The power-plant is an EPR and is safe without any active cooling and electricity for at least 141 hours after an incident. Though of it I would place the reactors underground.
It is quite irrational to make the presumption that all nuclear plants are unsafe. Newer plants use a much safer design. Let me remind you that Fukushima was built before Three Mile Island or Chernobyl occurred, so lessons learned could not be implemented into the reactor design. Also, Fukushima used BWR, a design that is inherently less safe than PWR designs. Case and point, TMI also suffered a meltdown, but didn't contaminate the surrounding area. A much better design than Fukushima.
Before Fukushima pro-nuclear people repeated that there are no risks with western style boiling water reactors, now they just want to fade the news from Fukushima.
So it seems that they were wrong, again. If someone fails to keep he's promises many times, then... you know...
And you should newer forget radioactive waste while talking about these. It is really bad stuff for all living things and stays like that much longer than our society is alive.
And as far as failing promises so many times goes. Many anti-nukes claimed that the spent fuel pools were uncovered. They were not. Others claimed the fuel would melt through the concrete of the plant leading to an explosion when it hit ground water. They were wrong - the fuel melted 1/18th the way into the concrete basemat.
Maybe you should stop listening to the most idiotic pro-nukes that are out there, and at the same time ignore the most idiotic anti-nukes, and find a happy medium
"Maybe you should stop listening to the most idiotic pro-nukes that are out there.."
I listen to the both sides. It's just a little fustrating as finnish nuclear authority acts like nuclear power company. I understand that their task is to calm down people during major accidents like Fukushima... but during the worst phase of the accident STUK's official saying "situation is under control" is not very convincing
Interesting inYouTube: "Tepco Fukushima Lies For December 10 2011"
@t83rg Before Fukushima a minority of pro-nukes said there are "no risks" with Western style BWRs. They were wrong. Usually it is stated that the risk is extremely small. It is. However when there is 375 reactors running for decades, eventually an incident will occur especially when they are in areas where natural disasters are common. Newer reactors have a much lower risk than old ones: but that's not saying there is no risk.
Speaking of risk, let's not forget AGW and air pollution.
@Trinite1985 We're always guaranteed excellent state-of-the-art design at the time of construction. It's 10 or 20 years later you get the people saying it was flawed from the beginning.
There's 1200 tons of highly radioactive waste stored in Olkiluoto now. That stuff is going to the large hole drilled to bedrock, just similar place like Asse in Germany.
Nuclear power company (TVO) promised to Eurajoki people (at first) not ever put any highly radioactive waste to Olkiluoto, but after paying for new sports hall and pavement for village now everything goes...
Hiroshima bomb had something like 60kg of uranium... And I'm worried living just 150km from Olkiluoto.
It's easy to hit back with your argument. Fukushima powerplants weren't bombs, but what happened soon after they lost power in their cooling systems? You can easily find videos in Youtube...
Fires, expolsions and steam in Fukushima did spread very dangerous material more than 100km inland and to the sea.
You also mix uranium fuel with nuclear fuel IN use (n-companies like that). Fission products make used nuclear fuel very very much more dangerous that unused nuclear fuel is.
@BlizBob You're aware you can't link on youtube yes? The Fukushima crisis has contaminated large swaths of land in Japan, with plutonium being found on sight. Reactor 3 did indeed run hotter than the others, likely owing to its mixed oxide fuel. The continual presence of short half life nuclides indicates ongoing recriticality. Contamination is being found throughout the country excluding the most southern regions of the nation.
I think this is getting a bit ridiculous, but let's go..
"Hydrogen explosion. The fuel didn't explode."
-nobody said that it was a fission nuclear explosion. Every man who knows something about subject knows it's not possible. However hydrogen explosion sent large concrete pieces about high 200m in the air and it broke the plant badly...
"Links please."
google image search: "fukushima pollution map"
google search: "fission products" "nuclear power" and also "asse" "atommüll"
The power-plant is an EPR and is safe without any active cooling and electricity for at least 141 hours after an incident. Though of it I would place the reactors underground.
eskmaratojanilhan 3 weeks ago
Finland is planning to store European nuclear waste. It´s a good bisnes.
Rubellaaa 3 months ago
It is quite irrational to make the presumption that all nuclear plants are unsafe. Newer plants use a much safer design. Let me remind you that Fukushima was built before Three Mile Island or Chernobyl occurred, so lessons learned could not be implemented into the reactor design. Also, Fukushima used BWR, a design that is inherently less safe than PWR designs. Case and point, TMI also suffered a meltdown, but didn't contaminate the surrounding area. A much better design than Fukushima.
Trinite1985 3 months ago
@Trinite1985
Before Fukushima pro-nuclear people repeated that there are no risks with western style boiling water reactors, now they just want to fade the news from Fukushima.
So it seems that they were wrong, again. If someone fails to keep he's promises many times, then... you know...
And you should newer forget radioactive waste while talking about these. It is really bad stuff for all living things and stays like that much longer than our society is alive.
t83rg 3 months ago
Comment removed
TheSfaaf 2 months ago
@t83rg
And as far as failing promises so many times goes. Many anti-nukes claimed that the spent fuel pools were uncovered. They were not. Others claimed the fuel would melt through the concrete of the plant leading to an explosion when it hit ground water. They were wrong - the fuel melted 1/18th the way into the concrete basemat.
Maybe you should stop listening to the most idiotic pro-nukes that are out there, and at the same time ignore the most idiotic anti-nukes, and find a happy medium
TheSfaaf 2 months ago
@TheSfaaf
"Maybe you should stop listening to the most idiotic pro-nukes that are out there.."
I listen to the both sides. It's just a little fustrating as finnish nuclear authority acts like nuclear power company. I understand that their task is to calm down people during major accidents like Fukushima... but during the worst phase of the accident STUK's official saying "situation is under control" is not very convincing
Interesting inYouTube: "Tepco Fukushima Lies For December 10 2011"
t83rg 2 months ago
Comment removed
TheSfaaf 2 months ago
Comment removed
TheSfaaf 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@t83rg Before Fukushima a minority of pro-nukes said there are "no risks" with Western style BWRs. They were wrong. Usually it is stated that the risk is extremely small. It is. However when there is 375 reactors running for decades, eventually an incident will occur especially when they are in areas where natural disasters are common. Newer reactors have a much lower risk than old ones: but that's not saying there is no risk.
Speaking of risk, let's not forget AGW and air pollution.
TheSfaaf 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@t83rg
Radioactive waste can also be used as fuel as was just proposed to the UK. See my videos for more details.
TheSfaaf 2 months ago
@Trinite1985 We're always guaranteed excellent state-of-the-art design at the time of construction. It's 10 or 20 years later you get the people saying it was flawed from the beginning.
22ness0hayden 1 month ago
I don't know what is worse, your ignorance or your stupidity...
jbds 3 months ago
Have a look what the skies above our nuclear waste storage look like:
"HUGE storms over Europe 28 June 2011 update"
There is something seriously wrong! I live 5 miles from the Areva facility in Petten.
and have been noticing and recording the effects for months now.
After seeing that video you'll realise what they are doing.
If you have simular experiences near reactors or nuclear waste storages -you know what I mean if you do- I would like to hear about that.
N3anderthaler 5 months ago
There's 1200 tons of highly radioactive waste stored in Olkiluoto now. That stuff is going to the large hole drilled to bedrock, just similar place like Asse in Germany.
Nuclear power company (TVO) promised to Eurajoki people (at first) not ever put any highly radioactive waste to Olkiluoto, but after paying for new sports hall and pavement for village now everything goes...
Hiroshima bomb had something like 60kg of uranium... And I'm worried living just 150km from Olkiluoto.
t83rg 5 months ago
@t83rg
"Hiroshima bomb had something like 60kg of uranium... And I'm worried living just 150km from Olkiluoto."
The Hiroshima bomb was a bomb. Bombs explode. Used uranium fuel rods don't.
They are no longer pure enought to cause fission explosion. They are only about 95% pure U-235.
They are too "dirty" to explode or to produce enough heat to run the turbines.
BlizBob 4 months ago
@BlizBob
It's easy to hit back with your argument. Fukushima powerplants weren't bombs, but what happened soon after they lost power in their cooling systems? You can easily find videos in Youtube...
Fires, expolsions and steam in Fukushima did spread very dangerous material more than 100km inland and to the sea.
You also mix uranium fuel with nuclear fuel IN use (n-companies like that). Fission products make used nuclear fuel very very much more dangerous that unused nuclear fuel is.
t83rg 4 months ago
@t83rg
"but what happened soon after they lost power in their cooling systems"
Hydrogen explosion. The fuel didn't explode.
"spread very dangerous material more than 100km inland and to the sea."
Links please.
"mix uranium fuel with nuclear fuel IN use"
Are you talking about MOX fuel? Uranium fuel = nuclear fuel.
"Fission products make[...]more dangerous that unused nuclear fuel is."
Links please.
BlizBob 4 months ago
@BlizBob You're aware you can't link on youtube yes? The Fukushima crisis has contaminated large swaths of land in Japan, with plutonium being found on sight. Reactor 3 did indeed run hotter than the others, likely owing to its mixed oxide fuel. The continual presence of short half life nuclides indicates ongoing recriticality. Contamination is being found throughout the country excluding the most southern regions of the nation.
Koshy2 4 months ago 2
@BlizBob
I think this is getting a bit ridiculous, but let's go..
"Hydrogen explosion. The fuel didn't explode."
-nobody said that it was a fission nuclear explosion. Every man who knows something about subject knows it's not possible. However hydrogen explosion sent large concrete pieces about high 200m in the air and it broke the plant badly...
"Links please."
google image search: "fukushima pollution map"
google search: "fission products" "nuclear power" and also "asse" "atommüll"
t83rg 3 months ago
you don't get that many 9.0 earthquakes and tsunamis in Eurajoki. we have a summer-cottage within 10km of the plant and I'm not worried at all.
pcread 9 months ago
Stabilize the core with lead pellets. This stopped the problem at Chernobyl
3Dferoz 11 months ago
@3Dferoz A person called Eugen Schauman also used lead pellets to stop a problem here in Finland in 1904.
JuusoAlasuutari 10 months ago