klimatyczne niusy rozmaite

w oczekiwaniu na doomsday
Rhotax First_VaultDweller
Posty: 1539
Rejestracja: 18 lip pn 2005, 12:00 am
Facebook: z tamtąd
Kontaktowanie:

klimatyczne niusy rozmaite

Post autor: Rhotax First_VaultDweller » 18 sie czw 2005, 12:41 pm

Kolejny element falloutowej rzeczywistosci w realnym swiecie:
http://finanse.wp.pl/wid,7776475,wiadom ... 9&ticaid=6

thx dla ManGUSa za info

Awatar użytkownika
trefl
Posty: 3970
Rejestracja: 15 sie pn 2005, 12:00 am
Facebook: Klasa Trzecia Ce
Kontaktowanie:

Post autor: trefl » 18 sie czw 2005, 1:35 pm

piekne, wzruszylem sie

btw widze tu szanse na rozwiazenie wszystkich naszych problemow z topica obok o sprzecie bractwowym, bob z ta cala skrzynia kapski powinien wejsc na gielde!

Awatar użytkownika
Nico
Posty: 1061
Rejestracja: 15 sie pn 2005, 12:00 am
Facebook: New Bayern
Kontaktowanie:

Post autor: Nico » 24 sie śr 2005, 9:34 pm


Awatar użytkownika
Nico
Posty: 1061
Rejestracja: 15 sie pn 2005, 12:00 am
Facebook: New Bayern
Kontaktowanie:

Post autor: Nico » 11 wrz ndz 2005, 12:07 pm


Rhotax First_VaultDweller
Posty: 1539
Rejestracja: 18 lip pn 2005, 12:00 am
Facebook: z tamtąd
Kontaktowanie:

ZIMNA FUZJA!!!! a nawet lepiej!!!

Post autor: Rhotax First_VaultDweller » 15 wrz czw 2005, 12:19 am

teraz mozemy olac koncerny naftowe ! juz wiadomo na jakim paliwie bedziemy jezdzic po apokalipsie !!!
http://fakty.interia.pl/news?inf=666507

M0uK
Posty: 62
Rejestracja: 31 sie śr 2005, 12:00 am
Facebook: Wroc?aw/Dzier?oniów
Kontaktowanie:

Post autor: M0uK » 15 wrz czw 2005, 11:30 am

nie wiem czego obroncy praw zwierzat sie czepiaja skoro te koty juz sa sztywne... swoja droga koles mogl te maszynke swoja nazwac nie KDV a KDY.. hyhy

Awatar użytkownika
trefl
Posty: 3970
Rejestracja: 15 sie pn 2005, 12:00 am
Facebook: Klasa Trzecia Ce
Kontaktowanie:

Post autor: trefl » 15 wrz czw 2005, 1:25 pm

dziwnym nie jest ze rozne badziewie mozna lac silnikowi wysokopreznemu. tutaj wychodzi 0.23euro za litr? rownie swietnie sie jezdzi na wypalonym oleju roslinnym np takim po zrobieniu frytek. fast foody musza placic za pozbywanie sie tego oleju wiec chetnie oddaja go za darmo. waha drozeje, mozna by sie nad tym zastanowaci i odkladac kase na bunkier bractowy. z drugiej strony wolalbym zaplacic .23e i jezdzic na szczatkach futrzakow :>

Awatar użytkownika
Jagi
Posty: 1525
Rejestracja: 15 sie pn 2005, 12:00 am
Facebook: 3C
Kontaktowanie:

Wielki Brat

Post autor: Jagi » 15 wrz czw 2005, 11:28 pm


Awatar użytkownika
Technik
Posty: 896
Rejestracja: 15 sie pn 2005, 12:00 am
Facebook: Buc?aw
Kontaktowanie:

Post autor: Technik » 16 wrz pt 2005, 8:45 am

ROTFL! Polewalem z komentarzy do artykulu az sie w koncu zmeczylem .....

M0uK
Posty: 62
Rejestracja: 31 sie śr 2005, 12:00 am
Facebook: Wroc?aw/Dzier?oniów
Kontaktowanie:

Post autor: M0uK » 16 wrz pt 2005, 9:19 am

heh, mnie to przypomina cala afere po wydaniu ksiazki "Oko w piramidzie" i kolejnych dwu czesci cyklu o Illuminatach (heh, musze w koncu dorwac jegomoscia, ktory pozyczyl ode mnie cz. 2 i 3 i stwierdzil ze to 'prezent'). Po czyms takim zawsze wybucha ogolna paranoja zwiazana z koncem swiata itp... hehe, jak widac stary i sprawdzony pomysl nadal dziala :)

HarQ
Posty: 1206
Rejestracja: 31 sie śr 2005, 12:00 am

Post autor: HarQ » 16 wrz pt 2005, 10:04 am

A jednak mamy konkurencje w przejmowaniu wladzy nad swiatem.... a cel byl tka bliski

Awatar użytkownika
Technik
Posty: 896
Rejestracja: 15 sie pn 2005, 12:00 am
Facebook: Buc?aw
Kontaktowanie:

Post autor: Technik » 16 wrz pt 2005, 10:14 am

hehe, no ale my mamy dostep do waluty, nawet w momencie zalamania rynku walutowego i zlikwidowaniu elektronicznego pieniadza! Kapsli nie rozwala jednym kliknieciem myszki...
HA!

Awatar użytkownika
trefl
Posty: 3970
Rejestracja: 15 sie pn 2005, 12:00 am
Facebook: Klasa Trzecia Ce
Kontaktowanie:

Post autor: trefl » 16 wrz pt 2005, 12:08 pm

jagi przez ciebie sie spoznilem do pracy bo nie moglem sie oderwac od komentarzy :)

HarQ
Posty: 1206
Rejestracja: 31 sie śr 2005, 12:00 am

Post autor: HarQ » 16 wrz pt 2005, 2:16 pm

"Technik": hehe, no ale my mamy dostep do waluty, nawet w momencie zalamania rynku walutowego i zlikwidowaniu elektronicznego pieniadza! Kapsli nie rozwala jednym kliknieciem myszki...
HA!

No nie wiem - juz teraz puszki wypieraja butelki,

W puszkach jest diabel

Awatar użytkownika
Technik
Posty: 896
Rejestracja: 15 sie pn 2005, 12:00 am
Facebook: Buc?aw
Kontaktowanie:

Post autor: Technik » 16 wrz pt 2005, 2:48 pm

fakt, teraz wszedzie wciskajacipuszki .... ale ja tam jestem za kapslami. Diabli niech wezma puszki :)

Awatar użytkownika
Chewie
Posty: 3849
Rejestracja: 03 wrz sob 2005, 12:00 am
Facebook: voult 69
Kontaktowanie:

Post autor: Chewie » 16 wrz pt 2005, 11:13 pm

cholera wcisakaja w cipuszki?:) qrde no a ja tego nei widzialem?:)

chew

Awatar użytkownika
Nico
Posty: 1061
Rejestracja: 15 sie pn 2005, 12:00 am
Facebook: New Bayern
Kontaktowanie:

Post autor: Nico » 18 wrz ndz 2005, 3:39 pm

http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/1165718,11,item.html - jakby to powiedzial Obelix .. to mozna za duzo wypic :D ?

Saluś
Posty: 465
Rejestracja: 08 wrz czw 2005, 12:00 am
Facebook: Enklawa
Kontaktowanie:

Post autor: Saluś » 22 wrz czw 2005, 3:59 pm

Kontrola nad światem tego wlasnie pragne moze kupimy od ruskich malą walizke atomową kto jest za hehehe :twisted:

Awatar użytkownika
Technik
Posty: 896
Rejestracja: 15 sie pn 2005, 12:00 am
Facebook: Buc?aw
Kontaktowanie:

Post autor: Technik » 23 wrz pt 2005, 10:05 pm


Awatar użytkownika
Jagi
Posty: 1525
Rejestracja: 15 sie pn 2005, 12:00 am
Facebook: 3C
Kontaktowanie:

Post autor: Jagi » 26 lut ndz 2006, 2:29 pm


Rhotax First_VaultDweller
Posty: 1539
Rejestracja: 18 lip pn 2005, 12:00 am
Facebook: z tamtąd
Kontaktowanie:

Post autor: Rhotax First_VaultDweller » 25 mar sob 2006, 2:00 pm


Rhotax First_VaultDweller
Posty: 1539
Rejestracja: 18 lip pn 2005, 12:00 am
Facebook: z tamtąd
Kontaktowanie:

Going Nuclear

Post autor: Rhotax First_VaultDweller » 18 kwie wt 2006, 3:50 pm

nawet taki zielony sie nawrocil :]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01209.html

treśc artykulu:
Going Nuclear
A Green Makes the Case

By Patrick Moore
Sunday, April 16, 2006; B01



In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots. That's the conviction that inspired Greenpeace's first voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska's Aleutian Islands. Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change.

Look at it this way: More than 600 coal-fired electric plants in the United States produce 36 percent of U.S. emissions -- or nearly 10 percent of global emissions -- of CO2, the primary greenhouse gas responsible for climate change. Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce these emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power. And these days it can do so safely.

I say that guardedly, of course, just days after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that his country had enriched uranium. "The nuclear technology is only for the purpose of peace and nothing else," he said. But there is widespread speculation that, even though the process is ostensibly dedicated to producing electricity, it is in fact a cover for building nuclear weapons.

And although I don't want to underestimate the very real dangers of nuclear technology in the hands of rogue states, we cannot simply ban every technology that is dangerous. That was the all-or-nothing mentality at the height of the Cold War, when anything nuclear seemed to spell doom for humanity and the environment. In 1979, Jane Fonda and Jack Lemmon produced a frisson of fear with their starring roles in "The China Syndrome," a fictional evocation of nuclear disaster in which a reactor meltdown threatens a city's survival. Less than two weeks after the blockbuster film opened, a reactor core meltdown at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island nuclear power plant sent shivers of very real anguish throughout the country.

What nobody noticed at the time, though, was that Three Mile Island was in fact a success story: The concrete containment structure did just what it was designed to do -- prevent radiation from escaping into the environment. And although the reactor itself was crippled, there was no injury or death among nuclear workers or nearby residents. Three Mile Island was the only serious accident in the history of nuclear energy generation in the United States, but it was enough to scare us away from further developing the technology: There hasn't been a nuclear plant ordered up since then.

Today, there are 103 nuclear reactors quietly delivering just 20 percent of America's electricity. Eighty percent of the people living within 10 miles of these plants approve of them (that's not including the nuclear workers). Although I don't live near a nuclear plant, I am now squarely in their camp.

And I am not alone among seasoned environmental activists in changing my mind on this subject. British atmospheric scientist James Lovelock, father of the Gaia theory, believes that nuclear energy is the only way to avoid catastrophic climate change. Stewart Brand, founder of the "Whole Earth Catalog," says the environmental movement must embrace nuclear energy to wean ourselves from fossil fuels. On occasion, such opinions have been met with excommunication from the anti-nuclear priesthood: The late British Bishop Hugh Montefiore, founder and director of Friends of the Earth, was forced to resign from the group's board after he wrote a pro-nuclear article in a church newsletter.

There are signs of a new willingness to listen, though, even among the staunchest anti-nuclear campaigners. When I attended the Kyoto climate meeting in Montreal last December, I spoke to a packed house on the question of a sustainable energy future. I argued that the only way to reduce fossil fuel emissions from electrical production is through an aggressive program of renewable energy sources (hydroelectric, geothermal heat pumps, wind, etc.) plus nuclear. The Greenpeace spokesperson was first at the mike for the question period, and I expected a tongue-lashing. Instead, he began by saying he agreed with much of what I said -- not the nuclear bit, of course, but there was a clear feeling that all options must be explored.

Here's why: Wind and solar power have their place, but because they are intermittent and unpredictable they simply can't replace big baseload plants such as coal, nuclear and hydroelectric. Natural gas, a fossil fuel, is too expensive already, and its price is too volatile to risk building big baseload plants. Given that hydroelectric resources are built pretty much to capacity, nuclear is, by elimination, the only viable substitute for coal. It's that simple.

That's not to say that there aren't real problems -- as well as various myths -- associated with nuclear energy. Each concern deserves careful consideration:

· Nuclear energy is expensive. It is in fact one of the least expensive energy sources. In 2004, the average cost of producing nuclear energy in the United States was less than two cents per kilowatt-hour, comparable with coal and hydroelectric. Advances in technology will bring the cost down further in the future.

· Nuclear plants are not safe. Although Three Mile Island was a success story, the accident at Chernobyl, 20 years ago this month, was not. But Chernobyl was an accident waiting to happen. This early model of Soviet reactor had no containment vessel, was an inherently bad design and its operators literally blew it up. The multi-agency U.N. Chernobyl Forum reported last year that 56 deaths could be directly attributed to the accident, most of those from radiation or burns suffered while fighting the fire. Tragic as those deaths were, they pale in comparison to the more than 5,000 coal-mining deaths that occur worldwide every year. No one has died of a radiation-related accident in the history of the U.S. civilian nuclear reactor program. (And although hundreds of uranium mine workers did die from radiation exposure underground in the early years of that industry, that problem was long ago corrected.)

· Nuclear waste will be dangerous for thousands of years. Within 40 years, used fuel has less than one-thousandth of the radioactivity it had when it was removed from the reactor. And it is incorrect to call it waste, because 95 percent of the potential energy is still contained in the used fuel after the first cycle. Now that the United States has removed the ban on recycling used fuel, it will be possible to use that energy and to greatly reduce the amount of waste that needs treatment and disposal. Last month, Japan joined France, Britain and Russia in the nuclear-fuel-recycling business. The United States will not be far behind.

· Nuclear reactors are vulnerable to terrorist attack. The six-feet-thick reinforced concrete containment vessel protects the contents from the outside as well as the inside. And even if a jumbo jet did crash into a reactor and breach the containment, the reactor would not explode. There are many types of facilities that are far more vulnerable, including liquid natural gas plants, chemical plants and numerous political targets.

· Nuclear fuel can be diverted to make nuclear weapons. This is the most serious issue associated with nuclear energy and the most difficult to address, as the example of Iran shows. But just because nuclear technology can be put to evil purposes is not an argument to ban its use.

Over the past 20 years, one of the simplest tools -- the machete -- has been used to kill more than a million people in Africa, far more than were killed in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombings combined. What are car bombs made of? Diesel oil, fertilizer and cars. If we banned everything that can be used to kill people, we would never have harnessed fire.

The only practical approach to the issue of nuclear weapons proliferation is to put it higher on the international agenda and to use diplomacy and, where necessary, force to prevent countries or terrorists from using nuclear materials for destructive ends. And new technologies such as the reprocessing system recently introduced in Japan (in which the plutonium is never separated from the uranium) can make it much more difficult for terrorists or rogue states to use civilian materials to manufacture weapons.

The 600-plus coal-fired plants emit nearly 2 billion tons of CO2annually -- the equivalent of the exhaust from about 300 million automobiles. In addition, the Clean Air Council reports that coal plants are responsible for 64 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions, 26 percent of nitrous oxides and 33 percent of mercury emissions. These pollutants are eroding the health of our environment, producing acid rain, smog, respiratory illness and mercury contamination.

Meanwhile, the 103 nuclear plants operating in the United States effectively avoid the release of 700 million tons of CO2emissions annually -- the equivalent of the exhaust from more than 100 million automobiles. Imagine if the ratio of coal to nuclear were reversed so that only 20 percent of our electricity was generated from coal and 60 percent from nuclear. This would go a long way toward cleaning the air and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Every responsible environmentalist should support a move in that direction.

pmoore@greenspirit.com

Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, is chairman and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies Ltd. He and Christine Todd Whitman are co-chairs of a new industry-funded initiative, the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, which supports increased use of nuclear energy.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

Saluś
Posty: 465
Rejestracja: 08 wrz czw 2005, 12:00 am
Facebook: Enklawa
Kontaktowanie:

Post autor: Saluś » 18 kwie wt 2006, 11:01 pm

Moze u nas wprowadzą to, ze za kapsle od specka bedzie mozna placic albo je?dzic taksowką

Awatar użytkownika
trefl
Posty: 3970
Rejestracja: 15 sie pn 2005, 12:00 am
Facebook: Klasa Trzecia Ce
Kontaktowanie:

Post autor: trefl » 19 kwie śr 2006, 3:10 am

Jebany zielony, teraz za puzno, na stos z nim :)

A tak powaznie to elektrownia na Three Mile Island w Pensylwani to ta przy ktorej pijalem browara podziwiajac radioaktywne chmurki. Rzeczywiscie w odleglosci ok 500m sa juz zabudowania mieszkalne. W dniu drugiej co do zagrozenia po Czarnobylu awarii urodzila sie moja kolezanka ktora mieszka kilknascie kilometrow dalej, skubana :p


http://img119.imageshack.us/my.php?imag ... 1742ff.jpg
http://img119.imageshack.us/img119/9146 ... 2ff.th.jpg
http://img436.imageshack.us/my.php?imag ... 1773bz.jpg
http://img436.imageshack.us/img436/5815 ... 3bz.th.jpg

the Magdalenka

Czy atom trafi pod strzechy?

Post autor: the Magdalenka » 19 kwie śr 2006, 9:22 pm

reaktorek pocket size? bardzo prosze

http://serwisy.gazeta.pl/nauka/1,34148,3290058.html

pozdro,
the M

treśc artykulu:
Czy atom trafi pod strzechy?
Tomasz Rozek 2006-04-18, ostatnia aktualizacja 2006-04-18 19:29:11.0

Energetyka jądrowa powoli wraca do lask. Nadchodzi era malych osiedlowych elektrowni atomowych




Mieszkasz na pustkowiu i nie stac cie na doprowadzenie prądu elektrycznego? Kataklizm odciąl cie od świata? A moze chcesz po prostu, zeby osiedle, na ktorym mieszkasz, mialo tanie, autonomiczne i czyste ?rodlo prądu? Twoje problemy rozwiąze elektrownia atomowa. Mala, przenośna i bezobslugowa. Fikcja? Nic takiego. Takie elektrownie istnieją i tylko czekac, az bedą masowo produkowane.



Pomysly prosto z demobilu

Male reaktory atomowe zaczeto budowac juz ponad pol wieku temu. W latach 50. USA zaczely sondowac mozliwośc tworzenia reaktorow, ktore mozna byloby w modulach transportowac na lawecie kolejowej, na pokladzie statkow, barek lub samolotow transportowych. Chodzilo o szybkie dostarczenie ?rodla energii w miejsca bez infrastruktury (albo ze zniszczoną infrastrukturą), np. w poblize budowanych napredce baz wojskowych czy tez w miejsca katastrof naturalnych. Dotychczas zwykle ratowano sie generatorami prądu, ktore spalaly rope naftową. Niestety, czesto dostarczanie duzych ilości ropy jest po prostu niemozliwe. W armii amerykanskiej opracowano osiem, a wybudowano sześc roznych reaktorow atomowych. Jednym z nich byl stworzony w 1961 r. reaktor PM-2A. Mial moc 2 MWe i byl reaktorem przenośnym, choc jego montaz zajmowal prawie trzy miesiące.

Program budowy malych reaktorow jądrowych istnial rowniez w Związku Radzieckim. Np. w 1961 r. uruchomiono na dalekiej polnocy reaktor TES-3 (o mocy 1,5 MWe), ktory mogl byc transportowany w czterech kontenerach na lawecie samochodowej.

Obecnie jest juz kilkanaście projektow malych elektrowni jądrowych. Najwiecej z nich powstalo w USA, ale swoje konstrukcje mają takze Francuzi, Chinczycy, Rosjanie, Koreanczycy i Japonczycy. Coraz cześciej mowi sie jednak, zeby projekty w koncu wcielic w zycie. Przy caly czas rosnącym zapotrzebowaniu na energie bez reaktorow atomowych niemozliwe bedzie ograniczenie emisji do atmosfery szkodliwych produktow spalania wegla, ropy bąd? gazu. Dla energetyki jądrowej nadchodzą czasy renesansu, a wraz z nimi mozliwośc realizacji projektow, ktore dotychczas byly zamkniete w szufladach.



Reaktor pod reką

Za budową malych reaktorow przemawia jeszcze jeden argument. Energetyce jądrowej czesto zarzuca sie, ze jest zbyt "scentralizowana" i przez to nieelastyczna. Duzego reaktora nie mozna tak po prostu wlączac i wylączac, gdy zmienia sie zapotrzebowanie na prąd elektryczny. Teraz istnieją mozliwości techniczne i sprzyjający klimat polityczny, zeby tworzyc male, wrecz osiedlowe elektrownie. Bylyby one przywozone na miejsce w kilku zaledwie modulach i montowane jak z klockow w bardzo krotkim czasie. To powoduje, ze prąd z malych elektrowni jądrowych jest tanszy od tego z duzych. Mniejsze są takze koszty jego przesylania, a straty z tego wynikające zminimalizowane. Przy tym mniejszy, wcale nie znaczy mniej bezpieczny. Energetyka jądrowa jest jedną z najbezpieczniejszych technologii stworzonych przez czlowieka. Tzw. pasywne systemy zabezpieczen - w ktore wyposazane są zarowno konstrukcje male, jak i duze - zadzialają nawet wtedy, gdy w czasie awarii elektrownia nie bedzie dysponowala zapasową energią elektryczną.

Dodatkową redukcje kosztow prądu produkowanego przez male elektrownie mozna uzyskac, wybierając projekt elektrowni bezobslugowej. Najcześciej zakopany w ziemie reaktor pracuje przez kilka dziesiątek lat bez konieczności wymiany wypalonego paliwa na nowe. Po tym czasie modul z reaktorem (i wypalonym paliwem) wraca do producenta, a w miejscu, w ktorym pracowal, mozna zainstalowac nowy - z paliwem na nastepne kilkadziesiąt lat - albo rozlozyc pozostalą cześc silowni i w kilku kawalkach wywie?c ją do producenta. Po reaktorze atomowym, skladowisku radioaktywnych odpadow i calej infrastrukturze nie ma wtedy ani śladu.



Pierwszy przystanek: Alaska

Takie rozwiązania są juz realizowane. Na przelomie 2004 i 2005 roku rada miasta Galena na Alasce w USA zgodzila sie na wybudowanie w poblizu miasteczka malej elektrowni atomowej. Do polozonej nad rzeką Jukon miejscowości nie mozna dojechac samochodem, a doplynąc statkiem da sie tylko kilka miesiecy w roku. Prąd elektryczny dla spoleczności okolo 800 osob produkowany jest w malej elektrowni spalającej rope naftową. Jest go jednak ciągle zbyt malo. Energie potrzebną na ogrzanie domow, cześciowe ich oświetlenie i przygotowanie potraw mieszkancy Galeny uzyskują, spalając drewno i nafte. Te surowce mozna do miejscowości dostarczyc tylko przez trzy-cztery miesiące w roku. Poza tym dotychczasowy sposob produkcji energii jest szkodliwy dla środowiska naturalnego.

Te problemy mogą jednak juz za kilka lat pozostac jedynie przykrym wspomnieniem. Firma Toshiba zaproponowala mieszkancom Galeny wybudowanie na terenie miasteczka swojego reaktora atomowego Toshiba 4S. 4S to "Super Safe, Small and Simple", czyli "superbezpieczny, maly i prosty". Reaktor o wadze okolo 60 ton i wysokości nieco ponad 20 m ma byc w zasadzie caly wkopany w ziemie. Razem z nim pod powierzchnią gruntu bedą znajdowaly sie wymiennik ciepla, generator pary, pompy i mechanizm kontrolny. Ponad gruntem bedą zainstalowane jedynie turbiny. Reaktor bedzie mial moc okolo 10 MW, co calkowicie zaspokoi potrzeby mieszkancow Galeny, i po wypelnieniu paliwem bedzie mogl pracowac 30 lat. Koszt produkowanego przez niego prądu elektrycznego bedzie okolo czterech razy mniejszy niz dotychczas. Na miejscu w Galenie elektrownia zostanie jedynie zlozona z kawalkow, ktore przyplyną tam na pokladzie barki lub przylecą helikopterem.



To dopiero jazda probna

Koszt budowy pierwszej elektrowni Toshiba ocenia na mniej wiecej 20 mln dol. Moglby on byc nizszy, gdyby firma produkowala takie reaktory seryjnie. Elektrownia w Galena zostanie wybudowana jednak za darmo - jako reklama firmy. Toshiba ma nadzieje sprzedac swoich konstrukcji wiecej, nie tylko zresztą w miejsca trudno dostepne. Jedna kilowatogodzina wyprodukowana w japonskiej elektrowni Toshiba 4S moze kosztowac zaledwie 5 centow. To cena ponaddwukrotnie nizsza niz np. w Polsce. Rewolucyjny reaktor z miasteczka Galena ma zacząc pracowac w 2012 roku. Tymczasem do 2010 roku Amerykanie chcą ostatecznie zakonczyc faze projektowania az dziewieciu roznych elektrowni jądrowych. Wśrod nich są takze male elektrownie modulowe. Na prace z tym związane pieniądze przekazal Kongres USA.

W Polsce w ciągu najblizszych kilku dziesiecioleci "osiedlowe" elektrownie jądrowe raczej sie nie pojawią. Ma jednak powstac duza silownia atomowa. Prąd z atomu wedlug stworzonego przez poprzedni rząd dokumentu "Polityka energetyczna Polski do 2025 roku" ma zacząc plynąc najpo?niej w 2022 roku. Jezeli plany te zostaną zrealizowane, polska elektrownia bedzie kolejną z kilku nowo budowanych w Europie. Jest tez szansa, ze tym razem budowa nie zakonczy sie protestami tak jak w przypadku elektrowni atomowej w Zarnowcu. Akceptacja energetyki jądrowej w polskim spoleczenstwie systematycznie rośnie. Na przelomie 2004 i 2005 roku Instytut Badania Opinii i Rynku PENTOR SA przeprowadzil ostatni taki sondaz. Po raz pierwszy od 15 lat liczba zwolennikow energetyki jądrowej w Polsce przekroczyla wowczas liczbe jej przeciwnikow.

Tomasz Rozek

Rhotax First_VaultDweller
Posty: 1539
Rejestracja: 18 lip pn 2005, 12:00 am
Facebook: z tamtąd
Kontaktowanie:

BACK TO THE BUNKER

Post autor: Rhotax First_VaultDweller » 06 cze wt 2006, 1:10 am

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 10_pf.html

- heh, najlepiej by calą ta buszowską administracje zamknąc w jednym vaulcie, zaspawac śluze i przepalic im water chip...

treśc artykulu:
BACK TO THE BUNKER

By William M. Arkin
Sunday, June 4, 2006; B01



On Monday, June 19, about 4,000 government workers representing more than 50 federal agencies from the State Department to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission will say goodbye to their families and set off for dozens of classified emergency facilities stretching from the Maryland and Virginia suburbs to the foothills of the Alleghenies. They will take to the bunkers in an "evacuation" that my sources describe as the largest "continuity of government" exercise ever conducted, a drill intended to prepare the U.S. government for an event even more catastrophic than the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The exercise is the latest manifestation of an obsession with government survival that has been a hallmark of the Bush administration since 9/11, a focus of enormous and often absurd time, money and effort that has come to echo the worst follies of the Cold War. The vast secret operation has updated the duck-and-cover scenarios of the 1950s with state-of-the-art technology -- alerts and updates delivered by pager and PDA, wireless priority service, video teleconferencing, remote backups -- to ensure that "essential" government functions continue undisrupted should a terrorist's nuclear bomb go off in downtown Washington.

But for all the BlackBerry culture, the outcome is still old-fashioned black and white: We've spent hundreds of millions of dollars on alternate facilities, data warehouses and communications, yet no one can really foretell what would happen to the leadership and functioning of the federal government in a catastrophe.

After 9/11, The Washington Post reported that President Bush had set up a shadow government of about 100 senior civilian managers to live and work outside Washington on a rotating basis to ensure the continuity of national security. Since then, a program once focused on presidential succession and civilian control of U.S. nuclear weapons has been expanded to encompass the entire government. From the Department of Education to the Small Business Administration to the National Archives, every department and agency is now required to plan for continuity outside Washington.

Yet according to scores of documents I've obtained and interviews with half a dozen sources, there's no greater confidence today that essential services would be maintained in a disaster. And no one really knows how an evacuation would even be physically possible.

Moreover, since 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina, the definition of what constitutes an "essential" government function has been expanded so ridiculously beyond core national security functions -- do we really need patent and trademark processing in the middle of a nuclear holocaust? -- that the term has become meaningless. The intent of the government effort may be laudable, even necessary, but a hyper-centralized approach based on the Cold War model of evacuations and bunkering makes it practically worthless.

That the continuity program is so poorly conceived, and poorly run, should come as no surprise. That's because the same Federal Emergency Management Agency that failed New Orleans after Katrina, an agency that a Senate investigating committee has pronounced "in shambles and beyond repair," is in charge of this enormous effort to plan for the U.S. government's survival.

Continuity programs began in the early 1950s, when the threat of nuclear war moved the administration of President Harry S. Truman to begin planning for emergency government functions and civil defense. Evacuation bunkers were built, and an incredibly complex and secretive shadow government program was created.

At its height, the grand era of continuity boasted the fully operational Mount Weather, a civilian bunker built along the crest of Virginia's Blue Ridge, to which most agency heads would evacuate; the Greenbrier hotel complex and bunker in West Virginia, where Congress would shelter; and Raven Rock, or Site R, a national security bunker bored into granite along the Pennsylvania-Maryland border near Camp David, where the Joint Chiefs of Staff would command a protracted nuclear war. Special communications networks were built, and evacuation and succession procedures were practiced continually.

When the Soviet Union crumbled, the program became a Cold War curiosity: Then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney ordered Raven Rock into caretaker status in 1991. The Greenbrier bunker was shuttered and a 30-year-old special access program was declassified three years later.

Then came the terrorist attacks of the mid-1990s and the looming Y2K rollover, and suddenly continuity wasn't only for nuclear war anymore. On Oct. 21, 1998, President Bill Clinton signed Presidential Decision Directive 67, "Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations." No longer would only the very few elite leaders responsible for national security be covered. Instead, every single government department and agency was directed to see to it that they could resume critical functions within 12 hours of a warning, and keep their operations running at emergency facilities for up to 30 days. FEMA was put in charge of this broad new program.

On 9/11, the program was put to the test -- and failed. Not on the national security side: Vice President Cheney and others in the national security leadership were smoothly whisked away from the capital following procedures overseen by the Pentagon and the White House Military Office. But like the mass of Washingtonians, officials from other agencies found themselves virtually on their own, unsure of where to go or what to do, or whom to contact for the answers.

In the aftermath, the federal government was told to reinvigorate its continuity efforts. Bush approved lines of succession for civil agencies. Cabinet departments and agencies were assigned specific emergency responsibilities. FEMA issued new preparedness guidelines and oversaw training. A National Capital Region continuity working group established in 1999, comprising six White House groups, 15 departments and 61 agencies, met to coordinate.

But all the frenetic activity did not produce a government prepared for the worst. A year after 9/11, and almost three years after the deadline set in Clinton's 1998 directive, the Government Accounting Office evaluated 38 agencies and found that not one had addressed all the issues it had been ordered to. A 2004 GAO audit of 34 government continuity-of-operations plans found total confusion on the question of essential functions. One unnamed organization listed 399 such functions. A department included providing "speeches and articles for the Secretary and Deputy Secretary" among its essential duties, while neglecting many of its central programs.

The confusion and absurdity have continued, according to documents I've collected over the past few years. In June 2004, FEMA told federal agencies that essential services in a catastrophe would include not only such obvious ones as electric power generation and disaster relief but also patent and trademark processing, student aid and passport processing. A month earlier, FEMA had told states and local communities that library services should be counted as essential along with fire protection and law enforcement.

None of this can be heartening to Americans who want to believe that in a crisis, their government can distinguish between what is truly essential and what isn't -- and provide it.

Just two years ago, an exercise called Forward Challenge '04 pointed up the danger of making everyone and everything essential: Barely an hour after agencies were due to arrive at their relocation sites, the Office of Management and Budget asked the reconstituted government to identify emergency funding requirements.

As one after-action report for the exercise later put it in a classic case of understatement: "It was not clear . . . whether this would be a realistic request at that stage of an emergency."

This year's exercise, Forward Challenge '06, will be the third major interagency continuity exercise since 9/11. Larger than Forward Challenge '04 and the Pinnacle exercise held last year, it requires 31 departments and agencies (including FEMA) to relocate. Fifty to 60 are expected to take part.

According to government sources, the exercise will test the newly created continuity of government alert conditions -- called COGCONs -- that emulate the DEFCONs of the national security community. Forward Challenge will begin with a series of alerts via BlackBerry and pager to key officials. It will test COGCON 1, the highest level of preparedness, in which each department and agency is required to have at least one person in its chain of command and sufficient staffing at alternate operating facilities to perform essential functions.

Though key White House officials and military leadership would be relocated via the Pentagon's Joint Emergency Evacuation Program (JEEP), the civilians are on their own to make it to their designated evacuation points.

But fear not: Each organization's COOP, or continuity of operations plan, details the best routes to the emergency locations. The plans even spell out what evacuees should take with them (recommended items: a combination lock, a flashlight, two towels and a small box of washing powder).

Can such an exercise, announced well in advance, hope to re-create any of the tensions and fears of a real crisis? How do you simulate the experience of driving through blazing, radiated, panic-stricken streets to emergency bunker sites miles away?

As the Energy Department stated in its review of Forward Challenge '04, "a method needs to be devised to realistically test the ability of . . . federal offices to relocate to their COOP sites using a scenario that simulates . . . the monumental challenges that would be involved in evacuating the city."

With its new plans and procedures, Washington may think it has thought of everything to save itself. Forward Challenge will no doubt be deemed a success, and officials will pronounce the continuity-of-government project sound. There will be lessons to be learned that will justify more millions of dollars and more work in the infinite effort to guarantee order out of chaos.

But the main defect -- a bunker mentality that considers too many people and too many jobs "essential" -- will remain unchallenged.


warkin@igc.org


William M. Arkin writes the Early Warning blog for washingtonpost.com and is the author of "Code Names: Deciphering U.S. Military Plans, Programs and Operations in the 9/11 World" (Steerforth Press).


© 2006 The Washington Post Company

mangus
Posty: 966
Rejestracja: 18 sie czw 2005, 12:00 am
Facebook: z dupąd

Post autor: mangus » 09 cze pt 2006, 8:51 am

kurde. jakby tak zekranizowali tetrisa to bybylo cos. poszedlbym do kina napewno

Rhotax First_VaultDweller
Posty: 1539
Rejestracja: 18 lip pn 2005, 12:00 am
Facebook: z tamtąd
Kontaktowanie:

plywająca elektrownia

Post autor: Rhotax First_VaultDweller » 16 cze pt 2006, 7:36 am

Floating atomic plant for Russia
Russia is to build the world's first floating nuclear plant, designed to provide power for remote areas.
Under a contract signed on Wednesday, the plant will be built at an Arctic site where atomic submarines are made.

Work is expected to start next year on two nuclear reactors and the 144m (475ft) platform for them, despite environmentalists' concerns.

Nuclear industry leaders said fears about the safety of the $336m (£183m) facility were unfounded.

Under the agreement between the state-controlled Rosenergoatom consortium and the Sevmash shipyard in the far northern port of Severodvinsk, the power station is due to begin generating in 2010.
It will provide heating and electricity for the Sevmash naval facility.

'Absolutely unsafe'

Rosenergoatom chief Sergei Obozov said the plant was the ideal solution for providing power to remote Arctic sites.


He said Russian authorities were looking at 11 other possible sites for such reactors, and that customers from abroad were already interested in the technology.
Environmentalists have been highly critical of the proposals.

Charles Digges, editor of the Norwegian-based Bellona website, told the Associated Press that floating nuclear plants were "absolutely unsafe - inherently so".

"There are risks of the unit itself sinking, there are risks in towing the units to where they need to be," he said.

But Sergei Kiriyenko, head of Russia's Federal Atomic Power Agency, dismissed such concerns, saying the country had more experience of building nuclear submarines than any other in the world.

"There will be no floating Chernobyl," he said, according to the Russian Itar-Tass news agency, referring to the the world's worst ever nuclear accident, which took place in 1986 in Ukraine.

Russia currently generates up to 17% of its electricity from 31 reactors at 10 sites, and President Vladimir Putin has said he would like to increase the figure to a quarter.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/e ... 080732.stm

Published: 2006/06/14 17:13:32 GMT

© BBC MMVI

Rhotax First_VaultDweller
Posty: 1539
Rejestracja: 18 lip pn 2005, 12:00 am
Facebook: z tamtąd
Kontaktowanie:

'Doomsday vault' to resist global warming effects

Post autor: Rhotax First_VaultDweller » 11 lut ndz 2007, 11:42 am

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/02/0 ... pxovb.html

An Arctic "doomsday vault" aimed at providing mankind with food in case of a global catastrophe will be designed to sustain the effects of climate change, the project's builders said as they unveiled the architectural plans.
The top-security repository, carved into the permafrost of a mountain in the remote Svalbard archipelago near the North Pole, will preserve some three million batches of seeds from all known varieties of the planet's crops.

The hope is that the vault will make it possible to re-establish crops obliterated by major disasters.

"We have taken into consideration the (outside) temperature rising and have located the facility so far inside the rock that it will be in permafrost and won't be affected" by the outside temperature, Magnus Bredeli Tveiten, project manager at Norway's Directorate of Public Construction and Property, told AFP.

Construction on the seed bank, also dubbed the "Noah's Ark of food", will begin in March.

The seed samples, such as wheat and potatoes, will be stored in two chambers located deep inside a mountain, accessed by a 120-meter (395-foot) tunnel. The tunnel and vaults will be excavated by boring and blasting techniques and the rock walls sprayed with concrete.

The seeds will be maintained at a temperature of minus 18 degrees Celsius (minus 0.4 Fahrenheit).

The vault is situated about 130 meters (426 feet) above current sea level. It would not flood if Greenland's ice sheet melts, which some estimate would increase sea levels by seven meters (23 feet).

It is also expected to be safe if the ices of Antarctica completely melt, which experts say could increase sea levels by 61 meters (200 feet).

The entry to the vault, which will shoot out of the mountainside, will be a narrow triangular portal made of cement and steel, illuminated with artwork that changes according to the Arctic light.

In summer, "in the midnight sun, it will look like a large diamond," said Tveiten. In winter, when the sun does not rise above the horizon, "it will glow into the darkness," he added.

Behind the airlock door, each chamber will measure 375 square meters (4,036 square feet). Corrugated plastic boxes the size of moving boxes will sit on rows of metal shelves.

Each box will contain about 400 samples in envelopes made of polyethelene, and each sample will contain around 500 seeds.

The samples will be stored in watertight foil packages to act as a barrier against moisture should a power failure disable refrigeration systems.

Construction on the three-million-dollar (2.3-million-euro) vault is due to finish in September. It will officially open in late winter 2008.

The design of the structure is "simple, it's functional, it runs by itself. We can't have a better design," Cary Fowler, executive director of the Global Crop Diversity Trust and the brains behind the vault, told AFP.

"It makes use of the natural cold. It's planned with the climate change factor taken into consideration and it will be frozen 200 years from now. And even in the worst case scenario, if the temperature rises it will still be safe," he said.

Rhotax First_VaultDweller
Posty: 1539
Rejestracja: 18 lip pn 2005, 12:00 am
Facebook: z tamtąd
Kontaktowanie:

Post autor: Rhotax First_VaultDweller » 14 lis śr 2007, 6:32 pm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... ge_id=1811 buehhehe. dobrze ze nikomu nerwy nie puscily bo bysmy mieli wstep do fallouta

Odpowiedz