Ukraine says Chernobyl remains an 'open wound' 32 years on

April 26, 2018
Soldiers bearing flowers at the Chernobyl victims' memorial in Minsk

Ukraine on Thursday marked 32 years since Chernobyl, the world's worst nuclear disaster, saying it would "remain an open wound in the hearts of millions."

The accident spread across Europe in 1986, particularly contaminating Ukraine, Russia and Belarus.

"Chernobyl will always remain an in the heart of our country, in the hearts of millions of people," President Petro Poroshenko wrote on Facebook.

Several hundred people gathered overnight for a ceremony at a memorial to victims in Slavutych, a town 50 kilometres (30 miles) from the .

Mourners lit candles and put flowers in front of memorial plaques. Many of the power station's personnel moved to Slavutych after the accident.

In Minsk, people also gathered at a memorial to victims and soldiers marched bearing baskets of flowers.

On April 26, 1986, number four at the Chernobyl plant, some 100 kilometres north of the capital Kiev, exploded during a botched safety test.

The reactor burned for 10 days, sending into the atmosphere that contaminated three-quarters of Europe, according to some estimates.

Soviet authorities tried to cover up the accident. Sweden was the first to raise the alarm after scientists detected a spike in on April 28. Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev did not make a public statement until May 14.

People light candles and place flowers at the monument for victims in Slavutich, some 50 kms from the accident site

A total of nearly 350,000 people living within a radius of 30 kilometres of the plant were evacuated for many years.

About 600,000 Soviet citizens who became known as "liquidators"—mostly emergency workers and state employees—were dispatched with little or no protective gear to help clean up and build a concrete sarcophagus over the damaged reactor.

The number of deaths directly due to the accident is still a matter of debate, with estimates varying from around 30 to one hundred thousand.

In November 2016, a massive metal dome was erected over the remains of the reactor paid for with 2.1 billion euros ($2.5 billion) in international funding to stop future leaks and ensure the safety of Europeans for generations.

As a result, radiation levels close to the reactor fell by 90 percent over the course of a year, according to official estimates.

Explore further: Ukraine marks Chernobyl disaster amid efforts to secure reactor (Update)

Related Stories

Memories painful on Chernobyl's 30th anniversary (Update)

April 26, 2016

As Ukraine and Belarus on Tuesday marked the 30th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear accident with solemn words and an angry protest, some of the men who were sent to the site in the first chaotic and frightening days were ...

Chernobyl shelter construction reaches key landmark

November 27, 2012

Work to build a permanent shelter to secure the exploded reactor at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine reached a key milestone on Tuesday when workers raised the arched section that will cover the destroyed unit.

Work begins on Chernobyl shelter on anniversary

April 26, 2012

Ukraine launched Thursday construction of a new shelter to permanently secure the stricken Chernobyl plant as it marked the 26th anniversary of the world's worst nuclear disaster.

Recommended for you

Galactic center visualization delivers star power

March 21, 2019

Want to take a trip to the center of the Milky Way? Check out a new immersive, ultra-high-definition visualization. This 360-movie offers an unparalleled opportunity to look around the center of the galaxy, from the vantage ...

Ultra-sharp images make old stars look absolutely marvelous

March 21, 2019

Using high-resolution adaptive optics imaging from the Gemini Observatory, astronomers have uncovered one of the oldest star clusters in the Milky Way Galaxy. The remarkably sharp image looks back into the early history of ...

When more women make decisions, the environment wins

March 21, 2019

When more women are involved in group decisions about land management, the group conserves more—particularly when offered financial incentives to do so, according to a new University of Colorado Boulder study published ...

77 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

WillieWard
3.4 / 5 (7) Apr 26, 2018
Directly related deaths was less than 60, most of them not-directly related to radiation(helicopter crash, machine explosions).
Most of deaths(abortions, suicides, anxieties/heart-attacks) were induced by fearmongers and sensationalist mass media what ended favoring the fossil fuels(backup for intermittent renewables) which air pollution respects no border and kills millions of people every year.
Ukraine and Belarus (Chernobyl) have lower cancer rates than countries around them:
https://pbs.twimg...N4Vd.jpg
WillieWard
3.4 / 5 (7) Apr 26, 2018
...sending radioactive elements into the atmosphere that contaminated three-quarters of Europe...
Germany, a country heavily committed with intermittent renewables, spread tons of radioactive coal ashes through European borders.
"Report: Germany suffers more coal-linked deaths than rest of EU"
https://www.eurac...t-of-eu/
"Coal Ash Is More Radioactive Than Nuclear Waste"
https://www.scien...r-waste/
...radiation levels close to the reactor fell by 90 percent over the course of a year...
During a flight, people receive more radiation(up to 65mSv) than visiting Chernobyl(5mSv) or Fukushima(20mSv).
https://uploads.d...e4ec.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...t522.jpg
https://www.youtu...gLGA5TpM
greenonions1
2.8 / 5 (4) Apr 26, 2018
30 years of clean up of Chernobyl - leave us at $235 billion and counting. http://chernobyl....sary.pdf 350,000 people evacuated (according to today's article). 20,000 years until the area directly around Chernobyl is safe for human habitation -
Because of the long-lived radiation in the region surrounding the former Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, the area won't be safe for human habitation for at least 20,000 years
https://www.lives...byl.html

Definitely gives pause for thought...
cortezz
5 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2018
Even though Chernobyl is considered as a major disaster, all the testing of nuclear weapons have done many times more damage.
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 26, 2018
... leave us at $235 billion and counting...
4$ trillion and counting, the so-called "cheap" wind/solar are failing miserably at reducing emissions while making the electricity bills costlier everywhere, e.g. Germany, Denmark, South Australia, California, Minnesota, etc.
"Minnesota is blowing billions on wind power ... the result is HIGHER electricity rates and dubious CO2 reductions"
https://youtu.be/0vaIYttrL88
"...report shows that wind energy in Ontario is 207% more expensive than nuclear while solar is 666% more"
https://www.oeb.c...default/
"If Solar And Wind Are So Cheap, Why Are They Making Electricity So Expensive?" - Apr 2018
https://www.forbe...pensive/
"More wind and solar means higher prices."
https://uploads.d...2eeb.jpg
Definitely gives pause for thought...
Solon
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2018
Will The Truth About Chernobyl Ever Come Out?
"In fact, about a thousand people never left Chernobyl and have survived just fine for 30 years."
https://www.forbe...ome-out/
greenonions1
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 27, 2018
Solon
Will The Truth About Chernobyl Ever Come Out?
It's already out. Chernobyl was a serious disaster - that had, and continues to have serious costs to our world. 350,000 people displaced, $235 billion in costs to date - with much more still to come, a radio active tomb that will have to be guarded for 20,000 years - certainly give pause for thought.
greenonions1
3.3 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2018
Willie
wind/solar are failing miserably at reducing emissions
Today's article is about Chernobyl - not about wind and solar.

You can cherry pick data if you want to prove your lies Willie. A contemporary example shows you are wrong. Texas gets about 18% of its electricity from wind and solar https://blogs.sci...st-year/ - and that is going to keep increasing - especially as they are now the cheapest option.
But in Texas, retail electricity prices have actually decreased, coming in well below the U.S. average
. so in Texas - electricity prices are around 11 cents Kwh - https://www.elect...s/texas/

So new nuclear is running 12 cents Kwh wholesale price, where as Texas can supply electricity at 11 cents Kwh retail - and as we go forward that price will decline.

Definitely pause for thought.
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2018
so in Texas - electricity prices are around 11 cents Kwh
It was said "2¢/Kwh" wind/solar+batteries.
If it were possible to convert the greenies' lies into electricity, it could power the whole world uninterruptedly 24/7/365 forever.
Definitely pause for thought.
"A physical reason for increased cost of wind/solar is the inherent variability and chaos. To meet all demands a massive over investment is needed. So unused assets on sunny/windy days. That costs and added expense. Nuclear generates what its told to generate. More efficient."
Texas gets about 18% of its electricity from wind and solar ... and that is going to keep increasing...
"More than a hard technical limit, what determines the upper penetration of solar panels / wind turbines on a grid is how much people are willing to pay for their electricity."
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2018
...was a serious disaster...
It isn't comparable to what renewables are going to be: a trillion-euro environmental/ecological/economical disaster for almost nothing in terms of CO₂ reduction.
"Germany's Wind Energy Mess: As Subsidies Expire, Thousands Of Turbines To Shut Down…Environmental Nightmare!"
"As older turbines see subsidies expire, thousands are expected to be taken offline due to lack of profitability."
https://climatech...o-close/
http://notrickszo...rGd.dpbs
"Big growth in wind energy, but what about the waste? The 16,000 tonnes *per year* are "huge problem," say Germans."
https://pbs.twimg...n_Cs.jpg
https://www.clean...riticism
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2018
Big growth in wind energy, but what about the waste?
Yawn - Willie never heard of recycling. At least the turbines are not radio active...

https://www.ge.co...nd-life/

Canada is facing a $16 - $24 billion disposal problem from its nuclear power plants - and no solution in sight...

http://www.cbc.ca...1.794488

No wonder nuclear power is so expensive...
greenonions1
5 / 5 (2) Apr 28, 2018
It was said "2¢/Kwh" wind/solar+batteries
I never said that - so you will have to take it up with who ever did say it.

The actual price of power from wind is of course a moving target. Very site specific. Wind and solar are still only 18% in Texas - so obviously the other sources are the primary determinant of the cost of the power. The point of course being that I gave you a more contemporary example - of a system with a significant penetration of wind and solar - that has not seen a price increase. So your premise is proven false - adding wind and solar can be done without increasing cost.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Apr 28, 2018
...never heard of recycling. At least the turbines are not radio active...
Wind turbines are not being recycled by sunshine&breeze-powered machines, they have poor EROI(Energy Returned on Investment).
"2000 Tons of radioactive sludge created for 1 ton of rare-earth neodymium magnet BBC"
https://www.youtu...Q_6fuGNI
"Your "green energy" may not be so green after all: rare earth elements used in solar panels and wind turbines are highly polluting"
http://www.natura...gin.html
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 28, 2018
..is so expensive...
Electricity is not like a commodity, it is more like a service. For example, hydropower is fuel-free, water(commodity) is virtually for free; the major costs are: transmission, distribution, and maintenance (services).
Sunshine and breeze are for free, but their costs of transmission/distribution/integration/maintenance/intermittency are extremely expensive in relation to carbon-free nuclear energy, and the result can be seen in the electricity bills.

WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 28, 2018
Wind and solar are still only 18% in Texas...adding wind and solar can be done without increasing cost.
"Cheap", for while, thanks to cheap gas,
Wind = "greenwashing" for cheap gas.
"Texas' summer electricity prices expected to jump" - Feb 20, 2018
"For years, Texas has enjoyed some of the nation's lowest electricity prices, largely due to the state's access to cheap natural gas ... have struggled to stay profitable, leading them to delay investments in new and existing plants."
https://www.houst...8755.php
"Think Power's Expensive in Texas This Year? Just Wait Until 2019"
https://www.bloom...til-2019
"Texans could expect higher bills in 2018 as shrinking electricity supply meets record use"
https://www.dalla...r-asshri
greenonions1
4 / 5 (4) Apr 28, 2018
Electricity is not like a commodity, it is more like a service
Ahhhh - so when I was charged for 313 Kwh of electricity last month - I was not buying a quantity of a commodity? How can they measure how much I used - if it is not a commodity? So the cost of generating power is made up of a number of components. Yes obviously the cost of operating the grid is one part. Fuel costs are another. Just like refining and transporting gasoline are PART of the cost of the gas I put in my car - which is also a commodity.

Still off the point Willie - Chernobyl was a serious disaster. Texas is integrating a significant amount of wind and solar onto their grid - and the cost of electricity has gone down. So a contemporary example proves your premise wrong. Wind and solar can be integrated on to the grid - without increasing the cost of the commodity called electricity.
greenonions1
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 28, 2018
Look at Willie cherry picker. He quotes
For years, Texas has enjoyed some of the nation's lowest electricity prices, largely due to the state's access to cheap natural gas...


But the full quote says
For years, Texas has enjoyed some of the nation's lowest electricity prices, largely due to the state's access to cheap natural gas and abundant wind power
.

Ohhhh - how convenient you missed off the end of the sentence. Kind of changes the debate about cheap wind doesn't it?
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 28, 2018
Texas is integrating a significant amount of wind and solar onto their grid - and the cost of electricity has gone down.
Gone down thanks to cheap gas, now it is going up thanks to intermittent renewables.
Renewable cultists are resistant to facts:
"Texans could expect higher bills in 2018 as shrinking electricity supply meets record use"
https://www.dalla...r-asshri
"Texas' summer electricity prices expected to jump"
https://www.houst...8755.php
"Think Power's Expensive in Texas This Year? Just Wait Until 2019"
https://www.bloom...til-2019
Wind and solar can be integrated on to the grid - without increasing the cost of the commodity called electricity.
Renewable cultists are delusional, or dishonest, probably both.
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 28, 2018
Ohhhh - how convenient you missed off the end of the sentence. Kind of changes the debate about cheap wind doesn't it?
Wind is abundant and for free, but "cheap wind power" is a myth because "batteries not included" neither fossil-fueled backup plants nor integration costs; and the result is clear: it is making the electricity bills costlier everywhere while failing miserably at reducing emissions.
greenonions1
4 / 5 (4) Apr 28, 2018
it is making the electricity bills costlier everywhere
I just showed you that is not true. Where I live in Oklahoma would be another example. In 2016 - we got 25.12% of our electricity from wind - and electricity costs are very low - https://www.elect...y-state/ Our commercial electricity rates are among the lowest in the country - at 7.32 cents. https://www.elect...klahoma/

You are just flat wrong Willie - and Chernobyl was a serious and expensive event....
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Apr 28, 2018
..Oklahoma would be another example...
Oklahoma is 51%gas, 38%coal. If it's still cheap it's thanks to cheap coal and natural gas(fracking).
https://www.eia.g.../?sid=OK
https://www.oge.c...b6b07300

Solar and wind are causing electricity prices to skyrocket everywhere.
"New York's Clean Energy Programs: The High Cost of Symbolic Environmentalism"
"...would require installing at least 200,000 MW of battery storage to compensate for wind and solar's inherent intermittency."
https://www.manha...565.html
"Batteries have a dirty secret" - Apr 27, 2018
"Energy storage is considered a green technology. But it actually increases carbon emissions."
https://www.vox.c...missions
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 29, 2018
Oklahoma is 51%gas, 38%coal
and 25% wind. Oh wait - that is more than 100% - how can that be? Oh right - your statistics are out of date. So - the very low electricity prices in Oklahoma PROVES that this is merely the thoughtless repeating of a lie
Solar and wind are causing electricity prices to skyrocket everywhere


No they aren't.
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 29, 2018
Oklahoma is 51%gas, 38%coal
Lets see what the eia really says -

Coal-fired power generation has decreased from almost half of state electricity generation a decade ago to less than one-fourth of net generation in 2016. As coal's share has decreased, wind-powered generation has increased, and, by 2016, wind provided more than one-fourth of Oklahoma's net generation
In 2017, wind energy provided almost one-third of Oklahoma's net electricity generation
All from - https://www.eia.g...p?sid=OK

You need to step up your game Willie - proving you wrong is too easy...
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Apr 29, 2018
Do you have only Oklahoma as showcase? Masked by subsidies, tax credits, coal by natgas.
What about Germany, Denmark, South Australia, California, Minnesota, ... Texas?
Wind/solar placebos are being deployed massively everywhere, once these intermittent parasites reach a certain penetration in the grid, it becomes almost impossible to hide their hidden costs anymore.
Sunshine and Breeze are abundant and for free, but solar panels and windmills are not, neither transmissions lines, batteries, nor staff for maintenance.
"US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined" How can it be cheap? It's thanks to subsides and tax credits.
"We get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That's the only reason to build them. They don't make sense without the tax credit." - Warren Buffett
"Subsidies Given to Wind Farms Could Fund More than 1,200 New Teachers in Oklahoma"
http://windwaste....klahoma/
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 29, 2018
Do you have only Oklahoma as showcase? Masked by subsidies, tax credits, coal by natgas.
No I don't - but that is not the point. When you make a statement that is not true - it just takes one example to prove it. You said that
Solar and wind are causing electricity prices to skyrocket everywhere
I proved that statement false. The fact that you deliberately use out of date statistics to try to support your lies - makes you even more transparent. That seems to be a pattern with the anti renewable cultists.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Apr 29, 2018
Just to answer the question
Do you have only Oklahoma as showcase?
I will point out that there are currently 4 states in the U.S. that generate more than 30% of their electricity with wind. Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, and South Dakota. https://cleantech...-states/

If you check electricity prices in these four states - you can see they are all below the national average of 10.27 cents. - https://www.eia.g...y/state/
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Apr 29, 2018
CleanTechnica is not a reliable source.

Iowa: "coal is still the state's largest source of net electricity generation" >50%
"Iowa wind farm generates more tax credits than electricity"
http://thehill.co...its-than
Kansas: "Coal is the largest single fuel source for electricity generation in Kansas" closely followed by gas.
"Electricity Prices Soaring In Top Wind Power States"
https://www.forbe...-states/
Oklahoma: "Together, coal- and natural gas-fired power plants produce almost three-fourths of the electric power generated in the state."
South Dakota: "hydroelectric power provided more than two-fifths of South Dakota's net electricity generation", natural gas is one of major source.

Wind and solar are parasites on subsidies/tax credits and other forms of reliable sources of energy.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Apr 29, 2018
10.27 cents
It is not so cheap and is far from being low-carbon as in France, Sweden, Ontario. In no way, useless placebos, fossil-addicted parasites, bird-choppers/landscape-destroyers, are solution to Climate Change.
https://www.elect...map.org/
"MIT report: it will take 400 years to transform to 'clean' energy"
https://wattsupwi...-energy/
"Wind and solar are proven technologies. They've proven they can't replace coal and natural gas as a primary energy source."
Carbon-free nuclear energy is the only scalable way to stop Climate Change.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Apr 29, 2018
It is slaughtering millions of birds and bats, and whales, and bees, for almost nothing in terms of CO₂ reduction, aside ruination of natural landscapes and wildlife habitats and expensive electricity bills.
"Saving The Planet" Update : Wind Turbines Destroy Local Farming Village And Bees ߐݠ
https://climatism...f%90%9d/
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Apr 29, 2018
10.27 cents

It is not so cheap
That is the national average. Everyone of the four states that generate 30% or more from wind - are BELOW the national average.

Oh look - according to your source - Oklahoma electricity prices fell be 2% between 2008 and 2013. https://www.forbe...41483ac9

Of course - your data is all out of date. Data that talks about a five year period from 2008 to 2013 is completely worthless. All you do quote out of date statistics - because that in your mind supports your religion. The Oklahoma case is all you need to disprove your lie. Wind is not driving up the cost of electricity EVERYWHERE. Again - the four states that generate 30% or more - are all below the national average....
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Apr 30, 2018
The Oklahoma case is all you need to disprove your lie.
A wind-powered state is almost 10x dirtier than a carbon-free nuclear-powered state:
- Oklahoma(wind): 270gCO₂/kWh
- Ontario(nuclear): 38gCO₂/kWh
https://www.electricitymap.org
A lot of installed-capacity of intermittent energy with almost no CO₂ reduction over last decade.
https://www.stati...issions/
Climate Change is not scam, but employing wind and solar as solution is surely a scam.

"Oklahoma is at Risk to Pay $930 Million in Zero Emission Wind Tax Subsidies"
http://windwaste....bsidies/

Wind: DESTROY pristine landscapes - KILL raptors, birds, bats, bee colonies - USE tonnes of cement and steel made by tonnes of coking coal - CHILD labour - MASSIVE wealth transfer from poor to rich.
https://climatism...aws1.jpg
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Apr 30, 2018
Oklahoma(wind): 270gCO₂/kWh
Oklahoma gets 70% of its electricity from gas and coal - which is where the C02 is coming from. When we hit 100% wind and solar - then you can do a comparison. Why don't you look at the 44grams for Costa Rica - getting about 78% hydro, 10% wind, and 10%geothermal.

But - main point is that I have never said that wind is lower carbon than nuclear. I am a supporter of nuclear - if it can compete on cost - which it cant - when you compare new build. Sure - if you use out of date information like you always try - wind and solar used to be expensive - but that is yesterdays news...
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 30, 2018
Costa Rica is 88%(hydro+geothermal).
When we hit 100% wind and solar...
It is not feasible even in small-scale, worse yet in large-scale.
"If RE + storage can't provide reliable power in a lo energy usage, hi RE potential, ideal pumped hydro location, it can't work anywhere" e.g. El Hierro island.
http://pbs.twimg....TQnt.jpg
"Solar and wind are incapable of replacing fossil fuels on any meaningful scale. Or even minimal scale."
"Solar panels during their lifetime hardly recover all the energy it costs to make them. Cf. Ferroni, Hopkirk et al."
"Most wind turbines in their life cycle will not generate as much energy as was consumed in their fabrication and erection."
"In a world of limited hydro, solar and wind won't scale."
"The ones that went with nuclear and hydro decarbonized. The ones that went with wind and solar failed and keep failing."
greenonions1
3.3 / 5 (3) May 01, 2018
It is not feasible even in small-scale, worse yet in large-scale
Wow - I keep trying to point out that saying the same thing over and over - does not make you right. So I could point out Countries that are heading towards 100% renewables - like Scotland, Spain, Portugal, Sweden etc. etc. - but you would run off looking for bias articles that cherry pick data to support your own point. Just understand that one example proves your assertion is wrong. Oklahoma - having a high penetration of wind, and low electricity prices, is all you need.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) May 01, 2018
Countries that are heading towards 100% renewables - like Scotland, Spain, Portugal, Sweden etc. etc.
"Spain has essentially called it quits respecting the installation of wind turbines / solar panels. Will the rest of Europe soon follow suit?"
https://pbs.twimg...ubYm.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...e9m6.jpg
"Solar panels / wind turbines are ideal for wealthy countries that strive to be less wealthy."
Europe has a lot of installed-capacity of intermittent energy for almost nothing in terms of CO₂ reduction.
https://edmhdotme...08-2017/
Oklahoma - having a high penetration of wind, and low electricity prices
Texas is already getting the electricity prices to skyrocket, Oklahoma is the next.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) May 01, 2018
Spain has essentially called it quits respecting the installation of wind turbines
You see - if you always use out of date statistics - you look stupid - but that is your penchant. Spain had some problems regarding their economy - and the deployment of renewables. They added about 50 MW of wind in 2017 - but are on target to add a total of 9 GW of renewables - inclucing 4.6 GW of wind by 2020.

https://www.windp...nce-back

Keep up Willie - it is too easy to show how behind you are.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) May 01, 2018
Oklahoma is the next.
Really - do you have any support for that?

he average American will spend 3 percent more this year on summer cooling, but many Oklahomans likely will end up paying less.

Oklahoma utilities generally are increasing their use of natural gas- and wind-generated electricity and reducing their reliance on coal-fired power

Oklahomans — and others in the region — enjoy the lowest average electric prices in the country
That is despite over 30% of generation from the wind. Guess you are wrong again.

http://newsok.com...oklahoma

That's from the daily Oklhahoman - a very pro oil and gas - conservative newspaper - just last week.
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) May 02, 2018
The target should be CO₂ reduction, not bird-choppers/landscape-destroyers "greenwashing"(decorative facade) for fossil fuels.
Spain is almost 5x dirtier than a carbon-free nuclear-powered country:
- Spain(wind): 109gCO₂/kWh
- France(nuclear): 25gCO₂/kWh
https://www.electricitymap.org
"Those that promote renewables are wittingly or unwittingly promoting coal and natural gas."
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) May 02, 2018
Oklahoma has a lot of cheap gas/fracking.
"Oklahoma is one of the top natural gas-producing states in the nation, accounting for 7.6% of U.S. gross production and 8.7% of marketed production in 2016"
https://www.eia.g.../?sid=OK
From your article:
"...because of lower fuel costs led largely by utility upgrades and lower natural gas prices."
"They credited the lower fuel price to increased use of lower-cost natural gas and reduced congestion costs for moving electricity through the grid."
"EIA expects natural gas to be the primary fuel for summer electricity generation, providing 37 percent of total U.S. electricity generation compared with 35 percent during the summer of 2017,"
"This change in the projected relative generation mix of coal and natural gas is primarily a result of recent natural gas capacity additions and coal plant retirements,"
Fracking is causing Oklahoma to get earthquakes
http://www.busine...h-2018-2
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) May 02, 2018
Renewable Scam never ends.
"New England faces 'horror story' of expensive power"- Apr 2018
https://www.washi...ve-power
https://consumere...il-2015/
http://digital.vp...r-supply
"New England wanted to use all renewable energy… then it got cold"- Jan 2018
https://hotair.co...ot-cold/
"...emissions increased by 3.1 million metric tons, reversing a long standing trend in New England."
https://uploads.d...d293.jpg
"If the "greens" convince you to ever again shut down a functional nuclear plant, shut down the greens instead."
http://realcleare...kes.html
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) May 02, 2018
"No decent economist will be surprised to see renewables push up electricity prices" - May 2, 2018
http://www.cityam...-push-up
"Subsidies can't change physics"
Renewable Cultists don't understand math and economics and hate physics and science.
Spain is almost 5x dirtier than a carbon-free nuclear-powered country
"Greenpeace Spain just released a report on the spanish energy transition that clearly shows that the most effective and economical way to reduce emmissions is to keep the current nuclear fleet even though they try to make it as costly as possible"
https://pbs.twimg...9BBM.jpg
"Has Spain learned its renewable energy lesson?" - Feb 2017
"Spiralling costs"
http://blueandgre...-lesson/
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) May 02, 2018
@WillieWart, #growup. Chernobyl is what happens when nuclear reactor safety regulations are ignored by bureaucratic minions over the objections of the technologists. One can make a strong argument that Chernobyl led directly to the fall of the former Soviet Union, and that it did so because it discredited the Politburo. Soviet communism failed because it tried to deny reality.

You and yours will fail for the same reason. When nuclear reactors can't get liability insurance from Lloyd's it's pretty much over.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) May 02, 2018
Go willie!

"Ukraine says Chernobyl remains an 'open wound' 32 years on"

-Yes but we are learning so much! A technology so vital to the future of humanity needs to be explored in every scenario. Imagine if a disaster of this sort were to happen on the moon or mars. Colonies could be lost and with them the future of the entire species.

These disasters are allowing us to learn how corium behaves i the only way possible. They make available the $billions needed to develop countermeasures and remediation strategies required for use off-planet.

And if you dont think that people wont go to these lengths to acquire certain types of knowledge then you are sadly naive.

We are the experimental generation. We are given cancers in order to learn how to cure them. Our environment is flooded with endochrine disrupters to reduce the birthrate. We are exposed to toxins and contagions to understand symptoms and guage survivability.

We suffer and die so that the future gens can thrive.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) May 02, 2018
@Goo thinks mega-Nazi experiments are progressive and will advance humanity. Next up kill the five billion freeloaders so the other billion can survive.

Goo luck with that @Goo. Do you have the five billion brown people in mind as your experimental subjects? Just askin'.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) May 02, 2018
In related news

"Russian Floating Nuclear Plant Heads Out to Sea
Posted on May 2, 2018 • 3 Comments
On April 28th 2018, in St Petersburg, Russian state-owned nuclear power company Rosatom launched Akademik Lomonosov, a nuclear power plant on a barge that will be towed through the Baltic sea and into the Arctic ocean, eventually to be moored offshore and provide power to the northern Russian city of Pevek, on the Kamchatka peninsular. The plant is not fueled at this point, fueling will take place when it reaches its destination."

-So sorry scheide. I just report the obvious, not necessarily approve.

But youre welcome to keep your head up your... ass if it makes you more comfortable.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) May 02, 2018
Willie
Fracking is causing Oklahoma to get earthquakes
That is just one of the problems associated with fracking. There are major health and safety concerns - https://www.forbe...9bfb5945

That is why we are on a path to transition to cheap/safe/clean renewable energy. Spain got 34% of their electricity from renewables in 2017 - way outdoing nuclear. - https://renewable...-596136/ Wind and solar combined exceeded nukes. Looks like a good plan to keep the nukes (despite the cost) - phase out fossil fuels, and build out wind and solar. Green Peace agrees with that process....

Seems we agree Willie :-)

From
Da Schneib
1 / 5 (2) May 02, 2018
It's not my problem if you present all your data in the most asshole controversial way you can find. If you don't want people to call you an asshole, @Goo, then don't be an asshole.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) May 02, 2018
Spain got 34% of their electricity from renewables in 2017 - way outdoing nuclear...
Wind and solar combined exceeded nukes.
Except that each gigawatt from nuclear is virtually carbon-free and really decarbonizes the grid, unlike wind/solar where each gigawatt of intermittent energy needs to be backed up by a gigawatt, or two(30% capacity factor), from fossil fuels, and the result is clear in terms of emissions compared to nuclear-powered countries/states, e.g. France, Sweden, Ontario.
https://www.elect...map.org/
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) May 02, 2018
not my problem if you present all your data in the most asshole controversial way you can find. If you don't want people to call you an asshole, @Goo, then don't be an asshole
You just dont want this world to be any more brutal than you want it to be. And you certainly dont want people presenting you with evidence that says it is.

A common problem. Its what religion is good for. For the people that is.

For Leaders its the most brutal thing They ever invented.

But then, Necessity is the Mother of Invention.

Hey - I wonder where that proverb comes from?

"The author of this proverbial saying isn't known. It is sometimes ascribed to Plato and it does appear in translations of Plato's Republic."

-Of course, should have known. A tale about an unseen Leadership unbeholden to public scrutiny, who directs the course of history by making the hard decisions that the people would never make for themselves.

Not written by plato mind you but by someone with the same name-
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) May 02, 2018
@Goo, you need to learn Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. I'll leave you to look it up.
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (3) May 02, 2018
Except that each gigawatt from nuclear is virtually carbon-free
each mega watt hour of wind is also virtually carbon free. In case you didn't know - wind turbines don't burn any fuel. Yes Willie - wind is intermittent - how many times do we have to acknowledge that? It does not mean that a Mwh of electricity from a turbine has to be backed up by fossil fuel. How is Scotland doing it? 100% renewable within 2 years - https://en.wikipe...Scotland See Willie it is a process. I would love for us to take all the fossil fuels off line instantly - and have a crash build out of renewables. But the fossil industry has too much control - so we have to watch the process unfold. Rome was not built in a day. Domino after Domino will continue to fall - fossil fuel lobby will lose it's place of power - and we will show you that it can be done. Scotland is doing that already...
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) May 03, 2018
@Goo, you need to learn Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. I'll leave you to look it up
And Thanos just solved the overpopulation problem for the entire universe but you would call that entertainment.

You need a different vantage point dude. One a lot less ego-centric.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) May 03, 2018
each mega watt hour of wind is also virtually carbon free.
So try to run a small city, off-the-grid, entirely with sunshine&breeze energy without fossil fuels.
wind turbines don't burn any fuel.
Directly, wind turbines(oil-lubricated) burn fossil fuels when they catch fire.
Indirectly, through fossil-fueled backup plants to compensate intermittencies.
https://uploads.d...4a36.jpg
https://uploads.d...b85e.jpg
But the fossil industry has too much control..Rome was not built in a day..fossil fuel lobby will lose it's place of power..
Wind/solar are unable to replace fossil fuels even in small-scale, worse yet in large-scale.
"Are solar and wind finally cheaper than fossil fuels? Not a chance"
http://business.f...a-chance
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) May 03, 2018
'Different vantage point'... for instance
One can make a strong argument that Chernobyl (1986) led directly to the fall of the former Soviet Union (1991)
-Had chernobyl been an actual test-to-failure of a reactor under real-world conditions, we would expect it to happen toward the end of a regime responsible for building it so that info regarding its real nature and purpose would be obscured and lost during the chaos following the collapse of that regime.

Happens all the time.
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) May 03, 2018
So try to run a small city, off-the-grid, entirely with sunshine&breeze energy without fossil fuels.
Sure - https://www.daily...e-energy

But why do you make that the metric? Can you show me one city run on 100% nuclear? So what even if you can? The point is that it is possible to run our world on renewables - that is already determined - the question is 'how long will it take us to get there?'
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) May 04, 2018
...it is possible to run our world on renewables...
100% renewable ≠ 100% wind/solar
It's mostly hydro.
"The IEA says that the world has already developed ~1/2 of its hydroelectric potential. And since that only services ~6% of total CURRENT energy demand"
France is 80% powered by carbon-free nuclear energy and all waste over decades fits in a small room, unlike arsenides and other chemical carcinogens present in solar cells that are dumped directly into the environment and that never lose their toxicity along the time.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (1) May 04, 2018
100% renewable ≠ 100% wind/solar
You keep saying that. So what? We are in a transition. Best guess is that the end result will be a mixed basket of generation. Why do we keep having to make the same point - and you seem incapable of understanding it. There is no doubt that it is possible to run the world on just wind, solar and storage. In many situations solar can supply baseload. The point seems so simple. We have to get off fossil fuels. That is what we are doing. We are watching it happen. You can't see what is happening under your nose.
The full pipeline of wind farms under construction or in advanced development now totals 33,449 MW
The train is picking up speed. from - https://www.evwin...17/63300
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) May 05, 2018
There is no doubt that it is possible to run the world on just wind, solar and storage.
There is no doubt that "wind, solar and storage" has failed miserably even in small-scale (e.g. El Hierro), worse yet in large-scale, e.g. Germany, Denmark, South Australia, California, Minnesota, etc. even after trillions of dollars spent; while carbon-free nuclear energy is a success in the fight against Climate Change, e.g. France, Sweden, Ontario.
We are in a transition.
You are in negation.
In the real world: "alternative energy" is sustained by "alternative facts".
E.g. Rural Rock Port(Missouri) <1400 inhabitants, connected to a regional fossil-fueled grid, as it were a metropolis off-the-grid entirely powered by sunshine&breeze unicorn energy.
The train is picking up speed.
All you have is a lot of installed-capacity of intermittent energy backed up by fossil fuels, with no meaningful CO₂ reduction.
...to get off fossil fuels...
Weird that you really believe it.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (1) May 06, 2018
Weird that you really believe it
Not at all. Totally supported by the facts. Wind alone has 30 GW in the pipeline in the U.S. How much do your nukes have? We are just reaching the point where wind and solar are at grid parity with fossil fuels. As they keep getting cheaper - the pace of transition will of course accelerate. Just watch reality Willie - and ignore those voices in your head.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) May 06, 2018
Wind alone has 30 GW...
...wind and solar are at grid parity with fossil fuels...
capacity ≠ production
wind/solar = 20% wind/solar + 80% coal/oil/gas
"The installed capacity of wind power preserves fossil fuel dependency."
"Wind Power Installation Amplifies The Growth Of Fossil Fuel Energies"
https://www.scien...18300983
"A one percentage point increase in the share of fast-reacting fossil generation capacity in a country is associated, on average, with a 0.88 percentage point increase in the long-run share of renewable energy."
"Capacity Factor? It's the difference between what you say you can do and what you actually do."
https://uploads.d...e6b4.jpg
greenonions1
5 / 5 (1) May 08, 2018
capacity ≠ production
Really - we had no idea that renewables were intermittent. So glad that you have told us that willie - otherwise we would never have known. Sure is nice to have someone on board who actually understands real science, and data and shit. (sarcasm)

wind/solar = 20%
You really do know nothing about the subject you pretend to be an expert on - https://www.green....Ai1oJC0

See Willie - some of us can actually read - instead of depending on looking at pretty pictures.

Want to see the capacity factor of gas peeker plants Willie? https://www.eia.g...id=13191

WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) May 09, 2018
You really do know nothing about the subject you pretend to be an expert on - https://www.green...-by-2020
...
Want to see the capacity factor of gas peeker plants...?https://www.eia.g...id=13191
Your first link: "Wind Power COULD Blow Past Hydro's Capacity Factor by 2020"
So there's no enough hydro to provide backup for when wind isn't blowing or sun isn't shining.
Your second link: "Natural gas-fired combustion turbines are generally used to meet peak electricity load"
So, with no enough hydro, wind and solar are just an expensive form of providing "greenwashing" for the natural gas(methane/fracking) industry.
Proof: a lot of installed-capacity of intermittent energy without meaningful CO₂ reduction with electricity prices skyrocketing everywhere.
https://www.elect...map.org/

WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) May 09, 2018
"France is already seeing its electricity prices rise as a result of deploying more solar and wind."
"We Don't Need Solar And Wind To Save The Climate -- And It's A Good Thing, Too" - May 8, 2018
"Sunlight and wind are inherently unreliable and energy-dilute. As such, adding solar panels and wind turbines to the grid in large quantities increases the cost of generating electricity, locks in fossil fuels, and increases the environmental footprint of energy production."
"According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF), public and private actors spent $1.1 trillion on solar and over $900 billion on wind between 2007 and 2016."
"More recently, Germany has permitted the demolition of old forests, churches, and villages in order to mine and burn coal."
"Most people think of solar and wind as new energy sources. In fact, they are two of our oldest."
https://www.forbe...ing-too/
greenonions1
not rated yet May 09, 2018
France is already seeing its electricity prices rise as a result of deploying more solar and wind
Well Oklahoma is not - so I guess France needs to talk to Oklahoma. Oh that is correct - EDF is the main French nuclear contractor - that wants to saddle the British tax payer with 12cents Kwh electricity for the next 35 years. No thanks Willie - we will take cheap wind and solar - that is proving itself every day. When is Hinkley Point due to come on line?
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) May 10, 2018
...Oklahoma is not...
Wind and solar are being deployed almost everywhere, and you have only Oklahoma as showcase, a top US gas/fracking producer, if electricity is still cheap it's thanks to cheap gas.
France needs to talk to Oklahoma.
Talk about "fracking", how to replace carbon-free nuclear energy by natural gas "greenwashed" by intermittent renewables. Fossil fuel barons thank you, they love you.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (1) May 10, 2018
Wind and solar are being deployed almost everywhere, and you have only Oklahoma as showcase
See my answer to the same empty assertion here - https://phys.org/...oal.html
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) May 11, 2018
...reality is hard to dismiss...
Costa Rica: is >90% hydro/geothermal, wind and solar are just parasites on other reliable forms of energy.
"Renewables are popular but parasitic on a stable electricity supply. Charges for intermittency need to be introduced to show that renewables on their own currently fail on the requirement of low cost."
https://www.scots...-4653500
"Scottish Forestry Commission figures show more than five million trees have been felled thanks to wind farm developments since 2007, with fewer than 1.6 million planted to replace them."
https://pbs.twimg...557V.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...-1BJ.jpg
"A sausage factory paid more if it sells no sausages? The shocking economics of Scottish wind farms."
https://capx.co/t...-racket/
greenonions1
5 / 5 (1) May 11, 2018
Costa Rica: is >90% hydro/geothermal
We know that already. You have no point. Renewables are very site specific. They are not 'parasites.' They are one part of a basket of options that will make up the future energy mix.
Scottish Forestry Commission figures show more than five million trees have been felled
Again - old news Willie. Every energy source has an environmental impact - as well as a cost issue. You have to look at the whole picture. Nukes have environmental impacts (mining uranium, heating up rivers for example) - and they are expensive compared to renewables. So big picture - we are moving to a low carbon energy future. If you can convince the world to build more nukes - go for it. Just stop telling lies.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) May 12, 2018
Carbon-free nuclear power has the lowest environmental impact per unit of energy produced.
Cheap solar/wind is only in theory, in practice they are causing the electricity prices to skyrocket everywhere, Oklahoma will likely be the next as is already happening in Texas.
basket of options
You can power a whole region with hydro or geothermal or biomass without wind and solar, but you cannot power even a small city with solar or wind without hydro/geothermal/biomass or fossil fuels, the point is that wind/solar are parasites on other forms of energy production.
Just stop telling lies.
It applies mainly to you.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (1) May 12, 2018
Carbon-free nuclear power has the lowest environmental impact per unit of energy produced.
It is not carbon free - please stop with the lies. The actual environmental footprint is low - but there are varying opinions on which is the lowest. https://theecolog...w-carbon

The important point is that renewables and nukes are better for the environment than ff. Nukes are just expensive.

but you cannot power even a small city with solar or wind without hydro/geothermal/biomass or fossil fuels
So what? You can generate enough power from wind and solar to run a whole country. I have already given you plenty of examples. So if we currently still have to integrate with hydro, or geothermal, or fossil fuels - so what? Storage is the next part of the puzzle - and it is coming.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) May 12, 2018
please stop with the lies
CleanTechnica, now TheEcologist, you are on shortage of reliable sources.
You can generate enough power from wind and solar to run a whole country
There is no country entirely powered by sunshine&breeze unicorn energy, not even a small city off-the-grid.

Interesting: " "Renewable" energy is so great you have to force it on people"
"California Prays to the Sun God" - May 11, 2018
"Balancing the electrical grid will also become more expensive and challenging due to the solar-panel mandate."
"Make housing more expensive with government mandates and then subsidize it, which makes it still more expensive."
https://www.wsj.c...26079559
http://thehill.co...r-energy

"If you want to reduce CO2 emissions, become a nuclear promoter. If all you want is money then become a solar / wind promoter."
greenonions1
5 / 5 (1) May 12, 2018
you are on shortage of reliable sources
When you have nothing to say but lies - attack the source. Pretty ripe for somone who generally only supports lies - with pretty pictures that are not sourced. That article was very well sourced - and proves your claim of carbon free to be a lie.
There is no country entirely powered by sunshine&breeze
There is no country entirely powered by nukes - what's your point? We are in early days of the transition - and we may never have countries entirely powered by wind and solar - so what? We are transitioning to a new energy world - dominated by renewable energy. Lying does not make it so.
Renewable" energy is so great you have to force it on people
Same point with nukes - right? https://www.ewg.o...mpogvyM8
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) May 13, 2018
...claim of carbon free to be a lie...
Real time information don't lie:
https://www.elect...map.org/
There are aircraft-carriers, submarines, spacecrafts, ice-breakers, 100% powered by carbon-free nuclear energy, France is 80%. Yes there were ships 100% powered by breeze but most of them were replaced by steam engines, and some of them use sails just for decoration, e.g. Greenpeace ships.
https://youtu.be/TN7BjeRad2I

For those that still think sunshine&breeze are new technologies/scams:
July 20th 1891: New York Times: "Solar Energy would drive all the steam engines in the World".
https://pbs.twimg...YSCB.jpg
"Most people think of solar and wind as new energy sources. In fact, they are two of our oldest."
https://uploads.d...eac3.jpg
"Dying Coal"
Not in Germany.
Most of time replaced by gas/fracking "greenwashed" by intermittent renewables.
greenonions1
not rated yet May 13, 2018
Real time information don't lie
No - but you do. Just showing a map with a countries overall C02 emissions proves nothing. France has very low emissions - and 28% renewable - interesting. Here I will give you a link that proves you are a liar when you claim that nuclear is "carbon free.' https://theconver...er-41615

Now you show me a link that proves your claim that nuclear is "carbon free." Otherwise - check mate - you are a liar.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) May 14, 2018
Unlike CleanTechnica, which is completely biased/unreliable, GreenTechMedia, a pro-renewable site, generally reports the truth:
"European Renewables Are Up. So Are Carbon Emissions" - May 14, 2018
"A bumper year for renewable energy didn't stop Europe from increasing its emissions."
"European Union carbon emissions grew 1.8 percent in 2017 despite a 25 percent increase in wind power and 6 percent growth in solar, figures show."
https://www.green...missions
France has very low emissions - and 28% renewable
It's mostly nuclear and Hydro, with sunshine&breeze just as parasites.
Nuclear is virtually carbon-free and really decarbonizes the grid, check mate.
"The ones that went with nuclear and hydro decarbonized. The ones that went with wind and solar failed and keep failing."
"While nuclear and hydro are strongly correlated with decarbonization of energy at aggregated national levels, solar and wind are not."
greenonions1
5 / 5 (1) May 14, 2018
Nuclear is virtually carbon-free and really decarbonizes the grid
But you said it was carbon free. That makes you a liar. Adding that little word "virtually" to try to get out of your lie. Wind and solar are also "virtually" carbon free - and cheaper than nukes.

I am done now Willie.
WillieWard
1 / 5 (2) May 14, 2018
What matter is that nuclear has really decarbonized the grids.
Wind and solar are also "virtually" carbon free - and cheaper than nukes.
Wind and solar are backed up 80% of time by fossil fuels, they are far from being carbon-free and cheaper, you have to pay twice or more to get the same emissions, aside destruction of natural landscapes and wildlife habitats and massacre of millions of birds and other endangered species.
That makes you a liar.
"If solar panels make so much economic sense, let's eliminate all solar mandates and subsidies immediately"
"We call it "fossil-wind" since wind is dependent on #fossilfuels to exist on the grid. More wind = more gas = redundant generation = 2X the cost for ratepayers & double the profits for Big Energy. American Wind Energy Ass. Represents #fossilfuel Interests"
"nuclear is still, minimum, twice as cheap as wind and, minimum, three times cheaper than solar" - Rosatom dep director

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.