy supplies they create?
Frankly the things are so ugly I would rather look at our lovely countryside in the dark.
Are they worth the 1% of our energy supplies they create?
But i do agree, it can look quite ugly if all one can see is those wind energy farms.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
farmers have gone to build solar energy installations instead of growing crops
So the next thing to all those Ugly windfarms polluting our beautiful hill lines we will now have our lush green meadows covered in black rectangular panels
All in the name of Green (sorry Black) energy!Back to the subject
When I flew past the 20 mile exclusion zone just days after 9/11 in a Citation 5 Ultra We worked out in a dive from 20 thousand feet less than 3 minutes to hit parliament had we been nasty terrorists rather than the lovely people we are So dont reckon the fighter pilots would even finish their coffee! same goes with power stations
Pace
the lovely people we are
Seriously though: the one thing that can come of it is the French extending the prohibited zones around their nuclear plants. Which will change nothing to the safety situation but will again make life a bit harder on, err, how was it, "the lovely people we are" ...
Though, as these LFPxx generally extend up to FL 55 or so, this might be harder on some pilots than on others.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Enviromental containment building is designed to take a light aircraft wanging into it, its double skinned. And can take a blow out of the secondary cooling system which is a serious amounts of high pressure steam.
Then within that there is the reactor containment vessel which is the bit you see pics of folk walking over which has all the primary coolant sytems in it and the heat exchanger for the steam generator in it. Then there is the reactor vessel itself which isn't exactly under engineered. The PWR's are at something like 150bar. If the primary coolant water leaks out of them the reaction stops because thats the moderator gone.
If you see how little damage that occurs when a light aircraft hits a normal building?
The current western Nuke's are a completely different kettle of fish compared to the ones currently in service. Some of the old eastern jobs are plain shocking.
If you stand in the middle of red square there are actually meant to be something like 16 reactors within a half mile radius. All of them zero energy jobs though like the one in Glasgow. Which always makes me laugh when I see the nuclear free zone signs. Should have a line under it say well apart from one nuclear reactor and all the nuke missles that get transported up to the store near Faslane.
Then within that there is the reactor containment vessel which is the bit you see pics of folk walking over which has all the primary coolant sytems in it and the heat exchanger for the steam generator in it. Then there is the reactor vessel itself which isn't exactly under engineered. The PWR's are at something like 150bar. If the primary coolant water leaks out of them the reaction stops because thats the moderator gone.
If you see how little damage that occurs when a light aircraft hits a normal building?
The current western Nuke's are a completely different kettle of fish compared to the ones currently in service. Some of the old eastern jobs are plain shocking.
If you stand in the middle of red square there are actually meant to be something like 16 reactors within a half mile radius. All of them zero energy jobs though like the one in Glasgow. Which always makes me laugh when I see the nuclear free zone signs. Should have a line under it say well apart from one nuclear reactor and all the nuke missles that get transported up to the store near Faslane.
Last edited by mad_jock; 2nd May 2012 at 19:59.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From some of the discussions I’ve read about thorium fuel cycle reactors they look a lot more appealing than the current plutonium reactors. They appear to have an inherent stability and lack of long half life waste products that at one time had this reactor technology proposed as a power source for use in aircraft.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Milano, Italy
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If an isotope has very long decay times it also has little activity so, it may be a concern to store it for a long time but it also causes relatively little harm if there is a leak.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Milano, Italy
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How many people died?
How many people can you, even pessimistically, estimate will die?
How many people die each day mining coal, or by coal power pollution, drowning because a dam failed, etc... etc...
Do those calculations and then maybe realize that nuclear power is not that much worse at all with respect to other sources.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Britain stores most of it in the Irish sea. I think its something like 4 tons of it has been dumped there.
I would disagree with the relatively little harm, Iodine LLFP is it 129 or 131? Thats very nasty stuff if it gets into the food chain.
I think though that they have a good solution putting into glass as long as they store it somewhere sensible until they can develope a practical method of turning it into something else.
I would disagree with the relatively little harm, Iodine LLFP is it 129 or 131? Thats very nasty stuff if it gets into the food chain.
I think though that they have a good solution putting into glass as long as they store it somewhere sensible until they can develope a practical method of turning it into something else.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Bedford
Age: 56
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even if you disregard 98% of the people who actually study climate change, the oil is going to run out (perhaps sooner than we think if the Saudis really are lying...)
If we want to keep oil for what it's best for, making plastic and, err flying aeroplanes, then we need as many other energy sources as possible. That includes nuclear, which works now but is not as cheap as promised. Solar, getting cheaper all the time and wind (I like wind farms.)
*I do believe in it, taking the view that if 99 civil engineers said 'don't drive over that bridge' and an electrical engineer said 'the bridge is fine' I wouldn't take my kids over it.
If we want to keep oil for what it's best for, making plastic and, err flying aeroplanes, then we need as many other energy sources as possible. That includes nuclear, which works now but is not as cheap as promised. Solar, getting cheaper all the time and wind (I like wind farms.)
*I do believe in it, taking the view that if 99 civil engineers said 'don't drive over that bridge' and an electrical engineer said 'the bridge is fine' I wouldn't take my kids over it.
I am sure you are aware that many scientists do not agree if you have such figures I am sure you also have details of temperature changes caused by explosions on the Sun and the radiation which comes from that?
Glacier core samples show regular global warming before cars or pollution ever existed.
While I do not question that "some" Global warming is caused by us the majority is not.
Glacier core samples show regular global warming before cars or pollution ever existed.
While I do not question that "some" Global warming is caused by us the majority is not.
The thing was absolutely risible. People's quotes were being taken out of context; their newer work was being neglected... The bar for inclusion was clearly very low. One 'dissenting scientist' turned out to be a TV weatherman who had never done any original research.
If that's the best they could do...
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly WHAT happened in Fukushima?
Contaminated food and water, and a 20km evacuation zone with between 70,000 and 80,000 people evacuated. The point was no one builds a bad nuclear power plant on purpose, but yet there have been a good number of accidents involving bad design or poorly trained staff. Do you really think building newer better power plants is going to resolve this? They've only been trying 60 years so far.
US Geological Survey figures are that the annual CO2 output of volcanos globally is about 200 million tonnes, whilst human activity runs at around 24 billion tonnes.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: .
Age: 36
Posts: 649
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fukushima was about as bad as it can get, and was a stupendous example of the swiss cheese effect. A whole multitude of extreme events far in excess of normality combined together in a perfect storm.
That said, the anti-atomic knee-jerk reaction after Fukushima by Greens and Antis was, although sort of understandable in the short-term, bordering on the rather rediculous.
Sadly as with all things in life, there's no magic silver bullet to solve the problem of generating energy. Advantages/disadvantages for everything, swings and roundabouts. Inevitably there will be some sort of negative consequence which will make someone moan, whether it be nuclear fuel disposal, spoiling the landscape, cost, noise, not enough capacity, emissions, use of finite resources, compliance with rules/regs, blah de blah de blah, ad nauseum. Whatever method is chosen there will be some sort of negative consequence that will need to be lived with.
The problem with Greens/Antis is that they never come up with any reasonable compromise or idea. Its their way or no way. For example, despite all the vast improvements in fuel economy, noise pollution etc. the Antis are still completely opposed to aviation and in their view the only way to "solve" he "problem" is to, and I quote from the notorious organisation "Plane Stupid", "Bring the aviation industry down to Earth". And so it is with their view on nuclear power. Antis moan about emissions - energy source with little or no emissions is available - Antis still against it. The Watermelons will seemingly never be happy until most forms of transport and technology are wiped from the face of the Earth, we're all eating lentils and wearing sandals.
Back on topic, this is a rather farcical incident and makes a mockery of supposed "security".
That said, the anti-atomic knee-jerk reaction after Fukushima by Greens and Antis was, although sort of understandable in the short-term, bordering on the rather rediculous.
Sadly as with all things in life, there's no magic silver bullet to solve the problem of generating energy. Advantages/disadvantages for everything, swings and roundabouts. Inevitably there will be some sort of negative consequence which will make someone moan, whether it be nuclear fuel disposal, spoiling the landscape, cost, noise, not enough capacity, emissions, use of finite resources, compliance with rules/regs, blah de blah de blah, ad nauseum. Whatever method is chosen there will be some sort of negative consequence that will need to be lived with.
The problem with Greens/Antis is that they never come up with any reasonable compromise or idea. Its their way or no way. For example, despite all the vast improvements in fuel economy, noise pollution etc. the Antis are still completely opposed to aviation and in their view the only way to "solve" he "problem" is to, and I quote from the notorious organisation "Plane Stupid", "Bring the aviation industry down to Earth". And so it is with their view on nuclear power. Antis moan about emissions - energy source with little or no emissions is available - Antis still against it. The Watermelons will seemingly never be happy until most forms of transport and technology are wiped from the face of the Earth, we're all eating lentils and wearing sandals.
Back on topic, this is a rather farcical incident and makes a mockery of supposed "security".
How long to dive from FL55 to, er, ground zero?
My point is that an extension of the LFPxx zones will be hard on modest VFR bimblers like myself, but hardly add any annoyance to the wealthy IFR pilots at FL 80 and above.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jan
This is probably why they have a restricted zone! Not because of a terrorist attack where such a zone would be a waste of time but because they dont want Joe Blog public low flying and taking sightseers over the power stations.
An accidental accident from such activity is probably more likely the reason for a restriction zone rather than a threat from terrorism.
Pace
This is probably why they have a restricted zone! Not because of a terrorist attack where such a zone would be a waste of time but because they dont want Joe Blog public low flying and taking sightseers over the power stations.
An accidental accident from such activity is probably more likely the reason for a restriction zone rather than a threat from terrorism.
Pace
That might make sense, yes. I can't however suppress a gut feeling that it all has more to do with outward show than with real risk management.
After all, politicians are the same everywhere.
BTW there's a nuclear power plant close to my former home aerodrome of EBHN Hoevenen, I often flew close enough for detail photography, in all legality. Don't underestimate today's cameras!
After all, politicians are the same everywhere.
BTW there's a nuclear power plant close to my former home aerodrome of EBHN Hoevenen, I often flew close enough for detail photography, in all legality. Don't underestimate today's cameras!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Various clips here.
Do paramotors always land this way?
If that's the intention of the prohibited zones, then why do they prosecute (or at least, invite for tea without biscuits) VFR pilots that genuinely got a bit unsure of position, in marginal VMC conditions, while under radar guidance from ATC?
And why extend the zone all the way up to FL55? For that purpose, 1000' AGL would work just fine.
Do paramotors always land this way?
they dont want Joe Blog public low flying and taking sightseers over the power stations.
And why extend the zone all the way up to FL55? For that purpose, 1000' AGL would work just fine.