Nuclear Alert in E.U. <Urgent EU message!>

Just heard on BBC News24 that a Slovenian nuclear plant has had some kind of leak. No further information at present, potentially nothing to worry about, however the worrying thing was the message from Brussels which was "Europe wide nuclear warning!" which is the first time I have heard those words together since Chernobyl.

Might be an idea to keep an eye on your local / national news European members, especially in countries bordering Slovenia.

 

EU-Nuclear-Commission told that they "must" spread out this EU-wide Alarm if an EU-Member is telling them about an accident.

The Problem is (from what i read on latest News in Germany) that they have a leak on Cooling-Water.

The Nuclear-Reactor is shutting down now.

 

Thanks - I guess it must have been a localised issue as BBC haven't mentioned it again. Just don't go drinking any Slovenian mineral water for a while folks ;-)

 

far enough away...i hope

 

Hopefully its nothing to major. Reckon if you sell pants in Krsko your about to make a mint.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7436671.stm

 

Don't worry, any radioactive cloud will stop at the german/french frontier

 

Super grapes!

 

Yay, supergau! Once in a twentyfive eh?? :lol:

 

Nuclear power plants have alot more security measures these days. It's practically impossible for a meltdown to entirely occur (as in Chernobyl).

 

This neither scientific nor is it ethic.

An atomic power plant can handle a F-16 crash - but not a single plane from 9/11. There is no security measure for that.

btw:

Krsko leaks 440 gallons of coolant per hour.

After shutdown a reactor still needs to be cooled.

The operator declared the accident as a "test" in the paper sent to the E.U.

Because of the shutdown, 25 % power lost in Slovenia.

Krsko is build in an earthquake area.

Croatian officals call the Krsko reactor a threat to the Croatian people.

Krsko is too old. There are fissures in walls outside of the reactor building.

Efficiency factor of an atomic reactor: 34 %.

Deconstruction costs more than building a reactor and takes 10 years.

Uranium range: 60 years and dropping with each new reactor - prices will go up just like oil.

Subsidies for atomic power: 37,000,000,000 EUR.

The alarm system would be to slow in a case of emergency, the fallout cloud would have reached Austria and Croatia in time.

http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2008/06/04/atomic-alert-in-the-eu-slovenia/

If a zoo or a factory is not 100 % save - it's not drastic.
But an atomic power plants needs be 100 %.

An accident worse than in Chernobyl is possible. Everyday.

No reactor on the planet is assured.

Too expensive

 

At least is quite far from Spain.

 

I wouldnt go that far, seeing how nowadays our entire planet is rotten thanks to an energy system based entirely (more than 90%) on fossil fuel, just for the convenience of some large corporations.

Sorry but I cant see how an alternate present were nuclear technology had been widely used (and therefore tested and improved) coupled with more advanced electric cars (same case, they werent developed, and they have always been more efficient and reliable than ICE cars) and grid-based transportation (maglev trains and such) could be anywere as nasty as out current situation is.

Seriously, Krsko was Soviet-yugoslavian reactor, we all know those, like chernobyl, were built on a budget, were budget meant "we dont need so many security bars!".

Even the Argentineans have better reactors, and that isnt a first world country either...

 

Dont write silly stuff if you dont have a clue...actualy the NEK was build by the American Westinghouse Electric Corporation...

 

You mean the Nuklearna Elektrarna Krško? the state-owned company? It was made between Elektro-Slovenija and Hrvatska elektroprivreda, all state-owned, yugoslavian companies at the time.

Your point is moot: for the record, just because some countries have higher regulations doesnt means companies from those countries will respect said regulations in other countries that dont have any. And is a no-brainer that when companies dont have that many obligations they tend to make cuts on their products, safety and quality first.

Just check cars made in south america or the middle east: no matter the brand (american, japanese, euro) the quality is way lower that their first-world counterparts. The security on those cars stops at the seatbelts.

 

So what is your point...or did you just calculate
Yugoslavia + communism = CCCP /wrong
so that means
NEK = Chernobyl Reactor /wrong

I get your point...but NEK aint near the same model and positively not a low budget project as CR...plus it has a few meter thicker wall around the reactor + an iron shield that CR didnt had if i rememmber right...and the list could go on...

 

why not build them deep underground?

 

I agree that older plants might be unsafe, that is exactly why they should be closed down or replaced by new facilities. Also nothing can be 100% safe. If they really want to, off course a nuclear power plant can be destroyed. Anything can be destroyed. A 747 flying in a reactor is not the highest security risk...

The press definantly plays a hand in the dramatisation of any accident that occurs at a nuclear power plant. Now I am not saying that the accident in Slovenia is not to be taken serious. I think they should close down the plant. But it is no secret that the press likes sensational stories.

Here in Belgium they once said there was a fire at the nuclear power plant in Doel. Actually it was just a black stain from diesel motors, they used when the reactors were shut down. Jet the story hit front page.

We need nuclear power plants because at the moment the energy we use cannot be generated without them. Anyone who is against nuclear power plants but still thinks they should have enough electricity is not being realistic. Modern nuclear power plants are very safe compared to old ones.

Also have you noticed how every country that builds nuclear power plants, builds them as close to the border as possible? They know that there is a risk. But they need the energy.

The plants need cooling water and the used cooling water needs to be put out again or vaporised.

 

It doesn't need a 747 - a 9/11 plane is enough.

We also had one in Germany (invisible link): LINK

We don't need them. We only feed them. With subsidies of 37,000,000,000 EUROs regularly.
Paid with our money to make atomic power payable.
If something happens, like an accident we have to pay for it - with health and money.
There is no contract which tells the atomic power plant operators to pay for a big accident (2 - 5,000,000,000,000 EUROs easily - goodbye video game import / export).

Old information. 90ies?
In the meantime (2020) wind energy alone will produce more energy than atomic power plants. Add solar power - way to go. Why roof tiles? Why not solar collectors? I just don't understand the industry.

Until they crash. And they are not safe. Even peaceful atomic reactos produce weapon ready Plutonium.
Even peaceful atomic power plants emit low radiation.
Do you know the KiKK study? It is big longtime study - worldwide unique. Not made by tree hugers - it was carried out by the Federal Agency for radiation protection (invisible link below):
Here is the Link

Right. Interesting thing:
The U.S. hasn't build a single reactor since the 1970ies.
There is a new one in Finland soon - funded by the Bavarian Bank
with 2,000,000,000 EUROs - McCain wants to build 45 - 100 new reactors.
Just as Bush promised - but nothing happended during his 8 years.
And nothing will happen during Obama / McCain years.
Why?
Credit this: 45 - 100 (reactors) times this number: 2,000,000,000
yo wanna pay?

I remember Bush saying he wants new technology: Small reactors cooled with leaf - for the 3rd world - safety anyone?

We, in Germany plan the total pull out from atomic energy. We put Obrigheim offline and next year it's Neckarwestheims turn. Although the operators try to protest (I worked for one of them a few years ago and know how the play down everything).

Atomic power plants are money printers. That's all you need to know.

In 2007 six atomic power plants were offline in Germany but we still had 20 Terrawatts of energy to export. Do you know the part atomic power on worldwide energy which lands at your home? - 5,4 LOUSY Percent.

No one needs atomic energy. It's antique garbage.

I don't want to make this to political. But the IAEA and the IEA is not telling the truth. In fact they only sell the ideology of atomic power is good thing. They are not responsible for reactor safety or health - but they like to play this role.

Read what IAEA and ICRP don't want you to know (links are invinsible don't know why):
#1
#2
#3
#4
(...)

People who think we need atomic power are dinosaures.

 

BREAKING NEWS - August 29th 2008:

Link: 2nd Atomic Alert in the E.U. - this time in Belgium