Chernobyl Could Be Reinvented As A Solar Farm

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
The Ukrainian government said more than 1,000MW of solar and 400MW of other renewable energy could be generated if the plan to transform Chernobyl comes to fruition. The original plant, which resulted in the world’s worst nuclear accident, had an installed capacity of around 4,000MW.

In a presentation sent to major banks and seen by the Guardian, 6,000 hectares of “idle” land in Chernobyl’s 1,000 square km exclusion zone, which is considered too dangerous for people to live in or farm, could be turned to solar, biogas and heat and power generation. Pressure has been mounting for years to allow industrial development, but no indication is given of where the solar panels would be located. “There has been a change in the perception of the exclusion zone in Ukraine. Thirty years after the Chernobyl tragedy [it] reveals opportunities for development. A special industrial area is to be created in compliance with all rules and regulations of radiation safety within the exclusion zone,” says the presentation.
 
They still can't do anything with the Fukushima plant. Chernobyl was fubar from the get go, it killed a lot of folks assigned to help.
 
so why not just build a new reactor and get more power for less space? This sounds like one of those feel good story's.
 
All the wooded areas are still hot. All of the scientists that are actually studying in the exclusion zone have observed that biodiversity is crashing, most of the bird species are disappearing. The fish in the zone's waters are stunted and ever larger numbers are sterile just like the birds.

Nothing is maintenance free, why would we want to send crews in there to work on a solar farm?
 
Last edited:
Nothing in maintenance free, why would we want to send crews in there to work on a solar farm?
More than that, if you open it up, you will make containment difficult.

Right now, its policed, so unauthorized people are caught that may try to go and strip copper and the like that is irradiated, and dump it on the open market for a quick buck. Once you open it up to development, that's going to make it harder to tell who is and isn't supposed to be there, with trucks coming in and out.
 
They could do something there. Solar is a great idea imo. Its as maintenance free as you can possibly get
 
so why not just build a new reactor and get more power for less space? This sounds like one of those feel good story's.
Because solar power can power the Earth 1000x over. Elon Musk and Ray Kurzweil both say this.

 
so why not just build a new reactor and get more power for less space? This sounds like one of those feel good story's.

Who's going to work there, you?

There's so much space in the exclusion zone that you could conceivably build a solar plant with far greater output than the old nuke plant if you wanted to. Sounds to me like somebody just wants to open the place up for development, risks be damned. This is eastern Europe we're talking about after all.
 
The people who made the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. game should make a Pokemon Go type game for people who want to tour "The Zone". Instead of finding Pokemon, you have to hunt for Artifacts.
 
Ivanpah is like 14 km squared, puts out around 400 MW. One of the four (six planned) RMBK1000 reactors that failed in the Chernobyl plant could output 1000MW.
To match 4000MW, extrapolating from Ivanpah, 100+ km squared is required. The Zone is about 2500 km squared, so the space is there.
However I pity the fool who'd have to go in and start razing the forests in the area to make space.
Also, disturbing so much ground will cause some more radioactive fallout to re-enter the atmosphere. You wouldn't believe how many people, born after 1986, suffer from thyroid issues over here. I was one at the time and even though I was given Lugol's iodine after the incident and even though my parents kept the windows closed for days, I still have thyroid problems myself.
They are only now finishing up with the new sarcophagus - it's 2016.
Personally I would just wait for nanophotovoltaics on a mass scale which should be able to even pick up some energy from heat in the form of IR light.

The people who made the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. game should make a Pokemon Go type game for people who want to tour "The Zone". Instead of finding Pokemon, you have to hunt for Artifacts.
First time I saw pokemon go mentioned I thought of this :) I hope more devs utilize this concept of blending reality with some virtual scavanger hunt because it's IMHO too awesome not to dig into.
 
Like there isn't enough space in Ukraine elsewhere, oh yes, headline reads "Chernobyl Solar Power Plant" because it brings attention. Just try changing it to "Ukraine's Attempt at a Large Solar Power Plant," and you won't believe why there's no investment nor interest.
 
Clicked thru just to see who would comment on an article that even mentions renewable energy... not surprised.
 
Clicked thru just to see who would comment on an article that even mentions renewable energy... not surprised.
I just want to hunt 3 headed pigs. What are you implying? You don't like turning sunshine into electricity?
 
I say good for them. That land won't be used for anything for a LONG time weather it's safe or not simply because of the nuclear stigma. Might as well use it for something useful.
 
so why not just build a new reactor and get more power for less space? This sounds like one of those feel good story's.

Because to do that, they'd have to bring lots of equipment in, dig up things and generally blow a lot of shit into the air, disturbing settled waste materials.

This falls under "That Would Be Bad".

With a solar plant, while the disturbance won't be "nil", it'll be far less.
 
What is the benefit of doing this? I get that there is a lot of land there not being used.... but I have to assume there is a lot of other land in Ukraine not being used that also happens to not be potentially hazardous. Why set up shop in Chernobyl? Is there a cost savings because of the existing power infrastructure?
 
What is the benefit of doing this? I get that there is a lot of land there not being used.... but I have to assume there is a lot of other land in Ukraine not being used that also happens to not be potentially hazardous. Why set up shop in Chernobyl? Is there a cost savings because of the existing power infrastructure?
Subliminal media poison to create Russian FUD. No one is going to put shit there but a dome to cover it, if that.
 
What is the benefit of doing this? I get that there is a lot of land there not being used.... but I have to assume there is a lot of other land in Ukraine not being used that also happens to not be potentially hazardous. Why set up shop in Chernobyl? Is there a cost savings because of the existing power infrastructure?
You answered yourself.
The land cannot be re-purposed for a long time and might even be free to use.
 
Because solar power can power the Earth 1000x over. Elon Musk and Ray Kurzweil both say this.



And how much area would we be dedicating to making that happen, and what are the effects on ecology?
 
And how much area would we be dedicating to making that happen, and what are the effects on ecology?
If you watched the video, it's taking up the same amount of land as nuclear power plants. Elon Musk even said just take up a small corner of Utah and you could power the United States. That's not including wind power or other natural sources. The reality is that very soon electricity is going to be free and safe for the environment.
 
It's not like we don't have enough open space where we can place solar farms. Why would we need to put it into a radioactive wasteland?

This is almost as stupid as those solar highways thing. That wants to replace roads with solar panels.
 
If you watched the video, it's taking up the same amount of land as nuclear power plants.
Palo Verde is the largest nuclear plant in the US and occupies 4000 acres of land (most of which is undeveloped land used as a security perimeter) and generates about 29 TWh of electricity/year.

The largest solar farm, Solar Star occupies about 3200 acres and generates about 1.7 TWh of electricity/year.

Elon Musk even said just take up a small corner of Utah and you could power the United States.
Sure, maybe noon on a 4th of July weekend. What about the evening, what about winter? What about a few rainy days in Utah? And let's not assume everything Musk speaks is gospel; he's made the mistake of calling Lithium the third most abundant element recently.

The reality is that very soon electricity is going to be free and safe for the environment.
The reality is that heavy investments in solar and wind will wind up causing you to be like Denmark and Germany, some of the most expensive electricity in the world and in the case of Denmark, dependent on others for reliable electricity imports, or Germany unable to kick the coal habit because they're reliable and needed to takeover for unreliable wind and solar.
 
Last edited:
All the wooded areas are still hot. All of the scientists that are actually studying in the exclusion zone have observed that biodiversity is crashing, most of the bird species are disappearing. The fish in the zone's waters are stunted and ever larger numbers are sterile just like the birds.

Nothing is maintenance free, why would we want to send crews in there to work on a solar farm?
We wouldn't it would be Ukrainian's and sub contractors going in likely they would be told they don't need hazmat suits but in reality they should depending how close they go to the reactor area... Now my question is what type of solar? Are we talking a farm of panels set to follow the sun or are we talking mirrors and salt towers that run boilers... Some zones are too hot to do anything in for any length of time the bio diversity is declining because the environment is so toxic that life just cant live there... I cant help but think we would all be better off covering the whole area in cement then paving over it and then let them put all the solar stuff there and then gtfo...

That said solar depending on the type can be rather low maintenance as in they could leave them on auto and nobody needs to be in there to monitor them then send in a crew when something breaks once a month or once a year or so... And don't solar panels see some radiation just like photons though if i remember right the light absorbing type panels are broken down by ionizing radiation...


It's not like we don't have enough open space where we can place solar farms. Why would we need to put it into a radioactive wasteland?

This is almost as stupid as those solar highways thing. That wants to replace roads with solar panels.
Since the area literally cant be inhabited by life why not put solar farms and such there that need low maintenance the cement covering the irradiated soil preventing water from washing the radiation deeper can only help matters.. lets save the habitable areas of open space for people and animals to live and the spots we have so absolutely destroyed can be used to generate clean power for the 50k years the area wont be able to be inhabited...
 
Because solar power can power the Earth 1000x over. Elon Musk and Ray Kurzweil both say this.



Well Musk does sell solar panels (indirectly through Solar City), I suppose the owner of GE would tell you the same about nuclear.

He says in that video that solar is equal to nuclear because people do not want to live near a nuclear reactor, so solar panels get to take up the "keep out" area that a nuclear plant has in order to make it a fair comparison. Here's to googling a fair comparison....

This is my personal favorite example that I bring up. The best solar farm in the world, versus the smallest energy production nuclear reactor in the US.


y5GGU6U.jpg


ovr1Qui.jpg


zTMXHqY.jpg


Musk does have a point, being able to store energy does solve a lot of issues with solar. But storing energy has ALWAYS been the problem. Keeping energy contained (whether in a battery or in natural elements or in fuel) has always been the dangerous part. You start putting lithium batteries in every home and you will see issues, if not only because of considerable more odds of something going wrong. Modern nuclear plants (breeder reactors) are way safer then 1960's era reactors, produce very little radioactive waste, and can not melt down.


BTW, the largest nuclear reactor in the US is in Palo Verde Nuclear Plant which to Musk's point is 25 miles away from a very major city, Avondale Arizona. However that plant puts out a staggering 29,000Gwh.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Dan_D
like this
Well Musk does sell solar panels (indirectly through Solar City), I suppose the owner of GE would tell you the same about nuclear.

He says in that video that solar is equal to nuclear because people do not want to live near a nuclear reactor, so solar panels get to take up the "keep out" area that a nuclear plant has in order to make it a fair comparison. Here's to googling a fair comparison....

This is my personal favorite example that I bring up. The best solar farm in the world, versus the smallest energy production nuclear reactor in the US.


y5GGU6U.jpg


ovr1Qui.jpg


zTMXHqY.jpg


Musk does have a point, being able to store energy does solve a lot of issues with solar. But storing energy has ALWAYS been the problem. Keeping energy contained (whether in a battery or in natural elements or in fuel) has always been the dangerous part. You start putting lithium batteries in every home and you will see issues, if not only because of considerable more odds of something going wrong. Modern nuclear plants (breeder reactors) are way safer then 1960's era reactors, produce very little radioactive waste, and can not melt down.


BTW, the largest nuclear reactor in the US is in Palo Verde Nuclear Plant which to Musk's point is 25 miles away from a very major city, Avondale Arizona. However that plant puts out a staggering 29,000Gwh.
Chernobyl Exclusion Zone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
the exclusion zone is about 1,004 sq mi of land where habitation and life in general is not possible so imagine if there were 500 solar farms like topaz there 650,500 GWH of energy that land could be producing at least some time of the year... on the Belarus side of the border they are already under way of making a 22.9 Mw solar farm...

Also the exclusion zone used to be a 20 Mi radius around the plant...
 
Chernobyl Exclusion Zone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
the exclusion zone is about 1,004 sq mi of land where habitation and life in general is not possible so imagine if there were 500 solar farms like topaz there 650,500 GWH of energy that land could be producing at least some time of the year... on the Belarus side of the border they are already under way of making a 22.9 Mw solar farm...

Also the exclusion zone used to be a 20 Mi radius around the plant...

It's not a fair comparision. He specifically said "keep out zone....about 5km". And that land is only not possible to use because something did in fact go wrong. It was completely useable before something bad happened, as well as every other nuclear facility in the world. If you cover 1000 sq.mi. with solar panels, it very much will be unusable the entire time it is in operation. The sky above will also be somewhat unusable.
 
Since the area literally cant be inhabited by life why not put solar farms and such there that need low maintenance the cement covering the irradiated soil preventing water from washing the radiation deeper can only help matters.. lets save the habitable areas of open space for people and animals to live and the spots we have so absolutely destroyed can be used to generate clean power for the 50k years the area wont be able to be inhabited...

But you don't need to put them there. Working in an irradiated area only increases logistics costs, plus transporting the electricity to the nearest place where it's used is also a waste, when you can build solar farms 5 feet from where the electricity is needed. Sure if you want to protect the soil, put concrete in, but you don't need to also put in solar panels to do that. This is exactly the same problem as with solar roadways. They want to put solar farms in an unsuitable place for absolutely no reason apart from feeling good about it.
 
You answered yourself.
The land cannot be re-purposed for a long time and might even be free to use.

Actually the big draw is that the power delivery system is already in place. Yes, it's decades old. But power delivery systems simply aren't THAT different nowadays. All they have is a bit of "plumbing" to do on the Chernobyl end to hook it up to a solar farm. Rather than bringing power infrastructure into a completely new area. The cost savings on that alone is fairly huge.
 
They could do something there. Solar is a great idea imo. Its as maintenance free as you can possibly get

Whattt? Have you played Sol 0 Mars Colonization? Keeping your panels clean is a real pain. My little spacemen are are exhausted keeping the dust off them.
 
I say fuck it do it anyways. This place is lost. why keep it restrained for hundredes of years for nothing? There is allready signs of zombies running around. make them burn in the heat for all I care. Then in the future we all get 3 eyed, 4 armed and superintelligent and threetittie girls
 
Back
Top