View Single Post
Old 04-03-11, 11:21 AM   #35
Catfish
Dipped Squirrel Operative
 
Catfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: ..where the ocean meets the sky
Posts: 17,796
Downloads: 38
Uploads: 0


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Torplexed View Post
I'm afraid decommissioned and entombed reactors don't generate much electricity. But is the place polluted? You bet.
When i asked this here some time ago, someone provided a photo, where all the Navy reactors were stored in the open, visible on a photo.

So you say they put the reactor hulls there, and buried the fuel rods elsewhere ?

The reason me asking this some time ago was that according to Bellona net, the US had sunk severeal reactors in the Bering strait - which was - according to the post back then - wrong.


As far as i know the US west (edit .. gawd) coast is a bad idea for reactors just because of the plate tectonics and earth quakes, and less due to political influence or reasons. At least that is what i would think looking at the map, as a geologist. As well as long as you have terrain suitable for water power (like i.g. in Switzerland) you do not need nuclear energy, because there is enough terrain altitude differences to use gravitational (water) power via turbines.

Greetings,
Catfish

Last edited by Catfish; 04-03-11 at 01:36 PM.
Catfish is offline   Reply With Quote