Nuclear Reactors

Historical insights & thoughts about the world we live in - and the social conditioning exerted upon us by past and current propaganda.

Nuclear Reactors

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Tue Mar 15, 2011 3:12 am

A breakdown by country ... (no pun intended, I implore you not to laugh)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors

1 Algeria
2 Antarctica
3 Argentina
3.1 Power station reactors
3.2 Research reactors
4 Armenia
5 Australia
6 Austria
7 Bangladesh
8 Belarus
9 Belgium
9.1 Power station reactors
9.2 Research Reactors
10 Brazil
10.1 Research Reactors
11 Bulgaria
12 Canada
12.1 Ontario
12.2 Quebec
12.3 New Brunswick
12.4 Research reactors
13 Chile
14 China
15 Colombia
16 Democratic Republic of the Congo
17 Cuba
18 Czech Republic
19 Denmark
20 Egypt
21 Estonia
22 Finland
23 France
24 Germany
24.1 Research reactors
24.2 Decommissioned
25 Greece
26 Hungary
27 India
27.1 Power station reactors
27.2 Research and production reactors
28 Indonesia
29 Iran
29.1 Power station reactors
29.2 Research reactors
30 Iraq
30.1 Research reactors
31 Israel
31.1 Research and production reactors
32 Italy
32.1 Power station reactors
32.2 Research reactors
33 Jamaica
34 Japan
34.1 Power station reactors
34.2 Research reactors
35 Kazakhstan
35.1 Power station reactors
35.2 Research reactors
36 Latvia
37 Libya
38 Lithuania
39 Malaysia
40 Mexico
41 Morocco
42 Netherlands
42.1 Power station reactors
42.2 Research reactors
43 North Korea
43.1 Power station reactors
43.2 Research and production reactors
44 Norway
44.1 Research reactors
45 Pakistan
45.1 Power station reactors
45.2 Research and production reactors
46 Panama
47 Peru
48 Philippines
49 Poland
50 Portugal
51 Puerto Rico
52 Romania
52.1 Power stations
52.2 Fuel Factory
52.3 Research
53 Russia
53.1 Power station reactors
53.2 Research reactors
54 Serbia
54.1 Research reactors
55 Slovakia
56 Slovenia
57 South Africa
57.1 Power station reactors
57.2 Research reactors
58 South Korea
59 Spain
59.1 Power station reactors
59.2 Research reactors
60 Sweden
60.1 Power Station Reactors
60.2 Research reactors
61 Switzerland
61.1 Power station reactors
61.2 Research reactors
62 Syria
63 Taiwan
63.1 Power station reactors
63.2 Research reactors
64 Thailand
65 Turkey
65.1 Research reactors
65.2 Fuel pilot plants
66 Ukraine
66.1 Power station reactors
66.2 Research reactors
67 United Kingdom
67.1 Power station reactors
67.2 Research reactors
68 United States of America
68.1 Power station reactors
68.1.1 NRC Region One (Northeast)
68.1.2 NRC Region Two (South)
68.1.3 NRC Region Three (Midwest)
68.1.4 NRC Region Four (West)
68.2 Plutonium production reactors
68.3 Army Nuclear Power Program
68.4 United States Naval reactors
68.5 Research reactors
68.5.1 Civilian Research and Test Reactors Licensed To Operate
68.5.2 Under Decommission Orders or License Amendments
68.5.3 With Possession-Only Licenses
68.6 External links
69 Uruguay
70 Uzbekistan
71 Venezuela
72 Vietnam


It's interesting to note where they are storing really awful nuclear waste. I don't even have that as a list here, possibly it would be too depressing. I want to imagine that we can do better than this as a species, but we seem to be really trashing the place.

I hear that the greens in Italy got completely un-represented as a result of their position on decommissioning all the nuclear plants and buying energy from France. Now, they want to install more. I suppose it doesn't matter safety-wise that much because if France were to lose control of their reactors all the wind would blow nuclear fallout right onto Italy - or maybe from Morocco's plant?

This is just something I think about. There is no safe place to live from this stuff, I guess. It enters the atmosphere and disperses itself across the globe, eventually, I reckon?
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Nuclear Reactors

Unread postby nonhocapito on Tue Mar 15, 2011 4:03 am

Supposedly the power plants in Italy are all dormant now because of a referendum decades ago that voted against it. Which is just as well since we are not that big in taking care of toxic waste (the mafia takes it over usually, dumping it in the territory, the sea, or in war-ridden countries like Somalia, where they buried toxic and nuclear waste under a paved road created with the money donated by the italian government)

Image

From that (supposedly grassroot) anti-nuclear movement (see picture, a logo that was printed and showed everywhere in Italy in those days) the italian "greens" were invented, overnight, and got to be a very powerful political group for a long while (yes they are insignificant today in Berlusconi's era). Interestingly Berlusconi is pushing hard to re-open the old plants and to build new ones, but after Fuck-u-shima I doubt he will manage to. We buy a lot of electricity from France, if I understand it well.

I am surprised to read that relatively small/poor countries like Vietnam or Venezuela have so many reactors (reactors are not equivalent to plants, I think, as a plants can have five or ten reactors. I think Italy has 10 dormant nuclear plants more or less). Doesn't Venezuela have a lot of natural resources as well to produce cheap energy? When and how they happened to build all that nuclear power? Are they producing it to sell it to Mexico and the U.S.?
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: Nuclear Reactors

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Tue Mar 15, 2011 4:24 am

I am not so impressed with Venezuela and their nationalization of their oil. I understand from a political standpoint how that is admirable as an escape from USA influence but again you have a citizenry that was convinced (persuaded?) that the "President" model would be a safe political choice for them. It seems to me the "President" model of rule is one of the most unbalanced and easily toppled-into-monarchy kind of rules in existence. Who convinced the USA to adopt a President and the whole fucking Senate of elites rather than a proportional representation parliament anyway? Gahh! Another discussion...

I digress; yeah, Venezuela and their nuclear power. Woopie. For all the positive things supposedly happening in Argentina, there seems to be quite a bit in nuclear there as well.

Just who has been convincing everyone to build this shit? Is this another CIA mafia cabal thing again, like the Afghanistan heroin?

For irradiated garbage useless to everyone and which loses half of its deadliness every several THOUSAND years, you have to wonder who benefits from all this convenient power? Not future generations.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Nuclear Reactors

Unread postby guivre on Tue Mar 15, 2011 7:48 am

hoi.polloi wrote:Just who has been convincing everyone to build this shit? Is this another CIA mafia cabal thing again, like the Afghanistan heroin?


Being Bulgarian, I know that Westinghouse is behind some nuclear power in Bulgaria, these days. In fact, there's a bit in today's news.


Westinghouse wants to participate in Bulgarian Kozloduy NPPs
Date: March 15th 2011 Author: Anastasiya Georgieva Aleksandrova, Sofia Category: Articles
Topic: Electricity , Energy policy

The American company Westinghouse has expressed interest in participating in extending the life of reactors 5 and 6 of Kozloduy nuclear power plant in Bulgaria, and supplying fresh nuclear fuel.


http://www.energetika.net/eu/novice/ene ... loduy-npps

Glad to know who's just handing out the fresh nuclear fuel. Who's behind handing out the contracts, who really knows?

I see the EU has held Emergency Nuclear Safety talks. Can only imagine what will be decided there.
guivre
Member
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 9:48 pm

Re: Nuclear Reactors

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Tue Mar 15, 2011 5:27 pm

By the way, here is a character (with the same name as Zeitgeist simulation Peter Joseph) arguing for Nuclear Power in Britain and saying if it is safely handled, it can provide power long after it's considered 'waste'. http://www.nuclearbritain.com/

I look forward to hearing how he proposes a way of recycling the waste instead of burying it - and without the use of petroleum!
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Nuclear Reactors

Unread postby simonshack on Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:39 am

*

"I didn’t really come to it until recently."

If Gregory Jaczko is anyone to go by, something odd is currently going on in the nuclear power sector...

Image


Gregory Jaczko - March 14, 2011
“Right now we continue to believe that nuclear power plants in this country operate safety and securely,” Jaczko said.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51274.html

Gregory Jaczko - March 30, 2012
"From everything that the agency has assessed to date, the agency believes that there is no imminent risk from continued operation of nuclear power plants in the UnitedStates and from continued licensing of both existing and new nuclear power plants. (...) I am confident that we are making significant progress toward the timely and effective enhancement of the safety of nuclear power plants in the United States."
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-colle ... 0-2012.pdf

Gregory Jaczko - April 8, 2013 (yesterday):
"All 104 nuclear power reactors now in operation in the United States have a safety problem that cannot be fixed and they should be replaced with newer technology", the former chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Gregory Jaczko said on Monday. Shutting them all down at once is not practical, he said, but he supports phasing them out rather than trying to extend their lives. (...) Asked why he did not make these points when he was chairman, Dr. Jaczko said in an interview after his remarks, “I didn’t really come to it until recently.
Ex-Regulator Says Reactors Are Flawed: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/09/us/ex ... lawed.html

Hmmm... :unsure:


*********************
To be sure, this extraordinary, terrifying news story (which clearly suggests that ALL of the 104 US nuclear power plants are unsafe and ought to be shut down ASAP!) is widely reported with broad headlines in the international media :


Sotto accusa il nucleare negli Stati Uniti:
"I 104 reattori hanno problemi di sicurezza"

Image
http://www.repubblica.it/ambiente/2013/ ... ef=HREC2-6
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6745
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Nuclear Reactors

Unread postby simonshack on Tue Apr 09, 2013 1:14 pm

*
Btw, it would appear that Dr Jaczkos most significant contribution to the security of nuclear power plants is... :rolleyes:
Dr. Jaczko led efforts to strengthen security regulations for nuclear power plants – including requiring new nuclear power plants to be designed to withstand an aircraft crash.
http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/organizati ... aczko.html
"...designed to withstand an aircraft crash"??? I wonder how they do it ? Giant mosquito nettings? :huh:
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6745
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Nuclear Reactors

Unread postby lux on Tue Apr 09, 2013 2:28 pm

It just occurred to me that if you had something you wanted to hide -- like, say, something valuable such as gold or maybe something incriminating like drugs or bodies, what better way to hide it than to label it nuclear waste? No one would want to get anywhere near it. :D

Image
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: Nuclear Reactors

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Tue Apr 09, 2013 3:32 pm

Bill Kaysing suggested as much for a cover story during the moon hoaxing production.

...
The Mercury ASP base was desirable from a number of security-related standpoints:
1. Strange shipments could be delivered inside trucks marked with the dreaded "radiation" sign.
2. Staff could come and go via the heavily guarded airfield. An elaborate warning-wave-off radio-radar protection system prevented any private planes from using the field except for dire emergencies. Even then, strangers were prevented from actually seeing anything of a compromising nature.
3. Odd noises, weird devices, excavations were permissible since no outsiders had visual or audio access.
...

viewtopic.php?p=2377364#p2377364

As for what keeps buildings from falling down when airplanes hit them, one could probably just build them the way they're normally built.

As far as making a building completely invulnerable, such that a divebombing airplane would magically evaporate into nothing upon impact, they may want to ask Mr. Rosenbaum of Camera Planet for advice on performing such an illusion. Perhaps they already have and this is Jaczko's "warning" to us about another hoax.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Nuclear Reactors

Unread postby lux on Tue Apr 09, 2013 3:48 pm

simonshack wrote:*



Gregory Jaczko - April 8, 2013 (yesterday):
"All 104 nuclear power reactors now in operation in the United States have a safety problem that cannot be fixed and they should be replaced with newer technology", the former chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Gregory Jaczko said on Monday. Shutting them all down at once is not practical, he said, but he supports phasing them out rather than trying to extend their lives. (...) Asked why he did not make these points when he was chairman, Dr. Jaczko said in an interview after his remarks, “I didn’t really come to it until recently.
Ex-Regulator Says Reactors Are Flawed: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/09/us/ex ... lawed.html

Hmmm... :unsure:


*********************
To be sure, this extraordinary, terrifying news story (which clearly suggests that ALL of the 104 US nuclear power plants are unsafe and ought to be shut down ASAP!) is widely reported with broad headlines in the international media :


Sotto accusa il nucleare negli Stati Uniti:
"I 104 reattori hanno problemi di sicurezza"

Image
http://www.repubblica.it/ambiente/2013/ ... ef=HREC2-6


I suspect what is going on here is that the media is now beginning to lead us toward the day when most or all "nuclear plants" will be shut down which will then be used as a reason for a scarcity of electrical power which in turn will be used as an excuse to raise power prices dramatically. The same sort of scam as the past "oil crises."

This may have been the ultimate purpose of the fake nuclear plants all along.
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: Nuclear Reactors

Unread postby bostonterrierowner on Wed Apr 10, 2013 2:23 pm

lux wrote:
simonshack wrote:*



Gregory Jaczko - April 8, 2013 (yesterday):
"All 104 nuclear power reactors now in operation in the United States have a safety problem that cannot be fixed and they should be replaced with newer technology", the former chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Gregory Jaczko said on Monday. Shutting them all down at once is not practical, he said, but he supports phasing them out rather than trying to extend their lives. (...) Asked why he did not make these points when he was chairman, Dr. Jaczko said in an interview after his remarks, “I didn’t really come to it until recently.
Ex-Regulator Says Reactors Are Flawed: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/09/us/ex ... lawed.html

Hmmm... :unsure:


*********************
To be sure, this extraordinary, terrifying news story (which clearly suggests that ALL of the 104 US nuclear power plants are unsafe and ought to be shut down ASAP!) is widely reported with broad headlines in the international media :


Sotto accusa il nucleare negli Stati Uniti:
"I 104 reattori hanno problemi di sicurezza"

Image
http://www.repubblica.it/ambiente/2013/ ... ef=HREC2-6


I suspect what is going on here is that the media is now beginning to lead us toward the day when most or all "nuclear plants" will be shut down which will then be used as a reason for a scarcity of electrical power which in turn will be used as an excuse to raise power prices dramatically. The same sort of scam as the past "oil crises."

This may have been the ultimate purpose of the fake nuclear plants all along.


They may use this excuse to grab precious plots of land for so called "green" energy . I can see these wind mills all around us already :)
bostonterrierowner
Member
 
Posts: 849
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 10:01 pm

Re: Nuclear Reactors

Unread postby Evil Edna on Wed Nov 20, 2013 3:18 am

lux wrote:I suspect what is going on here is that the media is now beginning to lead us toward the day when most or all "nuclear plants" will be shut down which will then be used as a reason for a scarcity of electrical power which in turn will be used as an excuse to raise power prices dramatically. The same sort of scam as the past "oil crises."

This may have been the ultimate purpose of the fake nuclear plants all along.


They're doing much the same in the UK with the coal-fired plants. Shutting them all down by 2015 on the basis they're too polluting. Never a mention of cleaning up the plants' emissions, if they truly are polluting. But in the same breath they also claim the wholesale closure of these plants will cause huge energy shortages, regular electricity blackouts and sharp hikes in household energy bills. :blink:

Prince Philip and the WWF used the same argument for banning DDT. The unstated WWF Motto is Always Flora and Fauna before Man. Never mind all the negroes dying needlessly of malaria now DDT is banned. Plenty more where they came from! Priorities everyone! What matters is we've saved some dodo bird that was allergic to DDT! :rolleyes:

The UK National Grid produces some real-time gauges of what it claims are the power outputs from each form of electricity generation. The figures may well be completely falsified. With output from "Nuke Plants" being, in truth, permanently nil. While energy from Wind Farms gets grossly exaggerated. Enrich the supremely corrupt Green Energy Traders who work the entirely new futures market in alternative energy.

Image
CCGT = Combined Cycle Gas Turbine

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
Evil Edna
Banned
 
Posts: 117
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 2:32 am

Re: Nuclear Reactors

Unread postby simonshack on Mon Apr 21, 2014 12:54 am

*

How many CHERNOBYL casualties?


As we all know perfectly well here at Cluesforum, the various disasters reported by the media from around the world often contain conflicting information. Casualty-tolls, for instance, are often bizarrely conflicting - and so on and so forth. However, there is ONE particular (in)famous disaster that probably deserves our "Cluesforum Oscar for MOST CONFLICTING INFORMATION". And that is the alleged Chernobyl nuclear-plant-meltdown story.

Image

Image
"Only a Hollywood doomsday movie can prepare a visitor for Prypyat, the ghost town at the epicenter of the world's worst nuclear disaster. A poisoned corpse of a city, its crumbling, deserted buildings devoid of life stand as a symbol of human folly, lost dreams and broken childhood."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/1 ... 47437.html


So, come on now, folks - please tell me: does anyone know how many people (approximately) died, due to the Chernobyl disaster?

Of course, there were never-ending debates about how many Europeans contracted thyroid cancer due to the radiation released that day (and long after the actual event). Yet, there seems to be no certified, official organization that has kept any scientific count of the death-toll of this highly publicized and traumatic event.

On the 25th anniversary (on April 26 - 2011) of this infamous, catastrophic nuclear plant meltdown - here's where the debate was at:


What is the Chernobyl death toll?

"With the 25th anniversary of Chernobyl falling on April 26, a debate is brewing over the estimated death toll from the nuclear disaster. The debate has erupted with a heated exchange between prominent British columnist George Monbiot and anti-nuclear campaigner Dr Helen Caldicott.

Monbiot claims the “official death toll” from Chernobyl is 43. Caldicott puts the death toll at 985,000. Someone's wrong. Perhaps they both are.
"
https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/47357


Yeah. Perhaps they both are! <_< In any case, I trust we may all agree that there's quite a difference between 43 and 985,000...

Now, what does this tell us about the reality of the Chernobyl nuclear plant meltdown? Would it be unreasonable (on the strength of this WILDLY conflicting information) to assume that the Chernobyl disaster was just another fear-mongering scam? It's all up for you to decide. I am personally inclined to believe that it was just a way to uphold the (taxpayers'-money-guzzling) fraud of "nuclear power plants". But that's - of course - just my personal "for-what-it's-worth" opinion.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6745
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Nuclear Reactors

Unread postby Peter on Sun Sep 01, 2019 11:01 pm

Nuclear power is a hoax:
http://www.big-lies.org/nuke-lies/www.n ... oubts.html

I'm sure it has been discussed here too but not with a whole section devoted to it as my link above.
viewforum.php?f=28
Peter
Member
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2017 6:46 pm


Return to General World Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests